Advertisement

Chapter 3.1: Introducing Dialogic Research Art

  • Eugene MatusovEmail author
  • Ana Marjanovic-Shane
  • Mikhail Gradovski
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter we introduce our research approach as dialogic research art through comparing and contrasting two paradigms of scientific research: the conventional positivist method and dialogic research art. Using Aristotle’s terminology, we claim that the idea of the predefined scientific method, a series of correct steps and procedures that would guarantee arriving at the truth, can be defined as poïesis. Poïesis is such an activity where its goal, value, form, and the definition of what constitutes its quality preexist the activity itself. Thus, poïesis focuses on the given and objective, excluding any subjectivity, that is, subjectivity itself becomes objectified. Poïesis does not know personal authorship and personal responsibility—rather it knows impersonal method/technique and person-free objectivity. In contrast, dialogic research epistemology is very different, as it rejects the notion of a research method in favor of dialogic research art. The concept of research art is based on the phronêsis way of knowing (Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics (R. Crisp, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Carr, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40, 421–435, 2006), which can be loosely defined as practical wisdom situated in a unique context, and the notion of praxis, defined by Aristotle as an activity where its goal, value, form, and the definition of what constitutes its quality emerge in the activity itself. The definition of the success of dialogic research art in each unique context does not preexist the art-making itself but emerges from it. This new definition of success in the art-making and its new underlying value has to be recognized and defended in the act of taking responsibility—literally an accepted duty to reply to challenging questions about the new artwork.

References

  1. Aristotle. (2000). Nicomachean ethics (R. Crisp, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Art and answerability: Early philosophical essays (V. Liapunov, Trans., 1st ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1991). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bakhtin, M. M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act (1st ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bakhtin, M. M. (1999). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bakhtin, M. M. (2002). Собрание сочинений [Collected works] (Vol. 6). Moscow, Russia: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
  8. Bateson, G. (1987). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.Google Scholar
  9. Biesta, G. (2017). The rediscovery of teaching. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buber, M. (2000). I and Thou (R. G. Smith, Trans., 1st Scribner Classics ed.). New York, NY: Scribner.Google Scholar
  11. Carr, W. (2006). Philosophy, methodology and action research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40(4), 421–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Einstein, A. (1936). Physics and reality. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 221(3), 349–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality (1st ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  15. Kumar, M. (2008). Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the great debate about the nature of reality. Thriplow, UK: Icon.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Macdonald, F. (2016, May 24). New evidence could break the standard view of quantum mechanics. Science Alert. https://www.sciencealert.com/new-evidence-could-totally-break-our-understanding-of-quantum-mechanics
  18. Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2011). You are “Nobody!”: Three chronotopes of play. In E. J. White & M. Peters (Eds.), Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe (pp. 201–226). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2016). “Spoilsport” in drama education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 4, A45–A80.  https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2016.151. http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151/113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matusov, E. (2013). Anti-methodological considerations: Research mastery. In E. Matusov & J. Brobst (Eds.), Radical experiment in dialogic pedagogy in higher education and its centaur failure: Chronotopic analysis (pp. 119–134). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Matusov, E. (2015a). Chronotopes in education: Conventional and dialogic. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 3, A65–A97.  https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2015.107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matusov, E. (2015b). Comprehension: A dialogic authorial approach. Culture & Psychology, 21(3), 392–416.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X15601197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matusov, E. (2015c). Legitimacy of non-negotiable imposition in diverse approaches to education. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 3, A174–A211. http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/110/105Google Scholar
  24. Matusov, E. (2017). Severe limitations of the poietic individual mind. [Review of Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.] Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 5, R1–R8.  https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2017.178.
  25. Matusov, E., & Brobst, J. (2013). Radical experiment in dialogic pedagogy in higher education and its centaur failure: Chronotopic analysis. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Matusov, E., & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2015). Typology of critical dialogue and power relations in Democratic Dialogic Education. In K. Jezierska & L. Koczanowicz (Eds.), Democracy in dialogue, dialogue in democracy (pp. 211–229). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  27. Matusov, E., & von Duyke, K. (2010). Bakhtin’s notion of the Internally Persuasive Discourse in education: Internal to what? (A case of discussion of issues of foul language in teacher education). In K. Junefelt & P. Nordin (Eds.), Proceedings from the Second International Interdisciplinary Conference on Perspectives and Limits of Dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin Stockholm University, Sweden June 3–5, 2009 (pp. 174–199). Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  28. Matusov, E., von Duyke, K., & Han, S. (2012). Community of learners: Ontological and non-ontological projects. Outlines: Critical Social Studies, 14(1), 41–72.Google Scholar
  29. Morson, G. S. (2004). The process of ideological becoming. In I. A. F. Ball & S. W. Freedman (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 317–331). Cambridge, UK/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nikulin, D. V. (2006). On dialogue. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  31. Nikulin, D. V. (2010). Dialectic and dialogue. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Plato, & Riddell, J. (1973). The apology of Plato, with a revised text and English notes, and a digest of Platonic idioms. New York, NY: Arno Press.Google Scholar
  33. Plato, & Waterfield, R. (1993). Republic. Oxford, UK/New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Prøysen, A. (1961). The goat that learned to count. St. Louis, MO: Webster.Google Scholar
  35. Renshaw, P. D. (2013). Classroom chronotopes privileged by contemporary educational policy: Teaching and learning in testing times. In S. Phillipson, K. Y. L. Ku, & S. N. Phillipson (Eds.), Constructing educational achievement: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 57–69). Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Sidorkin, A. M. (2004). Relations are relational: Toward an economic anthropology of schooling. In C. W. Bingham & A. M. Sidorkin (Eds.), No education without relation (pp. 55–69). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  37. Tobin, J. J., Davidson, D. H., & Wu, D. Y. H. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Tobin, J. J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschool in three cultures revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene Matusov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ana Marjanovic-Shane
    • 2
  • Mikhail Gradovski
    • 3
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Independent ScholarPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.University of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations