Abstract
Chapter 3 gives an account of the principles and values that underpin the research, and the ways in which ‘ontological politics’ have informed methodology. It offers an overview of current trends in educational research in relation to wider debates on the construction of mediated knowledge and the nature and development of arts-based research methods. In a historical moment that favours centrally mandated objectives for literacy and pre-determined research outcomes, there is an emphasis rather on the educational values that imbue the case studies. This is followed by a rationale for using an (auto)ethnographic approach and techniques of participant observation and narrative representation.
Keywords
- Political Ontology
- Everyday Artistry
- Intellectual Modesty
- Medical Education Research
- dialecticsDialectics
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The EEF is also part of the government’s ‘What Works Network’ whose remit is to “enable policy makers, commissioners and practitioners to make decisions based upon strong evidence of what works and to provide costefficient, useful services.” (What Works Network 2015).
- 2.
The EEF is also part of the government’s ‘What Works Network’ whose remit is to “enable policy makers, commissioners and practitioners to make decisions based upon strong evidence of what works and to provide cost-efficient, useful services.” (What Works Network 2015).
- 3.
I attended Frank Furedi’s session at the first ResearchED Conference in 2013. He went against the grain of the conference—which supported evidence-based strategies—by calling into question scientistic procedures that frame children as ‘patients’, which is language he sees as misplaced (Furedi 2013).
- 4.
This approach was also adopted by renowned anthropologist Daniel Miller in his evocative account of residents on a particular London street (2008). From his observations on the belongings on display in their homes and his interview data, he constructed sensitive and compelling tales of their past and present lives.
- 5.
- 6.
The twist, the circularity and elasticity of the Möbius form articulate dynamic tensions in social formation and possible distortions as ideas circulate. The seamless surface offers robustness, while flexibility discourages any impulse to pin down one interpretation as ‘truth’. I imagine it to be made of translucent man-made substance: man-made denotes the socially constructed nature of the interpretive process, while translucence invokes permeability and sensitivity to light. So there is a porosity to sense-making that invites alternative frames and interpretations.
Bibliography
Alasuutari, P. (1995). Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies. California: Sage Publications.
Alexander, R. (Ed.). (2010). Children, their World, their Education: Final Report and Recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. Abingdon: Routledge.
Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. London: Random House Business Books.
Anyon, J. (2009). Theory and Educational Research: Toward Critical Social Explanation. New York: Routledge.
Appadurai, A. (1986). The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arendt, H. (1981/1971). The Life of the Mind. San Diego: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Ball, S. J. (2013). The Education Debate (2nd ed.). Bristol: Policy Press.
Barone, T. (2001). Pragmatizing the imaginary: A response to a fictionalized case study of teaching [online]. Harvard Educational Review, 71(4), 734–741. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-71-issue-4/herarticle/a-response-to-a-fictionalized-case-study-of-teachi.
Barone, T. (2007). A return to the gold standard? Questioning the future of narrative construction as educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(4), 454–470.
Bassey, M. (1998). Fuzzy generalisation: An approach to building educational theory [online]. In BERA: British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. The Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000801.htm.
Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of Culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Bold, C. (2012). Using Narrative in Research. London: Sage.
Bradford City of Film (2010–2015). Bradford Film Literacy Programme [online]. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://bradfordfilmliteracy.com/about/.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (2009/1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buckingham, D. (2003). Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buckingham, D. (2009). ‘Creative’ visual methods in media research: Possibilities, problems and proposals. Media Culture and Society, 31(4), 633–652.
Burke, C. (2008). ‘Play in focus’: Children’s visual voice in participative research. In P. Thomson (Ed.), Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People (pp. 23–36). Abingdon: Routledge.
Burn, A., & Durran, J. (2007). Media Literacy in Schools: Practice, Production and Progression. London: Paul Chapman.
Burnett, C. (2011). The (im)materiality of educational space: Interactions between material, connected and textual dimensions of networked technology use in schools. E-Learning and Digital Media, 8(3), 214.
Burnett, C., Merchant, G., Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2012). The (im)materiality of literacy: The significance of subjectivity to new literacies research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 90–103.
Cannon, M., Bryer, T., & Lindsey, M. (2014). Media production and disruptive innovation: Exploring the interrelations between children, tablets, teachers and texts in subject English settings. Media Education Research Journal, 5(1), 16–31.
Cannon, M., Potter, J., & Burn, A. (2018). Dynamic, playful and productive literacies. Changing English, 25(2).
Clandinin, D. J., & Murphy, S. (2009). Relational ontological commitments in narrative research. Educational Researcher, 38(8), 598–602.
Clough, P. (2002). Narratives and Fictions in Educational Research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Conteh, J., Gregory, E., Kearney, C., & Mor-Sommerfeld, A. (2005). On Writing Educational Ethnographies: The Art of Collusion. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Dall’Alba, G., & Barnacle, R. (2007). An ontological turn for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 679–691.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive Interactionism (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1997/1938). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.
Dezuanni, M. (2014). The building blocks of digital media literacy, socio-material participation and the production of media knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1–24.
Dezuanni, M., & Woods, A. (2014). Developing media production skills for literacy in a primary school classroom: Digital materials, embodied knowledge and material contexts. In G. Barton (Ed.), Literacy in the Arts: Retheorising Learning and Teaching (pp. 143–160). Heidelberg: Springer.
EEF. (2015). About the Education Endowment Foundation [online]. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/about/.
Eisner, E. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4–10.
Eisner, E. (2005/2002). What can education learn from the arts about the practice of education? [online]. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Reimagining Schools (pp. 205–214). Abingdon: Routledge. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.infed.org/biblio/eisner_arts_and_the_practice_of_education.htm.
Freire, P. (1993/1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.
Furedi, F. (2013). Keep the scourge of scientism out of schools. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.frankfuredi.com/site/article/keep_the_scourge_of_scientism_out_of_schools.
Furstenau, M., & Mackenzie, A. (2009). The promise of ‘makeability’: Digital editing software and the structuring of everyday cinematic life. Visual Communication, 8(1), 5–22.
Le Gallais, T. (2008). Wherever I go there I am: Reflections on reflexivity and the research stance. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9(2), 145–155.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures [online]. London: Hutchinson. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.csub.edu/~mault/pdffiles/ch1.pdf.
Gell, A. (1998). Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Grady, J. (2004). Working with visible evidence: An invitation and some practical advice. In C. Knowles & P. Sweetman (Eds.), Picturing the Social Landscape: Visual Methods and the Sociological Imagination (pp. 18–31). Abingdon: Routledge.
Hall, S. (1992). Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies [online]. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural Studies (pp. 277–294). London and New York: Routledge. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pursuits/hallcultstuds.html.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. Abingdon: Routledge.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heikkinen, H. L., Huttunen, R., & Syrjälä, L. (2007). Action research as narrative: Five principles for validation. Educational Action Research, 15(1), 5–19.
Heikkinen, H. L., Jong, F. P. C. M. d., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). What is (good) practitioner research? Vocations and Learning, 9(1), 1–19.
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm [online]. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.peterreason.eu/Papers/Participatoryinquiryparadigm.pdf.
Hill Bulman, J. (2014). Developing a Progression Framework for Children’s Reading of Film. PhD Thesis, School of Education, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. London: Sage Publications.
Hughes, E. C. (1971). The Sociological Eye: Selected Papers. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Hymes, D. H. (1981). Ethnographic monitoring. In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, & K. H. Au (Eds.), Culture and the Bilingual Classroom: Studies in Classroom Ethnography (pp. 56–68). Newbury House: Rowley, MA.
Ito, M., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., et al. (2013). Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design [online]. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://dmlhub.net/wp-content/uploads/files/Connected_Learning_report.pdf.
Jenkins, H., Purushota, R., Clinton, K., & Robinson, A. J. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century [online]. Chicago: The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF.
Jones, K. (2006). A Biographic researcher in pursuit of an aesthetic: The use of arts-based (re)presentations in ‘performative’ dissemination of life stories [online]. Qualitative Sociology Review, 2(1), 66–85. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/Volume3/QSR_2_1_Jones.pdf.
Jones, K., & Fenge, L.-A. (2017). Gifted stories: How well do we retell the stories that research participants give us? Creative Approaches to Research, 10(1), 35–35. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://creativeapproachestoresearch.net/wp-content/uploads/CAR10_1_Jones_Fenge.pdf.
Kaplan, I. (2008). Being ‘seen’, being ‘heard’: Engaging with students on the margins of education through participatory photography. In P. Thomson (Ed.), Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People (pp. 175–191). Abingdon: Routledge.
Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Remix: The art and craft of endless hybridization. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 22–33.
Lather, P. (1991). Research as Praxis. In Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy With/In the Postmodern (pp. 50–69). New York: Routledge.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57.
Law, J., & Urry, J. (2003). Enacting the Social [online]. Department of Sociology and the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/resources/sociology-online-papers/papers/law-urry-enacting-the-social.pdf.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Y. S. Lincoln & E. G. Guba (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Loveless, A. (2008). Moving from the margins creating space with digital technology: Wonder, theory and action [online]. In C. Palmer & D. Torevell (Eds.), The Turn to Aesthetics: An Interdisciplinary Exchange of Ideas in Applied and Philosophical Aesthetics (pp. 189–198). Liverpool: Liverpool Hope University Press. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=clive_palmer.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
Mäkelä, M. (2007). Knowing through making: The role of the artefact in practice-led research. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20(3), 157–163.
Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The Primacy of Perception. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Miller, D. (2008). The Comfort of Things. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
O’Reilly, T. (2017). WTF?: What’s the Future and Why It’s Up to Us. Louth: R H Business Books.
Orr, S. (2013). Making Teaching Work in Media [online]. Media Education Summit, Sheffield Hallam University. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI0jep9bNBs.
Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. London: Penguin.
Pink, S. (2013). Doing Visual Ethnography (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Potter, J. (2012). Digital Media and Learner Identity: The New Curatorship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Potter, J., & Gilje, Ø. (2015). Curation as a new literacy practice. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(2), 123–127.
Potter, J., & McDougall, J. (2017). Digital Media, Culture and Education: Theorising Third Space Literacies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Prensky, M. (2012). From Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom: Hopeful Essays for 21st Century Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pring, R. (2004). Philosophy of Educational Research (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Prosser, J., & Loxley, A. (2008). Introducing Visual Methods [online]. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM Review Papers 010. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/420/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-010.pdf.
Reid, A. (2007). The Two Virtuals: New Media and Composition. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Roberts, B. (2008). Performative social science: A consideration of skills, purpose and context [online]. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(2), Art.58 [99]. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/377/822.
Scott, D., & Usher, R. (2011). Researching Education: Data, Methods and Theory in Educational Inquiry (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Sefton-Green, J. (2013). Learning at Not-School: A Review of Study, Theory, and Advocacy for Education in Non-formal Settings. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT & MITE.
Selwyn, N. (2012). Ten suggestions for improving academic research in education and technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3), 213–219.
Shirky, C. (2009). Here Comes Everybody: How Change Happens When People Come Together. London: Penguin.
Thomson, P. (2008). Children and young people: Voices in visual research. In P. Thomson (Ed.), Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People (pp. 1–19). Abingdon: Routledge.
Thomson, P., & Gunter, H. (2007). The methodology of students-as-researchers: Valuing and using experience and expertise to develop methods. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 327–342.
Thomson, P., & Gunter, H. (2011). Inside, outside, upside down: The fluidity of academic researcher ‘identity’ in working with/in school [online]. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 34(1), 17–30. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233282142_Inside_outside_upside_down_the_fluidity_of_academic_researcher_identity_in_working_within_school.
Thomson, P., Hall, C., Jones, K., & Sefton-Green, J. (2012). The Signature Pedagogies Project: Final Report [online]. London and Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Creativity, Culture and Education. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/Signature_Pedagogies_Final_Report_April_2012.pdf.
Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228.
Vygotsky, L. (2012/1934). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
What Works Network. (2015). Guidance from the Cabinet Office on Public Services. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/what-works-network.
Williams, F. (2004). What matters is who works: Why every child matters to new labour. Commentary on the DfES Green Paper Every Child Matters. Critical Social Policy, 24(3), 406–427.
Wright Mills, C. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cannon, M. (2018). Research Principles and Educational Values. In: Digital Media in Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78304-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78304-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78303-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78304-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)