Frameworks...

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?

 

Transformations...

Good to hear the discussions from the first Discussion Group today...

My thoughts from it are around the idea of Transformation. How do we move from one idea and through discussion have a deeper or broader understanding of that idea. How do we pose a question (perhaps through interviews) and layer our knowledge as a result of the responses we receive. We are active engagers in our learning at at MA level we are always looking to move beyond what we know.

As a choreographer I like to make sense of things through that lens of a process of creation, exploration, experimentation, review, revision, communication. If I start with an interest in the concept of time (for example), my initial explorations will draw on MY understanding of time at this point, which albeit will have been constructed and shaped through my past experiences, are at a point of my understanding. In sharing these initial explorations with others (dancers, musicians, designers) I am privileged to be open to alternative interpretations of time and may witness and experience perhaps different layers to my initial understanding. Some of the responses through this exploration may challenge my 'way of thinking' (what I thought I knew), may affirm my thoughts (what I know is really a thing!), some may take me of into a completely different understanding of time altogether (when I know what I don't know) and as a choreographer I need to work to take all of this information, through experience somewhere. 

If I continue to make a work about time, using only the understanding I came into the project with, I am effectively negating the value of the choreographic process itself and of that being an interactive process with others. I am ignoring others views and stifling the potential for the artistic development of my work. At MA level one of the challenges in our work is to be able to acknowledge what we know, look and be receptive to move beyond this to what we don't know, and to recognise and, through reflection, make meaningful this journey. 

How might we identify knowledge from our own practice.

In what ways may we synthesise this knowledge from experience with what we encounter through theory?

How does the engagement with theory begin to support us in transforming our practice?

The first Discussion Group revealed the need to question. This is imperative at MA level. Not to receive an answer, but to open further your understanding of something, in someone else's practice and in your own. 

How does that feel to you?