Educational Action Research, Volume 13, Number 4, 2005

Art Teachers and Action Research

RACHEL MASON
Roehampton University, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT The qualitative educational research literature is increasingly

advocating the use of literary/artistic techniques. This article describes and
evaluates educational action researches by three art teachers, and questions
why they have not capitalised methodologically on their artistic expertise.
Analysis of commonalities in practitioner-based research in education and
practice-based research in art and design reveals significant differences in
these two paradigms however. Whereas artists and educational researchers
both engage in qualitative problem solving and may use the same kinds of
materials and tools, they develop different kinds of hypotheses, look for
different sorts of evidence and apply different quality controls.

Keywords: action research; art teachers; practice

Introduction
I supervise research dissertations and theses by art teachers studying for
Masters and doctoral degrees. Although they are introduced to a wide range
of qualitative and quantitative research methods in education, the majority
choose action research. This article reports on three such studies carried
out by research students from Canada, Portugal and Hong Kong who, like
myself, are teachers trained in fine art. In so doing, it reflects on
commonalities in the way art teachers conceptualise and operationalise
educational action research, and on methodological issues. Research
training is a relatively recent phenomenon in art education, and this article
is intended to generate reflection about relationships between practitioner-
and practise-based research.

Art Teacher Training and Research

The concept of art education as distinct from professional training of fine
artists, crafts persons and designers is relatively recent. Prior to the
fifteenth century, the majority of art educational activities fell within the
remit of the craft guilds and took the form of apprenticeship in the

563
Rachel Mason

production of artefacts. Schools of art, the so-called academies, first

appeared in Italy around 1500 and subsequently sprang up all over the
western world to make provision for teaching and study of theoretical
subjects. According to Marin (1998), there are four dominant modes of
teaching in this tradition based on different interpretations of the nature
and purposes of art. Their distinctive feature is common agreement on the
central role of studio practice in art-based learning.
The development of art education as a distinct academic discipline is
closely linked to the growth of specialist teacher qualification programmes
in university education departments. The first such department was
founded in the USA at Penn State University in 1940. In England,
postgraduate art education courses for teachers began in 1965 with the
establishment of award bearing advanced diploma courses in polytechnics.
Later, some of them offered specialist Masters programmes and, more
recently, specialist PhD degrees (Allison, 1986). Masters degrees
underpinned by educational theory and social science conceptions of
research have met with considerable resistance from specialist-trained
teachers of art, who continue to identify with an artist-teacher role. There is
a competing model of their professional development based on the
assumption that they need support in maintaining their creative practice
once they become teachers. Professional training in this model is interpreted
as apprenticeship to practicing artists and cultural workers in galleries and
museums; and theory is grounded in scholarship in the humanities and
arts. It exists in a number of forms, including the artist-teacher schemes
promoted by the National Society of Art and Design Education (NSEAD), as
well as postgraduate certificate and Masters degrees.
Specialist degrees in art or design differ markedly from other kinds of
undergraduate degrees. They are practice based, but not in the same way as
educational research. The emphasis from the start of the 3-year course is on
students developing and practicing their own art or design work. Knowledge
of art and design materials and techniques is acquired in hands-on
workshops, and through practical experiments and demonstration.
Theoretical studies are integrated with practice and their purpose is to help
students reflect on their creative work and develop a critical stance.
Learning outcomes are predominantly image based and assessed in the
form of visual displays.
Research in art and design has distinctive trajectories and
connotations also. At undergraduate level the term research signifies
investigating art media and ideas. Research at Masters and PhD levels
consists of highly specific practice-based investigations into specific forms of
art/design making.
As the United Kingdom Council for Graduate Education has pointed
out, a substantial amount of doctoral research in the humanities does not
conform to the narrow (and probably mythical) definition of a traditional
scientific model of doctorate research (cited in Candlin, 2000, p. 98). In
contrast to this traditional model, a practice-based doctorate in art is
distinct in that:

564
 ART TEACHERS AND ACTION RESEARCH

the significant aspects of the claim for doctoral characteristics of

originality, mastery and contribution to the field are held to be
demonstrated through the original creative work. (Candlin, 2000,
p. 98)

Practice-based doctorates in art and design expanded rapidly in the 1990s.

However, unease in academia about the capacity of images to function as
research has resulted in heated arguments as to whether or not a written
component is necessary. Although some art and design doctorates are
exclusively practice based, the majority include a substantial written
conceptualisation (critical appraisal or analysis) of the creative work.
Some educational researchers argue for a synthesis of artistic and
educational research. Eliot Eisner has written extensively about the image-
based nature of qualitative inquiry. He points out that the forms through
which knowledge and understanding are constructed and expressed are
considerably wider than verbal and written discourse, and finds it odd that,
although most people regard teaching and educational administration as
arts, the conceptual tools for studying the arts and criticising them have
seldom been used to assess them in education (Eisner, 1991, p. 128). The
American Educational Research Association has two special interest groups
(SIGS) devoted to arts-based methodologies. The stated purpose of the Arts
Based Education Research SIG is to provide a community for those who
view research through artistic lenses, use a variety of qualitative
methodologies and communicate understanding through diverse genres
(www.aera.net/default aspx?id=344).
Rsnen has advised art teachers to improve their professional
practice by engaging in artistic action research:
Both art and teaching can be viewed as research. The action
research spiral is evident in the work of both artists and teachers
as they plan, experiment, reflect, and act again. (Rsnen, 2005,
p. 13)

She goes on to say that:

It is reflection that connects the artist and teacher role models in
artistic action research. This necessitates distancing oneself from
the processes of art making or teaching, and verbalizing
experience. In the context of art education, action research might
involve studying ones own work as an educator and an artist.
This might help art teachers to recognize how the artist, teacher
and researcher roles overlap. Researching their own art
production but emphasising how teaching affects this and vice
versa focuses on identifying and questioning artistic learning.
Changes in thinking habits, technical choices, expression etc., all
have to be systematically documented and reflected on. Teaching
can be improved through comparison of ones own artistic
processes with those of students, for example, and through

565
Rachel Mason

questioning the effects of different curriculum interventions.

(Rsnen, 2005, p. 13)

Educational Action Research

The Masters and doctoral students whose individual research projects I
supervise are experienced teachers and/or teacher trainers working in
schools and universities. Broadly speaking, our backgrounds are similar in
that our subject knowledge and pedagogy are informed by theory and
practice in the arts and humanities, and we are practitioners of art and
design. Because their Masters and doctorial degree programmes are located
in an education department at the university, the students attend courses
on educational research methods. The courses introduce them to social
science research principles and methods for the first time, and are attended
by teacher researchers of all school subjects. I do not teach these courses
and to the best of my knowledge they do not refer to scholarship or research
in the humanities or arts. My students find the social science perspective
daunting, and are offered a brief overview only of a wide range of qualitative
and quantitative techniques. When they opt for action research in their
individual research projects their understanding of this method is
rudimentary. As a consequence the supervisory role involves much more
than simply monitoring or overseeing how they identify research problems,
design, analyse and collect data collection instruments, and write research
reports. Rather it centres on supporting their development and growth as
novice educational researchers, and helping them to interpret and put into
practice ideas gleaned from literature on action research. While I do not
participate in their projects, I carry out qualitative educational research and
convene meetings for the purpose of sharing practises and ideas. There is a
sense in which we develop our understanding of action research together
therefore.
Broadly speaking, we understand educational action research as
qualitative, practical, participatory, reflective and concerned with social
change (Reason, 2002). It is practical in the sense that it focuses on art
educational practice, in particular contexts we hope to improve. Whereas
improving art educational practice may refer to a host of things (improving
services, opportunities for students, etc.), the majority of us interpret it as
improving art teaching. We do not limit this to improving practical skills,
but focus our attention also on helping teachers to articulate their
underlying curriculum philosophies and rationales. As is the case with art
and design we consider it important to integrate theory into practice, and
use it creatively to improve teaching and facilitate development of a critical
stance.
We understand action research as participatory because it is carried
out by a team. As Goldstein (2000) and Johnston (1994) point out,
collaborations in which university-based researchers enter into participatory
relationships with classroom teachers have become increasingly prevalent in
educational action research. This model of teamwork, in which university-

566
 ART TEACHERS AND ACTION RESEARCH

based researchers understand themselves as facilitators of action research

carried out by teacher-practitioners, is the one my students have adopted to
date.
The notions of teacher researcher, action research and reflective
practice have been closely related for at least three decades (Leitch & Day,
2000). We understand educational action research as a process with
reflection at its centre. Reflection is a familiar notion to us since it is a
crucial element in the creation of art and design. We have found Schns
distinction (1983) between reflection-in-action (a continual and immediate
process teachers engage in) and reflection-on-action (carried out after an
event or series of events) helpful in developing our ideas about how to
collaborate with teacher practitioners in educational action research.

Designing Action Research

Beginning researchers need practical guidelines to assist them design,
implement and evaluate educational actions. The texts my students
reference most often are: Research Methods in Education (Cohen & Manion,
1994) and Action Research for Educational Change (Elliott, 1991). Cohen &
Manions approach, which is more technical and interventionist, is intended
to add to practitioners functional knowledge of phenomena. They define
action research as: a small scale intervention in the functioning of the real
world and a close examination of the effects of that intervention (1994,
p. 186). The action stages are more linear and the method has two main
steps. In the diagnostic step problems are analysed and hypotheses are
developed, while in the therapeutic step, a hypothesis is tested out by a
consciously directed change experiment.
John Elliotts model is more emancipatory, process-orientated and
collaborative. According to Grundy (1982, cited in Leitch & Day, 2000) the
purpose of this kind of action research is to free educational practitioners
from the dictates of tradition and precedent and from self-deception. Leitch
& Day (2000) note that the method relies on the exercise of moral and
practical judgment by teachers, and their capacity to identify problems in
their own professional contexts. Theory generation is integrated with
processes of pedagogical transformation. Since the main aim is to bring
about changes in practitioner values and beliefs, reflexive processes centre
on building their capacities to self-evaluate. The teacher practitioners are
the ultimate arbiters over what counts as useful knowledge. The role of the
university-based researchers they collaborate with is to supply the
theoretical resources they need to reflect on and develop their practice.
Elliotts methodology is outlined in great detail in Action Research for
Educational Change (1991). Following Lewin (cited in Kemmis & McTaggart,
1988), he explains action research as a process involving a self-reflective
spiral of cycles, each of which entail observation, reflection, planning, action
and evaluation. He stresses how important it is to monitor actions in ways
that provide evidence of how well they are being implemented and of

567
Rachel Mason

unintended, as well as intended effects, and of triangulating data (ensuring

that a variety of viewpoints on what is going on are accessed).
This next part of this article briefly summarises three action
researches by my students using Elliotts conceptualisation of activities
involved in planning, implementing and monitoring cycles of action
research. As noted before, the students were teacher-educators, employed in
higher education institutions with specialist degrees in art. Their concern
with multicultural issues probably reflects the orientation of my own
research interests and that of the research centre in which the studies were
located.

Three Case Records

I wrote the case records that follow. The original purpose in doing so was to
inform my teaching. The student researchers have read them and agree to
their inclusion. The techniques they used for gathering evidence are
outlined in detail because of the importance Elliott attaches to this activity
in the reconnaissance and monitoring phases of action research, and
because we find this aspect of the method challenging whilst acknowledging
the key role it plays in evaluation. On reflection, we interpret the
reconnaissance and development of research ideas somewhat differently
from Elliott (1991, pp. 73-74). Whereas he suggests the process starts with
explanation, description and analysis of real-life situations, researchers
seek to improve, in the three cases in question, the students initial ideas,
which were refined and turned into action plans before any partnerships
were set up. The context for reconnaissance and idea generation in this
instance was the development of formal research proposals in line with
university research degree regulations. The brainstorming and hypothesis
testing that are crucial to this activity tended to be theory driven, and
informed mainly by searches of literature and discussions with supervisors
and peers.

Case Record 1: improving intercultural understanding

through critical analysis of visual images (Blatherwick, 1998)
Location: Canada. This research took place in multiracial elementary
schools in the province of New Brunswick.

Focus: Global education and elementary art teaching.

Participants: The research student and 10 generalist elementary teachers.

General idea: At the time the research began, the Department of Education
in New Brunswick was promoting a global education policy that elementary
art education had failed to address. Assumptions underpinning the action
were that global education is a good thing, and strategies for increasing

568
 ART TEACHERS AND ACTION RESEARCH

intercultural understanding among students should be developed and

implemented.

Reconnaissance: This took the form of a review of literature about

multicultural art education theory and practice, cultural identity, visual
communication and methods of art criticism.

Working hypothesis: Based on previous research, a working hypothesis

emerged that cross-cultural exchanges and critical analysis of childrens
cultural images increases their intercultural understanding.

Action steps: Three action steps were initiated. In the first, the research
student created a visual educational resource. She collaborated with
teachers in six multiracial schools to collect drawings from 92 children in
response to the themes Who am I? A favourite family pastime and What
makes me culturally unique? Their cultural meanings and messages were
described and analysed. The second action step took the form of
professional development sessions for another four teachers, led by the
research student, during which they selected twenty drawings for the
resource, received training and developed teaching ideas. The third step
took the form of classroom action in which three of the same teachers
applied art criticism strategies to discussion of images from the visual
resource with their students.

Techniques for gathering evidence, monitoring and reflecting on action: The

data the research team collected for the purposes of recording, monitoring
and reflecting on the action was extensive. They consisted of:
research student and teacher lesson plans;
the research students ongoing field notes and written records of informal
discussions with participants;
response forms completed by teachers;
audio tapes of professional development sessions and introductions to
school lessons;
the research students written reflections on the action cycles.

Evaluation: At the end of the last cycle, the research team concluded that
the visual resource was an effective stimulus for global education. The
teacher-practitioners were convinced that the method of art criticism had
engaged elementary students in meaningful discussion about culture and
that their intercultural understanding had improved. The research student
pointed out that these satisfactory learning outcomes were dependent on
the training in visual awareness and global education concepts she had
supplied in cycle one.

569
Rachel Mason

Case Record 2: prejudice reduction in teaching

and learning cultural patrimony (Moura, 2000)
Location: Northern Portugal. The action took place at a higher education
institution and two middle schools.

Focus: Teaching about patrimony in Visual and Technological Education

(VTE).

Participants: The research student, seven middle schoolteachers and

students in two schools. (In the professional development that occurred in a
workshop in action step one, there were a total of 23 participants including
teachers, HE lecturers and political activists.)

General idea: Discrimination against minority groups exists in Portugal.

Teaching and learning patrimony in VTE is ethnocentric and neglects non-
western cultures and arts. Practical reform strategies are needed to address
this concern.

Reconnaissance and development of idea: The research student undertook a

review of international literature on multicultural art education and of
intercultural education in Portugal. From this, she identified a prejudice
reduction/anti-racist orientation as the most appropriate conceptual
framework for curriculum reform.

Working hypothesis: Critical analysis of visual images, combined with

collaborative group work and interdisciplinary learning are effective
strategies for introducing the concepts of prejudice, discrimination and
racism into patrimony education in Portugal.

Action: There were three action steps:

a workshop for 23 participants which set out to determine their
receptiveness to multicultural education reform;
professional development sessions for seven VTE teachers that provided
them with a foundation in multicultural art education and supported
development of curriculum ideas;
curriculum interventions in which three groups of teachers collaborated
on testing out and evaluating patrimony projects in four classroom
settings.

Techniques for gathering evidence, monitoring and reflecting on the action:

Again, the data collected for the purposes of recording, reflecting on and
evaluating this action was extensive. They consisted of:
videotapes of the workshop and school lessons;
lesson plans and written evaluations by the research student and
teachers;
learning outcomes from all three cycles (visual and verbal);

570
 ART TEACHERS AND ACTION RESEARCH

ongoing field notes and evaluations of workshop, professional

development sessions and lessons (by the research student, and teacher-
observers);
the research students records of informal discussions with teachers;
her reflexive diary;
response forms completed by teachers;
question and answer sheets completed by students.

Evaluation: The teacher-participants concluded that the action had

successfully uncovered and challenged their own and students stereotypes
about minority people. The research students hypothesis that the prejudice
reduction/anti-racism curriculum orientation was an appropriate stance for
educational reform in Portugal at the time was confirmed. Whereas she
understood the school-based model of curriculum development as a
strength of action research, she concluded that effecting multicultural
change throughout the system necessitates extensive retraining of teachers.

Case Record 3: developing criteria

for good art teaching (Au, 2002)
Location: Hong Kong. The action took place at the teacher education
institution in which the research student was employed.

Focus: Exploring ways in which art teachers can be helped to develop

criteria for evaluating art teaching and use them to reflect on and improve
their practice.

Participants: The research student and 15 secondary art teachers taking

part in a 1-year professional development course. (In step one of the action,
an additional 216 art teachers completed a survey questionnaire.)

General idea: There is a need in Hong Kong to open up discussion about

what constitutes a good art curriculum and good art teaching. There are no
clearly defined criteria for the evaluation of art teaching that teachers can
use to improve their practice and no consensus on what constitutes good
art teaching.

Reconnaissance and development of idea: The research student undertook a

review of international literature on evaluation of teaching, and on changing
conceptions and standards of good art teaching. The findings of the review
informed the design of the questionnaire survey of secondary art teachers
perceptions of good teaching and a preliminary study of teacher evaluation
policy in Hong Kong.

Working hypothesis: Organising the content of a professional development

module around developing criteria for good art teaching, will help Hong
Kong art teachers to evaluate and improve their own practice.

571
Rachel Mason

Action steps: The action took place during a 1-year professional development
course with 15 art teachers. Ideas in the international literature on good
practice formed the content of the course and the research student worked
collaboratively with the class on developing criteria for good art teaching
specific to Hong Kong. After they had applied the criteria to their own
practice, the teachers experimented with new practises in their school
classrooms.

Techniques for gathering evidence, monitoring and reflecting on action: This

research was small-scale, but generated a great deal of data. Data was
collected in the form of:
the research student and the teachers curriculum/lesson plans;
interactive dialogue journals between the research student and individual
teachers);
metaphor-writing by the teachers and their course assignments;
evaluation questionnaires incorporating the teachers responses to the
course;
tape-recorded interviews by the research student with the teachers.

Evaluation: A practical outcome of the action was that criteria for evaluating
art teaching specific to Hong Kong were developed. Moreover, each teacher
had used them to reflect on, test out and evaluate new curriculum content
and strategies. The research student concluded that developing criteria for
good teaching provides a framework for successful professional development
and had offered a platform into system-wide evaluation in Hong Kong.

Discussion
This part of the article examines the action research models informing the
studies and some general problems of method they threw up. The literature
about qualitative educational research method seems to be preoccupied,
some say obsessed, with the issue of validation perhaps because it is
consistently used by mainstream researchers to disqualify qualitative
research modes (Kvale, cited in Denzin & Lincoln, 2002, p. 301). Likewise,
there are numerous papers discussing and proposing criteria for what
counts as knowledge in practitioner-based research. Since scientific
legitimisation and stature seem to be problems for both practice- and
practitioner-based research, their validity is examined using evaluation
criteria developed by Anderson & Herr (1999). Finally, I draw implications
for my own teaching from a reflection on why and how art teachers engage
with action research.

The Action Research Models

The Portuguese and Canadian studies veer towards Cohen & Manions
functional model or what Leitch & Day (2000) call practical action

572
 ART TEACHERS AND ACTION RESEARCH

research. They are practical, rather than technical, in so far as the

researchers collaborated with teacher-practitioners not just on action
targeted at curriculum change, but also on articulating and agreeing related
practical curriculum philosophies and rationales. Broadly speaking, their
understanding of action research is compatible with the following definition
by McCutcheon and Young:
Action research is characterised as systematic inquiry that is
collaborative, self critical and undertaken by the participants of
the inquiry. The goals of such research are the understanding of
practice and the articulation of a rationale or philosophy of
practice in order to improve that practice. (McCutcheon & Young
1980, quoted in Johnston, 1994, p. 41)

The Hong Kong study is more emancipatory in that it deliberately set out to
give art teachers control over their own pedagogy. According to Leitch & Day
(2000) there are two competing models of emancipatory action research. In
the first, it is understood as a collective, collaborative activity engaged in by
a self-critical community committed to transforming the education system
as a whole. The second emphasises the values and processes of the
individual, rather than collective social action. A recurring criticism of the
second model is that is too narrow; and that action has to be directed
outwards toward the social or educational system as a whole if it is to effect
curriculum change (Leitch & Day, 2000). Since art making tends to be a
solitary exercise, it is probable that my student researchers commitment to
transforming individual practice and/or thinking reflects their previous
subject training and experience.

The Quality of the Studies

The multiple discourses on validation in the social sciences are bewildering
for novice researchers as are the diverse criteria available for evaluating the
success of qualitative-interpretative studies. Anderson & Herrs (1999) five
criteria were adopted in this instance because they claim to be rigorous and
particularly suited to practitioner research. Very briefly:
democratic validity refers to the extent to which researches are done in
collaboration with all the parties that have a stake in them;
process validity refers to the extent to which problems are framed and
solved in a manner that permits ongoing learning of individuals or
systems;
catalytic validity refers to the transformative potential of the action
research for participants (the degree to which it re-orientates, focuses
and energises participants toward knowing and transforming reality);
dialogic validity refers to the extent to which the researchers engage in
dialogue with peers about the quality of the research;
outcome validity: refers to the extent the action leads to resolution of the
problem identified for study.

573
Rachel Mason

It is difficult to apply the criterion of demographic validity rigorously to

studies carried out for Masters or doctorate degrees. Were the cases I have
summarised truly collaborative? One possible reading is that student
researchers who instigated them assumed superior understanding of what
curriculum reforms were necessary and persuaded practitioners to carry out
their own development plans. On the other hand, the practical problems
they identified were substantially influenced by their own teaching and a
majority of participants were volunteers. I am not aware that these
partnerships between university-based researchers and classroom teachers
were skewed by formal inter-institutional arrangements or unequal
distributions of power. It is probably not the case that the views of every
party with a stake in the problems under investigation were represented
however, since there was little evidence of collaboration with stakeholders
beyond the internal communities involved. This is something we may have
to address in future action researches.
Professional development of teachers was central to all three studies.
The Hong Kong example targeted teacher-practitioners already undertaking
a professional development course at the higher education institution where
they worked. It had a mixed-mode design and consisted of a national
questionnaire survey, followed by a single cycle of action. The Portuguese
and Canadian studies were more ambitious in the sense that the research
students set up investigative communities of volunteer teacher practitioners
on their own and involved them in three cycles of action. It is important to
point out that the teacher-participants in all three studies described the
experience as both educationally and personally rewarding suggesting that
that the criterion of process validity was met. However, it is impossible to
estimate the transformational (catalytic) potential of the studies or the
degree to which they empowered the teacher practitioners to develop and
change their teaching or curricula in the long term.
According to James (1999), the difference between reflective
conversation in action research and other forms of reflective conversation
within practical situations is that it is systematic. It is this that merits the
process of reflection being called a form of research. In the studies in
question, the research students all did a good job of collaborating with
teacher-practitioners on effecting reflection-in-action. Whereas the Hong
Kong-based research student used dialogue journals very effectively both to
elicit and record reflection-on-action, the Portuguese and Canadian
students experienced difficulty getting colleagues to write anything down.
The absence of written reflection-on-action by practitioner participants
affects outcome validity. Where action research reports lack multiple
perspectives, there is insufficient evidence to sustain the researchers
assertions that the problems leading to the studies in the first place have
been solved. In the student researchers defence, I would ague that whereas
participant validation and triangulation are supposed to inform reflection
and evaluation, in reality these techniques are difficult to effect.
I understand these problems as generic not study specific. Democratic
validity will always be an issue in university led collaborations as will

574
 ART TEACHERS AND ACTION RESEARCH

developing a shared picture of what all the research team members gain.
The significant amount of time and space necessary for reflection and
evaluation is difficult to secure in research contexts outside the university.
Moreover, reflection-on-action is inherently problematic because it
necessitates participants simultaneously being deeply involved in achieving
distance from action and remaining relatively free from other peoples
research stakes. The action research literature consistently reports that
teacher practitioners need training in reflective thinking and how to record
it. (The paucity of high quality action research reports detailing the
processes and outcomes of teacher-practitioner reflection in general testifies
to the complexity of this task.) Finally, it is impossible to amass evidence
that interventions have a sustainable impact on particular contexts or effect
long-term changes in practitioners attitudes and practices.
Because criteria for evaluation of qualitative research are in a state of
flux we are not too discouraged by this limited success. According to Lincoln
(cited in Denzin & Lincoln 2002, p. 341) there is an emerging consensus
among qualitativeinterpretative researchers that such criteria are relative
and ought to be tailored to meet the needs of local communities of users.
Action research is predominantly qualitative (Reason, 2002), and, in a small
way, art educators are beginning to build up a tradition of qualitative
practitioner research. This should help us to develop and refine our own
standards and criteria.

Reflection on Why and How Art Teachers Do Action Research

Denscombe (1991) has analysed why art teachers tend to prefer qualitative
enquiry. One reason is that it obviates the need for them to develop a new
range of statistical skills for processing data. Another, rooted in their role as
classroom teachers, hinges largely on matters of subjectivity. Teachers are
used to dealing with the immediate and particular, solving practical
problems, and understanding and interpreting people. Qualitative research
techniques enable them to stay in the thick of things. A third explanation,
rooted in the discipline base, is that qualitative research and training in art
and design share similar phenomenological premises. Both attach
importance to feeling, emotion and interpretation, and accept that the
process of perceiving reality is complex. Both recognise the reflexivity
entailed in the act of observation and share a similar epistemological
concern with the role of the researcher as a creator, not just a reporter, of
findings.
Denzin & Lincoln (2002, p. x) describe qualitative research as an
interdisciplinary field that cross-cuts the humanities and the social and
physical sciences, and is multi-paradigmatic in focus. At the same time, it is
characterised by tension between two modes of research. On the one hand,
it is drawn to a broad, interpretative, postmodern, feminist and critical
sensibility; on the other, to more narrowly defined, positivist and post-
positive humanistic and naturalistic conceptions of human experience and
analysis. On reflection, what surprises me about the action researches in

575
Rachel Mason

this article is the emphasis on analytical thinking and verbalisation, and the
linearity of the problem solving models. It seems as if the most significant
influences shaping our methodology come from discourse associated with
the narrower, social science tradition of research. This is surprising given
recent developments in cognitive theory and qualitative methodology. Leitch
& Day (2000) write that mind-set, motivation, attitudes and emotions are
increasingly coming to be understood as powerful determinants of thinking
and holistic, rather than analytical approaches are being mooted as the
starting point for development and change. Some practitioner research is
replacing traditional methodologies with more artistic/literary techniques,
such as dialogical conversations with internal voices, flow of consciousness
recordings, drawing or collage work that enable them to access the
emotional and symbolic dimensions of teachers experience.
Opportunities to capitalise on our subjective expertise abound given
our preferred focus on transforming the values and practices of individuals.
According to Leitch & Day (2000, p. 185) this kind of emancipatory action
research is premised on the idea that teachers hold beliefs that are negated
or denied. Reflection focuses on explaining present practice in terms of an
evaluation of our pasts and can be effected through literary/artistic
techniques, such as autobiography, dialogical conversations, fictional
stories or reflective writing in journals. These techniques are purported to
help teacher-researchers become more aware of the values driving their
work and to construct living educational theories. This is very close to
Rsnens notion of artistic action research:
distancing oneself from teaching and making art for the sake of
objectivity does not kill creativity: research reports can take the
form of visual and verbal narrative characterised by personal,
poetic and artistic expression. (Rsnen, 2005, p. 13)

However, I am more cautious than Rsnen about encouraging art teachers

to engage in artistic action research, probably because I am not convinced
the two paradigms are compatible. As long ago as 1966, David Ecker
explicated the artistic process as a form of qualitative problem solving
embodying all the stages of reflective thinking that characterise scientific
thought. However, he pointed out that artistic problem solving deals with
visual signs and images, not words, and that it takes place in the artistic
media of line, space and colour, using materials, such as wood, metal and
stone. Moreover, he argued for discrimination between scientific and artistic
problem solving on the grounds that they are subject to different kinds of
quality controls. Specifically:
Whereas it is possible to describe both artistic and scientific thought as
processes as a series of problems and their controlled resolution there is
a continuity of thought in the artistic problem solutionproblem
continuum that is grounded in artistic tradition.
Artistic thinking centres on the production of art and the means and
ends of artistic production. Artists always think in the qualities of
particular media and materials.

576
 ART TEACHERS AND ACTION RESEARCH

Artists have as their subject matter the qualities of things of direct

experience unlike educational researchers who look at them at one
remove through the medium of symbols that stand for qualities.
Their purposive activity may be conducted entirely in qualities or there
may be ordering of theoretical symbols that are not found as elements of
the artwork itself, but are nevertheless helpful for the solution of a
qualitative problem.
Whereas qualitative (aesthetic) and theoretical (scientific) intelligence
operate in all areas of human experience, in artistic thinking present and
possible qualities are taken as a means or ways of proceeding toward the
total quality or qualitative (aesthetic) end in view.
The doing or making is artistic when the perceived result is of such a
nature that its qualities as perceived have controlled the question of
production.

According to Ecker:
None of the laws of formal logic as such seems to be directly
applicable to the qualitative thought of artists. While logic can
order the theoretical symbols used in scientific inquiry and
control statements and assertions, whether about art objects or
other subject matter, it is not applicable to the qualitative
ordering that yields a piece of sculpture. (Ecker, 1966, p. 66)

From my perspective, artists and educational researchers work with

different kinds of hypotheses. Consequently, they may look for and find
evidence of very different sorts in the same materials. I find artistic action
researches presented at educational conferences unpalatable because
researchers seem to be manipulating artistic symbols, media and
techniques, and lack the necessary skills to craft aesthetic-qualitative
products.
Unlike some qualitative researchers I do not want to dismiss the
stance of objectivity from emanicipatory action research on the grounds that
it hampers creativity. Discovering the concept of objectivity late in my career
made me acutely aware of the limitations of artistic thinking for research. I
know that artists primarily focus on their own experience of phenomena and
the world, and are not good at standing back or looking at them through the
medium of theoretical symbols. So long as the stance of objectivity
continues to dominate the majority of educational working conditions and
gate keeping of research, it may be unwise to ignore it for pragmatic
reasons. At the present time, the research committee that scrutinises and
regulates student research proposals, theses and dissertations at my own
university challenges even the narrow more traditional modes of qualitative
inquiry.
On the other hand, art teachers operating on a day-to-day basis with
visual forms of communication experience difficulty constructing meaning
through writing. Recently my attention was drawn to Denzin & Lincoln's
Qualitative Inquiry Reader (2002) that outlines new practices of critical

577
Rachel Mason

qualitative inquiry, such as ethnographic poetics, auto-ethnography and

performance narrative that my student researchers might find easier to deal
with and enjoy. The conclusion, therefore, is that I should introduce these
practices into education research methods courses and debate them with
colleagues.
The old excuse that the regulation and dominance of verbal symbols
and words in educational research militates against art teachers reflecting
on visual arts-based actions and ways of reporting outcomes is no longer
tenable. The tools and forms of communication being introduced into
educational research methodology right now, such as image making,
metaphor and autobiography, open up exciting possibilities for them to
explore ways of integrating their discipline into action research
methodology. There is a growing body of writing about practice-based
research in art and design (McNiff, 1998; Candlin, 2000). More dialogue
between educational action researchers and researchers in art and design
could prove fruitful.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the three art educators concerned for permission to use
their studies to reflect on educational action research methodology.

Correspondence
Rachel Mason, Faculty of Education, Roehampton University, Roehampton
Lane, London SW15 5PJ, United Kingdom (r.mason@roehampton.ac.uk).

References
Allison, B. (1986) Index of British Studies in Art and Design Education. Aldershot:
Gower.
Anderson, G. & Herr, K. (1999) The New Paradigm Wars: is there room for rigorous
practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher,
28(5), pp. 12-21.
Au, E. (2002) Developing Criteria for Good Teaching In Hong Kong, unpublished PhD
thesis, Centre for Art Education and International Research, Roehampton
University.
Blatherwick, M. (1998) The Potential for Increasing Intercultural Understanding
through Critical Analysis of Childrens Cultural Images, unpublished PhD thesis,
Centre for Art Education and International Research, Roehampton University.
Candlin, F. (2000) Practise Based Doctorates and Questions of Academic Legitimacy,
International Journal of Art and Design Education, 9, pp. 96-101.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in Education, 4th edn. London:
Croom Helm.
Denscombe, M. (1991) The Art of Research: art teachers affinity with ethnography,
Journal of Art and Design Education, 10, pp. 271-280.

578
 ART TEACHERS AND ACTION RESEARCH

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2002) The Qualitative Inquiry Reader. London: Sage.
Ecker, D. (1966) The Artistic Process as Qualitative Problem Solving, in E. Eisner,
W. Elliot & D.W. Ecker (Eds) Readings in Art Education. Waltham: Blaisdell.
Eisner, E. (1991) The Enlightened Eye: qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Goldstein, L. (2000) Ethical Dilemmas in Designing Collaborative Research: lessons
learned the hard way, Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), pp. 317-330.
James, P. (1999) Narratives of Self: reflection from an action research study,
Educational Action Research, 7, pp. 85-103.
Johnston, S. (1994) Is Action Research a Natural Process For Teachers? Educational
Action Research, 9, pp. 39-48.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988) The Action Research Planner, 3rd edn. Geelong:
Deakin University.
Leitch, R. & Day, C. (2000) Action Research and Reflective Practice: towards a holistic
view, Educational Action Research, 8, pp. 179-193.
Marin, R. (1998) Four Historical Models of Art Education, in ELIA (Ed.) Cahiers: art
and education. Brussels: Hogeschool Sint-Lukas.
McNiff, S. (1998) Art-based Research. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Moura, A. (2000) Prejudice Reduction in Teaching and Learning Portuguese Cultural
Patrimony, unpublished PhD thesis, Centre for Art Education and International
Research, Roehampton University.
Rsnen, M. (2005) Multi-rolled and Skilled Teachers of Art, International Journal of
Education through Art, 1(1), pp. 53-63.
Reason, P. (2002) Unpublished paper, Conference on Action Research, Cardiff
University, November 1.
Schn, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

579
Rachel Mason

580