The key theme I felt from the second Discussion Group today was around the idea of 'Frameworks'.
Through discussions of research approaches the conversations moved between the need to 'prove' something through our research (positivist stance) and accepting the exploration, not in the search for truth but in the presence of the moment of inquiry (non-positivist). We talked about embodied knowledge and the often problematic nature of communicating this articulately in other (written / verbal) forms. We didn't reach any concrete answers (GREAT!!) and generally we all had more questions open up for us than we came to the discussion with (EVEN BETTER!!).
Adesola and I explained that this MA programme is coming from a non-positivist stance, which sees space for multiple realities, rather than seeking a singular response or proving of a hypothesis. This is a different approach to more traditional 'scientific' approaches to research which favour a right/wrong approach through the gathering of empirical data in order to prove something right or wrong.
In our individual and collective research, in our approaches to the world ,we lean on phenomenological-pragmatist philosophies as frameworks for structuring and shaping how we communicate and articulate our experiences.
Below is an excerpt from an introductory paper I have written, positioning my research into improvised practice in dance. I'm sharing this with you not as a 'how to do it' 'this is what a framework is', but as an example of beginning to articulate a methodological stance to a research inquiry.
'I am interested in interrogating the practice of improvisation
through the philosophies of Heidegger and Gendlin. Both resonate for me
with experiential knowing and offer progressive lenses through which to address
embodiment as a process of 'being' (Gendlin, 1997, Heidegger 1953, 2010).
I see embodiment as an interweaving of physical experience, sensation and
reflective thought, and aim to articulate the idea that knowledge is
somatic—that is, gained through the body’s sensation or connection with the
experiences of the world (Sullivan 2001). While I acknowledge that there
may be times where emphasis will shift more to discussions of ‘this’ or ‘that’
('practice' or 'performance') it is important to me not to separate things as
singular happenings as if dislocated from each other but rather to view them
through the embodied stance of ‘preseparated multiplicity’ (Gendlin, 1997, in
Todres, 2007:21). Locating myself through this web of practice I aim to
open a pathway to discuss improvisation as a methodology for
being-through-moving. I draw on my understanding and practice of the work of
Irmgard Bartenieff (Bartenieff Fundamentals) as a framework for articulating
this. Through movement, following Bartenieff’s belief in ‘efficient
movement – efficient being’ (cited in Hackney 2002), I am situating my
improvisational dance practice as a methodological practice-as-research;
positioning the movement practice of Bartenieff Fundamentals as a rhizome of
philosophical thought and experiential knowing which feeds and
is fed through my improvisatory performance practice'.
(Kindred, H. 2016)
I'm interested in your thoughts on this and other frameworks...
What is 'holding' your space for learning?
