Not Another Photography Project!
Table of Contents
In this section of my dissertation I will set out my literature review as a starting point to develop and understand my research for the Doc Ed programme at CEMP, Bournemouth. As has been recognised, a literature review ‘is not an annotated bibliography in which you summarize briefly each article that you have reviewed’ (Morgan, 2014) it is much more of an evaluation and reflection upon a range of relevant and recognised literature which informs the topic of the research. In this sense, a literature review is a formative tool to develop ideas and reflect on different interpretations around a research topic.
My own research is based around an action research project, in which I set out to investigate, reflect and engage with the relationship between creative media teaching – specifically A level Media – and the professional context of media work. As I have stated previously, I felt there was a disconnect between teaching and professional practice and I felt that key stage 5 was a crucial, yet generally overlooked moment, to develop links with outside agencies for those students who were seriously thinking about embarking on a career within the creative and media industries. As I have found out in my own research – which will be discussed in a later chapter – waiting until after graduation is considered too late for many of those who I interviewed and with the increasing costs of HE courses and a recognised University education, key decisions around career pathways appear to be coming a more pressing concern for students, parents and teachers. So as an initial starting point, I was looking to investigate the relationship between the classroom and the workroom, that, in my own experience seemed disconnected.
Alongside a theoretical investigation into the relationship between the classroom and the workroom, I was also looking for ways in which it is possible to build stronger pathways for students of creative and media subjects, for instance, to link the work that they do in the classroom with the work that they may be able to take up and develop in the workroom, either as an insight into a possible career pathway, or even better as a first starting point for such a career development. In other words, “not another photography project!” but rather, the possibility of a structured work placement that gives young people – specifically, students that have some interest in developing a career pathway – at an appropriately young age the opportunity to engage with real media practices, in a real media environment, through a structured and supported framework that attempts to engage all interested parties – namely: the students themselves, the potential media employer and the academic institution (course, teacher, school etc).
In summary, I believe there is a ‘disconnect’ between the classroom and the workroom and I wanted to engage in a literature review as a useful tool to identify and reflect upon what ideas and arguments underpin the relationship between potential work and how interested and invested parties understand and engage with this relationship. A literature review helps to map the field of research and I wanted to use this exercise to both help guide my own research and to act as a starting point for other interested researchers to pick up this topic and add to the debate.
Specifically, in terms of my own literature review I am looking to answer the following questions:
- What are the salient issues in the relationship between media teaching and professional creative and media practice?
- What patterns can be identified by looking at government policies and vision statements with regard to the relationship between the classroom and the workroom?
- What needs to be considered when looking to develop structured links between schools and local creative media organisations?
Overall this paper should provide a useful opportunity to develop my own ideas and understanding by reading around the topic area under examination and provide a starting point for other researchers investigating this or a similar area of study. In this chapter I have organised my research and analysis into three main areas, as I found this to be an easier way to organise my research and hopefully provide a much easier way to engage with the literature that I have looked at. Although such a method maybe a crude way of compressing diverse approaches into neater categories just for the sake of an assignment, the organisation of a wide range of published material into a series of connected but stand-alone categories does help to contextualise the material and hopefully provide a way in which I am able to organise both my own thinking and my own approach to my research topic.
As such, I have subdivided my literature review is as follows:
- Educational Thinking: a brief summary of some of the shifting paradigms in media education, briefly tracing a reconceptualization of the basis of media education from one of ‘demystification’ to something much more hybrid and contradictory, that includes a recognition of the discourses surrounding media employability, media literacy and media democracy as a fundamental civil right and liberty.
- Institutional thinking: Government policy thinking and a sense of business thinking. Specifically tracing the new Labour approach to cultural policy as first expressed in the ‘Creative Britain’ vision statement and the aspirations and ideas that subsequently developed from that.
- Student thinking – Tales of difficulty, dreams and desires.
- Finally, within this section as a summary to the work that I have read, I want to look at Critical Thinking, to present and position a more critical and philosophical perspective on some of the work that I have looked at.
It is worth noting that the starting point for my own research has been on the island of Jersey, a Crown Dependency which is independent of, but connected to the UK. This essentially means that the island has its own government, education and taxation system outside of UK jurisdiction, although in general it is closely aligned and follows UK policy.
As such, I found a useful starting point for my own approach within the Jersey Education Business Plan 2015-18 (Education Business Plan, 2015), in particular in one of the specified projects for ‘life-long learning’ which suggests ‘research [into] current and future skills needs of the Jersey economy’ where ‘industries will be able to influence the development of vocational programmes to meet identified needs’. Furthermore, one of the key actions for curriculum provision (number 21) is to collaborate with key stakeholders from Jersey’s industrial and commercial sectors to establish ‘relevant and appropriate content of general and vocational education for 14-16 and 16-19 year olds’. Among other criteria there are specific suggestions to:
- Map existing learning pathways and qualification based progression routes (both academic and vocational).
- Develop an agreed set of principles to be used to shape progression routes from 14-16 curriculum pathways to 16-19 curriculum pathways.
- Create close working relationships with industry and commerce – to include work placements, access to relevant expertise and experience and clarity over agreed employability skills and attitudes.
- Strengthen independent careers guidance relating to vocational education and provide easier access to this guidance.
(Education Business Plan, 2015)
At a local level of action and need, this plan provided an insight into the way in which education authorities are looking to make closer links between education and industry, essentially around the notion of ‘employability’. From my own perspective, I therefore took up the position of ‘teacher-researcher’, – of which Pring (2015); Stenhouse, 1975; Hargreaves 1996; Elliot, 1991; Putnam and Borko, 2000 and others have commented upon widely – and used this policy document to provide a starting point for my own work, as it provided a contemporary context and a referential framework that would help to underpin the aims and purpose of my own study, which perhaps reflects a wider societal context (particularly at local government level), revealing the relationship between education, training and employment.
Indeed, from my own discussions (which are detailed in a later chapter) with colleagues in a Faculty of creativity, media and technology there is a clear suggestion that creative teachers are now much more aware of questions regarding future pathways and employability, than when we all started our teaching careers. Indeed, in a number of recorded discussions with colleagues it is clear that subjects such as, Media, Photography, Music, Drama and Dance seem to occupy an ambiguous and difficult space between vocational and academic pursuit, in a way that my colleagues felt many other subjects do not. Working in my own practice with my colleagues across the Faculty it is clear from both the formal research interviews that I recorded and analysed as well as the more informal and casual conversations that also informed this project, that a positive relationship with the local creative and media community needs to be one built upon sustained, coordinated, monitored and mentored programmes, are the most successful in terms of planning, management, commitment and outcome, which I will hopefully put forward later in this dissertation as a one of the key findings of this action research project.
At the start of this research degree I was very keen to set up a scheme that provided structured pathways linking creative and media students in Key Stage 5 to local media providers. In the context of creative and media students in Jersey, this project was informed and galvanised by the fact that less students are going on to HE study, as illustrated in the table below – which is extracted from a Freedom of Information request (FOI request from States of Jersey, 2015) -such a shift in HE take-up may be the result of cost and debt implications – when this research project started Jersey students were not able to access a student loan as UK students are, which for many students (and parents) meant a significantly high financial burden that could not be offset against a later payback date, or against future earnings as is the case with the UK scheme. Alternatively, it appeared in many informal conversations with students and parents that there exists a greater insecurity about future careers within the creative and media sector. Specific to my own project, emanating from my own practice and drawn from my own conversations, it became clear that fewer creative and media students are pursuing such courses at HE and those who do are certainly clear on the cost of such courses and the uncertainty that awaits them after graduation.
|Illustration 1: Extract from FOI document on Sixth Formers in Jersey taking up HE places|
So, if there has been a shift in attitudes and approach, recognised by practising teachers, is it possible to identify this transition? Is there a moment that provides some insight into how, why and when this changed or has there always been an expectation of creative and media subjects to produce prospective creative and media employees?
For many media teachers, a defining ideology, or a least a recognisable pedagogical philosophy, for teaching media studies derives from Len Masterman’s ethos from the early 1980’s, as a process of ‘demystification’ (Masterman, 1985), with teachers supporting students to develop the capabilities to read media texts in order to liberate them from the mystification of the media. Masterman sought to establish a distinctive mode of enquiry which sat in the legacy of Leavis and Thompson towards a critical autonomy, a way which “seeks to encourage the transfer of critical reading abilities across a divergent range of media experiences.’ (1985, p. iii). In a key theme ‘Len Masterman and the Big Ideas of Media Literacy’, published by the Consortium for Media Literacy, the legacy of Masterman is “not just the originator of big ideas” but the “defining ideas in the field of media literacy education in the 21st century”. (2013, p. 8). The journal traces his ideas from two seminal titles, namely Mythologies (Barthes, 1957) and the Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 1970) suggesting further that Masterman appropriated the “narrative” mode of banking education, as put forward by Freire, which needed to be replaced by a dialogue in which teachers are learners, and students are also teachers. Thus, adapting the work of Barthes and Freire, “he grafted a philosophy of education to that method which fulfilled students’ needs—for enjoyment, freedom and power.” (2013, p. 6).
However, this approach has undergone much scrutiny with academics such as, David Buckingham suggesting that maybe students aren’t quite so helpless that they need teachers to ‘unmask’ media texts (A Manifesto for Media Education, 2012). Indeed, more recently McDougall and Livingston mapped out a range of Media and Information Literacy Policies in the UK (2014) positioning the UK in terms of media, digital and information literacy as defined by the European Commission (EC), which they see as ‘a pedagogic intention to combine cultural, critical and creative learning’. Overall, they recognised the ‘great success of the UK in providing media education in the mainstream curriculum’ (p. 2) which is, in paradox by being ‘continually undermined by a refusal by power-holding groups to legitimize Media Studies as an academic pursuit or as a civic entitlement’ (p. 4) – thus creating the ‘unique aspect of the UK context for media education’.
The report highlights the landscape for media literacy/education as operating within a range of overlapping discursive models, for instance, the notion of a citizenship model broadly working under the discourse of public sphere communication (Habermas, 1993), within which rests the ‘employability’ discourse, asserting that ‘media literacy competence is required for contemporary participation in the modern world’ (McDougall & Livingstone, p. 7). As part of the enquiry, the report looks at the scope and coverage within the curriculum and traces the genealogy of the subject, highlighting the development of more vocational forms of the subject in the 1990’s, which while providing more production-focussed forms of the subject also ‘increased some unhelpful opposition between ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ learning – which perhaps informs much of my own research and study, as this tension has been communicated and registered in my own interviews with local media providers, students, parents and teachers and has indicated to me that there is a need to address this divide and to make some attempt, at a local level to set up and provide supported career insights such as structured work placements and a stronger dialogue between the classroom and the workroom.
The report draws on recent developments towards the ongoing future development of the subject with reference to the views of the then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove and the implications for the future of media education contained in both the Next gen report (Livingston & Hope, 2011) and the government’s response (DCMS, 2011), for example raising the profile of ‘videogame design and visual effects skills in children, with an employability discourse rather than a critical literacy context.’ (p. 16).
In a range of other papers there is a general consensus that media education needs to seek to recognise employability as part of the pedagogical framework of delivery. For example, Richmond and Sanders argue that the distinction between ‘academic’ learning and ‘vocational/technical’ skills is not useful for students or employers, and ‘a more nuanced understanding is required’. (2014, p. 2). As they make clear, ‘the need to focus on Knowledge Economy skills has been a key theme within UK educational policy’ (p. 4) and they look at the specific context of Newman University, with ‘an attempt to move beyond the models of graduate skills gaps . . . and associated wider implications of reform in terms of preparing students’ for their career aspirations.’ (p. 2). The aim which echoes with my own intentions is to create opportunities for learners to ‘develop an informed view of ‘employability’ in relation to their own transition into work, study or self-employment, through critical engagement’. (p. 25) As such, the paper recognises possibilities and potentials as outlined in many of the reports and analysis contained in Creative Career stories, Creative Graduates, Creative Futures, (Ball, Pollard, & Stanley, 2010) – of which I shall discuss more later – and places the present position of media education as a series of overlapping discursive models (Livingstone and McDougall) somewhat removed and developed from (although still connected to) the ‘demystification’ process as encapsulated by the work of Masterman.
From my own research and reading I would suggest that the clearest indication of a distinct ideological shift in political ideology and policy making can be identified when the Department of Culture, Media and Sport replaced the Department of National Heritage in 1997 and in particular when New Labour entered into Government office, promoting Chris Smith as the new Secretary of State (1997-2001). Indeed, an expression of this shift can be found in his book Creative Britain (1998) which held some of the underlying new thinking which ‘replaced culture with creativity’ (Schlesinger, 2009, p. 12). Indeed, Schlesinger goes on to note that ‘creativity policy became a national project, “branding” the United Kingdom as the global cutting edge” so that “education and training and their articulation with the creative industries, therefore, have become key policy arenas.’ (ibid)
In a range of subsequent Government reports, such as: ‘Nurturing Creativity in Young People’ (Roberts, 2006), the original intentions are made clear. From the outset of this particular Government report, the Department for Education and Skills aims to help build ‘a competitive economy’ (p2), pointing out that ‘more people work in our Creative Industries than the steel, ship and textile industries combined.’(p 58). As such, ‘Britain has world-class capabilities when it comes to creativity’ and promotes skills acquisition as the route to success: ‘to work in teams, to share ideas, to identify problems and critically analyse solutions . . . these are the attributes most often valued by employers in particular when making recruitment decisions.’
The report also advocates the implementation of a new structure of courses and pathways, including AS / A levels (now restructured) and is positive towards the range of vocational qualifications, ‘challenging perceptions that vocational skills are for the less able’. The report was also keen to promote the introduction of new Diplomas, which highlight the shift towards a greater inclusion and intervention between industry and education, advocating ‘proper integration with other reforms in post-16 learning, such as apprenticeships and foundation degrees, provide a promising blueprint at least, “potentially delivering a completely alternative qualification pathway than is available at present’. (p. 59)
So, in many ways it is possible to trace a shift in direction which has led to the emergence of a new way of thinking about the links that could exist between education, industry, the economy and employability. For example, through ‘structured programmes such as work-based learning and apprenticeships’, with an action plan that comprises of (among other items):
- Better careers advice
- New qualification routes
- Work-based training
- Education business partnerships
- Mentoring networks
- Demand-led skills provision
All of which appear to echo the Jersey Education Business Plan, and perhaps similar local government initiatives from around the UK who seek to build on culture, media, technology and education into a potential new platform for economic success. Indeed, in reflection, I found my own ideas were shaped around a similar framework as I sought out conversations with potential professional partners from the local community and I wondered if my own ideological outlook had been shaped and developed by the number of initiatives, action plans and starting points that a range of government reports had been highlighting, prioritising and suggesting over the last 15 years.
However, as part of my research it was important to critically analyse how this new way of thinking has been understood, analysed, supported, criticised and appropriated and as part of my literature review research I found a clear indication of some of the shortfalls of the New Labour project outlined in the paper: ‘Winning and losing in the Creative Industries’ (Communian, Faggian, & Jewell, 2011, p. 291) which states that:
It is widely acknowledged in the literature that one of the impacts of New Labour cultural policy in UK has been a growing hype and positive representation of creative and cultural occupations (Banks & Connor, 2009). When New Labour policies came into place, they built on changing economic dynamics of contemporary society embracing the new paradigm of post-industrial, flexible and knowledge-based production. In this broader framework, all knowledge-driven industries were celebrated (Banks & Hesmondhalgh, 2009) but, more than any others, the creative industries. These industries that were defined as “[having] their origins in individual creativity, skills and talent” (DCMS, 1998) were presented as the new flagship of the UK economy. However, some academic studies showed the shortcomings and limitations of the sector, pointing out the very limited London-centric reach of its impact (Knell & K, 2007) and the real extent of its growth and expansion (Taylor, 2006)
So how has the strategic policy shift that appears to have started with a New Labour vision been realised, understood and assessed?
Stuart Cunningham provides some interesting reflection and evaluation on the ‘rationale for distinguishing between notions of cultural and creative industries which have implications for theory, industry and policy analysis’. For example, he asserts that the term ‘Creative Industries’ is a fairly recent category in terms of academic, policy and industry discourse and cite, the Creative Industries Task Force Mapping document, as a defining source for understanding ‘activities which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have the potential for wealth and job creation’ (p. 5). In The Creative Economy: How People make money from ideas, John Howkins suggests that ‘copyright, patent, trademark and design industries – together constitute the creative industries and the creative economy’ (2001, p. xiii), and while it is interesting to note what constitutes the creative and cultural industry, what is clear is that sustaining a business has a clear and central objective, which is essentially to make money to survive. Indeed, Banks and Hesmondalgh note that the UK and other governments are now ‘seeking more intensively to exploit cultural commodities, intellectual property and the panoply of goods and services underpinning the putatively emergent ‘creative’ or ‘knowledge economy.’ (2009, p. 415) From a business and economics perspective, it is necessary to consider non-governmental institutions, that is: companies, organisations and institutions that are not involved in policy or strategy, but are concerned with maintaining and developing their business. Indeed, during my own research and investigation I have met with a number of representatives from local media and creative institutions who are generally most concerned with financial matters before any sense of ideology, altruism, philanthropy or pedagogy.
In terms of possible connections between the classroom and the workroom (which could form a nascent career pathway for post-16 students), among the creative sectors it is the fields of advertising, architecture, writing and publishing that appear to be highlighted as the ones offering more job stability, higher economic rewards and recognisable and familiar entry points. In comparison, other areas of creative commerce, such as, craft, performing arts, film, television and fine arts have a less secure footing in terms of prospective employment, with many graduates likely to be facing uncertainty and poorer work conditions, indeed, Communian et al suggest that ‘while there may be some “golden opportunities” for some creative graduates, the majority of them have poor career prospects’ (p. 305).
The Communian report, uses a lot of qualitative data to break down distinctions between different fields of employment applying the broader categories proposed by the DCMS mapping document and also provides a lot of statistical information about how that is reflected in terms of choices students have made at HE institutions and where they have secured (or not) employment and career progression. The work also reflects on the geographical location where such careers can be developed. Reflecting on the policy aspirations created by New Labour they assert that ‘the hype surrounding the creative industries has created an “economic bubble” that has further expanded the provision of those skills [associated with creative industry training] without real corresponding opportunities’ (p. 305). Therefore, while any consideration of developing new pathways may involve “blue sky thinking’ in terms of theoretical approaches and ideas, when it comes to implementing such ideas into practice, the key principle for business is how this affects the internal economics of that particular structure. For example, payment for internships and trainees creates a significant issue for local employers looking to adopt new pathway of development; as is the time, resources and cost for putting mentors and support in place – which, incidentally is a key issue identified by Ball et al in the Creative Careers report, (see for example pp 8 & 13). Although as Ashton points out, part time work placements undertaken for little or no-remuneration are inextricably connected with the labour market in terms of a students’ potential “professional” future career aspirations (2011, p. 556). As such, one of the harsh realities of adult life for creative students maybe that they have to accept ‘more voluntary and unpaid work and . . . are more likely to be unemployed.’ (Communian, Faggian, & Jewell, p. 298).
A more pointed summary is provided by Banks and Hesmondhalgh with research that seeks to show ‘how creative workplaces are marked significantly by insecurity, inequality and exploitation’ (2009, p. 415). Summarising a theoretically and empirically diverse range of studies they propose a bleak yet consistent finding in that:
Creative work is project-based and irregular, contracts tend to be short-term, and there is little job protection; that there is a predominance of self-employed or freelance workers; that career prospects are uncertain and often foreshortened; that earnings are usually slim and unequally distributed, and that insurance, health protection and pension benefits are limited; that creatives are younger than other workers, and tend to hold second or multiple jobs; and that women, ethnic and other minorities and under-represented and disadvantaged in creative employment. All in all, there is an oversupply of labour to the creative industries with much of it working for free or on subsistence wages. (p. 420)
And yet there is still a steady supply of new students who wish to develop a career path that runs from media education into workplace opportunities and then hopefully some secure basis of full time work that helps to develop a solid, reliable and clear career development, so what evidence is there to identify how that works, and what experiences do those involved in the process have of this? To explore this a little further it is worth looking at a set of literature that explores the personal experiences of those who have undergone this process.
In 2010 the Institute for Employment Studies, an independent, apolitical, international centre for research in public employment policy undertook a longitudinal study of the early career patterns of graduates in art, design, crafts and media practice-based subjects from 26 UK higher education institutions. The report, titled Creative Career stories, Creative Graduates, Creative Futures, brought together ‘voices of individual graduates reflecting on their own journeys, their hopes and fears, challenges and successes’ to focus on the ‘challenges of ‘making’ a career in the creative and cultural sector’ (Ball, Pollard, & Stanley, p. vi) and thereby presented an amazingly rich source of information to draw upon and a particularly relevant and key text for my own research, understanding and study. For instance, the report found a number of interesting and relevant conclusions, such as ‘larger proportions of graduates now work in the creative and cultural industries and in work related to their subject than did a decade ago’ (p2), that ‘they experienced high levels of work satisfaction and engagement with the creative industries, but sometimes at the expense of some disadvantage in terms of financial reward’ (p. 2). In this sense ‘graduates make lifestyle choices when they choose a creative education and a creative outlook is already a way of life. After graduation, goals and aspirations remain focussed on creative practice’ (p. ix) Overall, ‘creative practice provides graduates with an ideology that they take with them into their personal working lives’ (p. xi).
The report is fascinating in both its scope and its perceptive analysis, and highlights so many positive aspects of why young people seek to develop their own personal development (and not just a career development) within the fields of creativity and culture. In terms of my own study it helped me to shape my own ideas and to validate the need for further study and enquiry into this area, it also makes me realise that there is a need for such projects and it is the responsibility of those involved in creativity and education to seek to help those students who are passionate and enthusiastic about committing their lives to this area, for example, in my own position acting in the as ‘teacher researcher’ to develop new ideas, opportunities and partnerships, not only for their students but also for themselves as a form of continuing professional development and training. For in many ways creative and media teachers are not so very different from their students in that they also choose a creative education and creative outlook as a way of life or ideology that they take with them into their personal (and professional) lives.
The report identifies ‘six key challenges’, of which one is ‘building students’ confidence for creative careers’; as the report puts forward, when providing an innovative education, HEI’s must ‘put creative practice and professional development at the heart of provision and pedagogic approaches’ (p. 4). Another key point is ‘encouraging a research culture and preparing the next generation of teacher-practitioners’, which appears to me as a well-founded principle that legitimizes my own enquiry and point of study.
Furthermore, the report suggests the proposition of “easing the transition in the workplace”. Priorities that the report identifies as “work placements and industry experience through projects”; built in with “understanding professional requirements and client needs”. Indeed, in terms of early career facilitators, formal work placements and industry experience of all kinds, including project work were recognised as important pre-requisites for career entry. In an economically uncertain climate the report suggests that “as the creative sector is fragmented and there are few large employers with the resources to provide work placements and experience, new models for employer engagement and partnerships between HE and the creative sector are required”. All of which has informed my own approach to this project, specifically the ideas that have been underpinning my own efforts towards an action research model of linking the workroom with the classroom.
In summary, it seems to me that the initial vision and strategic planning for Creative Britain which has been subsequently revisited and reconceptualised in a number of follow up reports such as, ‘Nurturing Creativity in Young People’, can be seen to have developed into a series of a policy statements and action points that could be implemented at a local level across a broad range of communities, that may be utilised as starting points to address some of the shortfalls of the rhetoric. For example, some of the proposals set forward in Creative Britain are: more opportunities for young people to develop creative talents at school and more structured pathways into creative careers (DCMS, 2008 , p. 4); as well as looking to encourage ‘employers and skills providers to set up ground-breaking new innovative places of learning’ (p. 25); or put in the pejorative – the provision of suitably trained ‘human capital’ (p. 26) Much of this vision is explored and understood as an account of real life experiences in the Creative Career Stories and could be seen in many ways to have a direct link with my own work that has started in a small local community. Even if it is only on a small scale, it could be argued that a micro-level action research initiative could easily provide a model for similar approaches in similar centres, with similar cohort and profile as my own. For example, the media education networking group http://www.creativefutureseast.org.uk/media-education-networking-group.html based in East Anglia appear to have made similar plans by organising local career pathways in similarly new and innovative ways that suggests parallels to my own work.
As Philip Schlesinger notes ‘of especial interest is the rethinking of the original idea of the creative industries. . . the original idea of the creative industries was too broad and needed refinement’ noting that ‘the policy-building process had not been sufficiently self-critical’ (2009, p. 13) How we evaluate the last 5 years and see the future developing, is perhaps the subject of another study. Whereas for now it is worth considering how institutions of education adapt and implement policy visions and strategic planning developed by institutions of government, to prepare ‘human capital’ for institutions of business.
As a final note to this section, it is worth highlighting the shifting and contesting nature of new political ideas in relation to the shifting demands of industry and the demands of future employability. As a small illustration, contrast Chris Smith clearly stating that in terms of policy settings in the UK, ‘the creative industries have moved from the fringes to the mainstream’ (p. 1); with, ten years later, the Confederation of British Industry (2010) report, Creating Growth: A Blueprint for the Creative Industries, suggesting that ‘government policy should reflect the range of skills required by creative businesses and ensure these are delivered through secondary and higher education”, rather than delivering skills which present a narrowly defined “supply” model of employability’ (Ball, p. 4)
To end the main body of this literature review, I would like to draw on work that could be seen as within the school of Critical Thinking. I talk more about Critical Thinking in my next chapter, which looks at ‘Knowledge, Methodology and Philosophy’, as this is an important component of my research and forms an important founding principle for both how and why I wanted to engage in a project of this scale. However, the following is a short summary of some of the ideas that provide a ‘critical thought’ on the shifting landscape of creative education and the intentions behind such a proposition.
For instance, Hauser (1999) identifies modern creative industry practice as a co-operative model of capitalist production inherited from pre-modern guilds where workers were allocated their role in discrete labour hierarchies, based on traditional, small scale and skilled production. In other words, creative labour is geared to the production of original or distinctive commodities that are primarily aesthetic and /or symbolic-expressive, rather than utilitarian and functional (Hirsch, 1972). More recently Nicholas Garnham links the ways in which creative industries have emerged to complement the prevailing ‘information society’ and ‘knowledge economy’, characteristic of Western societies (2005). Ironically, this presents a positive opportunity for both left and right perspectives. On the left, creative work is highly prized since it appears to offer workers the chance for non-alienating employment conducive to self-expression and ‘personal-growth’, while on the right, conservatives value creative work’ as it provides a contribution to capital, potentially making workers happier and more compliant. (Banks & Hesmondhalgh, p. 417) In the same article they draw a broad outline that pictures the ideological understandings that have characterised the arguments surrounding modern employment values since the end of the Second World War. For present purposes it is enough to witness the ideological expression inherent in the Creative and Cultural Skills report Britain’s creativity challenge, ‘our sons and daughters will not hew, forge, mine, plough or weld. They will serve, design, advise, create, compose, analyse, judge and write’ (2004, p. 12) Similarly, in the report Your Creative Futures (DCMS) the proposition is to ‘imagine how good it feels to wake up every morning and really look forward to work. Imagine how good it feels to use your creativity, your skills, your talent to produce a film . . . or to edit a magazine . . . ‘ ( (Nixon & B, 2004, p. 129) As Banks and Hesmondhalgh go on to argue, ‘in its utopian presentation creative work is now imagined only as a self-actualising pleasure, rather than a potentially arduous or problematic obligation undertaken through material necessity’ (ibid).
However, there is a new current of critical thinking that implies that ‘the digital turn of contemporary capitalism, with its promise of instantaneous, constant communication, has done little to rid us of alienation’ (Morozov, 2017) even though those in the digital avant-garde of capitalism have toyed with two solutions, which Morozov points out are the John Ruskin option and the De Tocqueville option.
The former extended the philosophy of the Arts and Crafts movement, with its celebration of craftsmanship and romantic, artisanal labour by Ruskin, William Morris and their associates, into the realm of 3D printers, laser cutters and computerised milling machines. The De Tocqueville option hailed the use of digital tools to facilitate gatherings in the real world creating social networks, where people would be able to find like-minded enthusiasts, creating a vibrant civil society à la De Tocqueville. (Morozov, 2017)
It is a critical reflection that highlights the ‘myth-making’ process surrounding the potential digital future for young creatives, providing a counter-balance against the desire of so many young people are perhaps easily seduced to pursue a career in the creative industries. The promise of wealth and fame and the celebration of a range of unlikely popular heroes including various dot.com millionaires, Young British Artists, celebrity chefs, pop stars, media entrepreneurs and the like, have according to Banks and Hesmondhalgh (2009). encouraged nascent creatives to imagine themselves as the ‘star’ at the centre of their own unfolding occupational drama. Put precisely, ‘the individualising discourses of ‘talent’ and ‘celebrity’ and the promise of future fame or consecration, have special purchase in creative work, and are often instrumental in ensuring compliance with the sometimes invidious demands of managers, organisations and the industry’ (Banks & Hesmondhalgh, p. 420). As can be deduced, this approach looks to spotlight the institutional and collective basis of cultural production ‘one which suggests that creative work is innately talent-driven and meritocratic – that anyone can make it’ (p. 420). However, as Angela McRobbie has suggested the study of creative work should include a wider set of questions including the way in which aspirations to and expectations of autonomy could lead to disappointment and disillusion (2002).
On this point, Neilson and Rossiter (2005) note that it is highly unlikely that the creative industries will begin to register in their mapping documents or annual reports the dark side of labour for this would put the euphoric rhetoric of creative industries policy in jeopardy, and this rhetoric is fundamental to the way in which government frames the sector. Even when some form of failure is recognised, it is not at the fault of the institutional frameworks, or indeed the capitalist system as a whole, but rather it is down to individual error or absence. As the 2008 Creative Britain report sets forward: ‘for every individual who succeeds, there are many who do not. For many, it will be the result of a perfectly reasonable personal decision that the commitment and determination required is not for them.’ (p. 20) – as if ‘determination’ and ‘commitment’ were in themselves enough to secure success.
Indeed, it is against such an ideology that I want to frame my own research, because I just don’t agree with this approach. The idea that if you have enough determination and commitment, does not recognise the fact that you may also need to have some form of financial support to help you through the early stages of a creative career, which for many young people and their families is not a consideration that is possible for them to take on board. Similarly, in the conversations that I will present in my data analysis, the significance of luck, chance, serendipity can also play a particularly significant role. Both of these factors alone can be engaged with, in my opinion by consolidating links with local institutions, limiting the framework of chance by creating a framework of connectivity and community and limiting the financial risk by a process of experimentation, trial and experience. As mentioned previously, the theoretical perspective that I want to underpin my own research project is critical theory, an academic approach that can be recognised as emancipatory, liberating and life changing. As an action-research project, this emanates from a teacher-researcher standpoint that seeks to engage with and change daily practice. Looking for way to improve and ways of connecting and serving the community, specifically, those who are looking at a career in the creative sector. As a small contribution that may be providing better information and ideas of future pathways and professional practice, at a more significant moment it may be in developing a framework that provides young people with life changing experiences and a much greater understanding and involvement with potentially life changing decisions. The employment of critical theory, is therefore an academic understanding that seeks change for the better is deliberate and conscious and is hopefully mirrored in the practice that I am seeking to set out.
In the next chapter I will discuss in much more detail the philosophy that underpins my research and in later chapters I will also discuss my research design, data and data collection, during which I hope that it becomes clear that although small this research project has had a positive impact. However, for now, I would like to draw this literature review to a close by looking at a number of sources that have provided an inspirational and positive starting point for my own action and research, starting with a criticism of the legacy of the New Labour vision by Banks and Hesmondhalgh and then an inspirational and positive starting point developed by Daniel Ashton.
According to Banks and Hesmondhalgh, the policy shifts from the emergence of the New Labour into the first decade of the 21st Century have seen a shift in focus from:
‘creative industries per se to a more strategic vision that considers the way in which government, schools, colleges, training providers and other public bodies can help provide the pools of skilled labour required to meet projected future creative economy demands, and that seeks to devise formulas for the provision of integrated R&D and business support for firms by means of enhanced partnerships across governments, public and private bodies and other services’ (p. 426)
This suggests that UK creative industries policy is increasingly becoming linked to educational and employment policy, but under the sign of economics rather than social reform or cultural equality. So, for example, in the case of my own research, this can be seen in the articulations set forward in the development plan for Jersey – the Education Business Plan – in other words, where business and education are encouraged to link into a closer working and ideological relationship, which I would argue works from the perspective of business and policy rather than the starting point of individual student experience. With that in mind, Banks and Hesmondhalgh conclude, that ‘there must be serious concerns about the extent to which this business-driven, economic agenda is compatible with the quality of working life and of human wellbeing in the creative industries. After 10 years, the direction of UK creative industries policy is looking increasingly bleak.’ (p. 428)
However, presenting a positive counterpoint to such a bleak outlook and a point of positive enquiry from a nascent teacher researcher, one of the key texts that I found in my literature review research is an article by Daniel Ashton, (2011). In this work Ashton analyses the work carried out at the Artswork Media Centre at Bath Spa University, where a ‘middle ground between university and real-life work’ offered ‘possibilities for “real world” or authentic learning and . . . for detailed, qualitative enquiry into students as workers-in-the-making (p. 558). In many ways, his paper links with my own ideas and starting points that I have been looking at, in terms of both theory and action and has developed a number of pertinent and salient points, specifically around ‘an examination of situated practices’ (p. 549), an approach that I have looked to adopt and build into my own work.
For example, he highlights the increasing importance of employability to the core operations of UK universities and draws upon the career studies approach, which McCash (2008). suggests is “a space in the curriculum for students to consider the ideas and beliefs of self and others concerning career, labour markets and employability” (p. 6). Indeed, Ashton states that ‘anxieties around future professional practice signal the potential value of a Career Studies approach that creates a space for explicitly exploring employment conditions and practices as personally meaningful and proximate concerns’. (p. 556), or put more simply there needs to be space in the curriculum for considering ideas and beliefs associated with one’s career.
Ashton develops his analysis as a way to critically reflect on concepts such as “professionalism” and “creativity” – which Ball (2010, p. 70) conceives as an ‘ideology’ – to explore potential future employment conditions and practices in the media and creative industries. He also looks at the meaning-making processes and lived experiences of students, looking at the ‘creative talent / human capital argument’, which could be understood as where human capital – skills and attributes – are on offer for sale, specific to a certain sector of employment; note for example, the conclusion drawn by Communian et al that ‘graduates who have lower final grades, and who come from “perceived” less prestigious HEIs, experience low salaries when entering the labour market’ (Communian, Faggian, & Jewell, 2011, p. 304).
Overall, Ashton suggests that there is no clear consensus in the debates and policy frameworks that define and locate the creative industries but nevertheless develops a range of critical perspectives and insights that may be useful for students (and teachers) in exploring employability as a key process integral to an educational learning framework that seeks to provide the best opportunities for students who are seriously considering a future career development in the creative and media industries. As Ashton writes: ‘employability not a just as skills, but as dispositions and attitudes’ (2011, p. 553).
In my own research, I was particularly interested in the way in which Ashton drew on the personal impact of those individuals who were making decisions on their lives and career plans, and how they were coping when economic uncertainty was clearly having an effect. Although noting that an uncertain economic environment may lead to more adaptable and inventive ways of exploring new markets and clients, it is clear that it also entailed a high-risk strategy in terms of a stable and reliable future career path. As Ashton puts forward ‘issues of quality of life, exclusionary practices, and working conditions and pay are hugely significant to any consideration of employability’ (p. 557)
In this sense Ashton presents a paper that looks at ‘the meaning that students give to their activities and the understandings of employability that are articulated’ (p. 549) As Banks and Deuze have suggested, “when considering questions of cultural work we need to pay more attention to the meanings that cultural workers give to these activities themselves” (2009, p. 426). In summary, Ashton’s paper seeks ‘to move the analysis of employability from general statements of skills and contributions, to an examination of situated practices and understandings by focusing on students as potential future creative workers’. (2011, p. 558). In conclusion, Ashton hopes that his paper will prompt further conversations on the productive and progressive possibilities of examining “employability”. So, as a last word in this section, I also hope to give voice to situated practice of young students’ hopeful of something more than an A level or HE qualification. I also hope that in a some way my own research will at least raise a discussion and will provide a number of opportunities for a number of people in a number of different institutions. Theoretically, I also hope that my research paper will also help to examine the range of possibilities that exist and are potentially available as well. Indeed, during this research I have already identified the Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies as a useful source of inspiration and ideas, particularly in terms of developing and locating my own ideas, research and practice into a recognised model of academic knowledge. In the key note article by Leon Barkho and Saleh Ibrahim: Towards paxis-based media research, the key principle is to “carve a conceptual and methodological niche for . . . media research and how the gap between media theory and media practice is bridged.” Indeed, the authors go on to assert that:
Media research is in need of a turn that shifts focus to the needs of media practitioners, employing theory in the service of practice by conducting research with a critical angle not only to explain the social reality of the media but provide alternatives to help them pursue ‘rational’ policies. (Saleh & Barkho, 2013, p. 5)
As such, I think this philosophical approach opens the way up to my own research and to an academic understanding and framework that can not only articulate my intentions but can provide a legitimately academic approach towards my doctorate.
Thus, in the next section of this work I would like to present my methodology, academic perspective and philosophy that frames my research.
Cohen draws on the work of Hitchcock and Hughes (1995:21) to establish that ontological assumptions (assumptions about the nature of things) give rise to epistemological assumptions (ways of researching and enquiring into the nature of reality), these in turn give rise to methodological considerations and these in turn give rise to issues of instrumentation and data collection. (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011, p. 3)
So the choice of methodology is therefore a crucial first step in terms of defining the relationship between:
- what tools of research to utilise (ie the methods)
- how I see the world (a question of ontology)
- the way in which that world may be discovered, understood and recognised (questions of epistemology).
As a clear starting point, Kerlinger suggests research as a way of discovering the truth. He proposes three key moments of development which helps to flag the process of research: experience, empiricism and self-correction (Kerlinger, 1970). Put another way, whilst perhaps masking the complexity of a long term research project, Kerlinger is proposing a simple framework which simply summarises such an endeavour, suggesting that the project is based on a personal experience, which can be logically developed into a hypothesis and then developed, clarified, synthesised and interpreted through empirical evidence, leading to a final conclusion or set of statements, which self-corrects the original intention.
As I started my own research journey, I was struck by the position paper, written by Barkho and Saleh and published by the Journal of Applied Journalism and Media Studies, which articulated a key concern of my own, namely: ‘what is central for media research? Is it practice or theory?’ (2013, p. 4).
They ask a number of provocative questions that appeared to my own initial starting point (experience) and could therefore be relevant to my own project. For example, they ask if media scholars are under any obligation to relate their theories to practice? Or, whether theorising is sufficient to explain the social reality of the media?
So even at the earliest stages of my project, when I was constructing some initial ideas, I found myself questioning the value of an exclusively theoretical research approach, as it appeared to me that research into media studies requires a strong foothold in social interaction and a recognition of social reality. As such, even from the outset, I wanted my project to be more than just thinking and reflection. I wanted it to have a tangible social connection to individuals, organisations and most importantly the experiential existence of students who are studying this subject.
I also recognised their postulation that media practitioners generally discard and don’t trust media research findings, and felt in agreement with them that ‘the gap between media theory and media practice needs to be bridged’. Barkho and Saleh point to the work by R J Bernstein claiming that he supports an approach to research and philosophy which must be ‘relevant and applicable to today’s world of media systems’. (Bernstein, The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory, 1979). In response, Barkho and Saleh suggest that media research needs to draw on what they term as ‘recommended special streams’ such as, ‘praxis-based media research’ (ibid). For my own journey, I needed to identify and understand what was meant by such terms.
The Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies has taken as its’ initial starting point the educational notion of praxis, an Aristotelean concept, specifically set out in The Nicomachean Ethics, the journal also connects this term with American pragmatism, which has its early conception in the work of C S Peirce, subsequently developed more substantially in the work of William James, later by John Dewey and more recently by Richard J Bernstein.
In the first instance, praxis can be traced back to Ancient Greek society and placed in Aristotle’s threefold understanding of the three basic activities and disciplines available to man: theoria, poiesis and praxis (πρᾶξις), which essentially linked to three types of knowledge:
- Theoretical, to which the goal was truth,
- Poietical or productive (the aim being production) and
- Practical or praxis to which the aims was action.
Thus, as Barkho and Saleh identify, ‘praxis as a discipline is not easy. It may demand more rigour and sophistication than theory because it directly deals with human beings and the way they go about their lives.’ They also identify that media theory has often been more concerned with ‘theory building’ rather than a practical application, ‘hence the gap that separates theorists from the institutions that they investigate’.
As mentioned before, even in my early investigations towards this research project I could easily identify the gap between classroom and workroom practice and I wondered if those who work in the media industries are somewhat sceptical of a theoretical approach to media studies; perhaps giving more value and priority towards skills, competencies and training – either given on the job or learned independently while working – over a purely theoretical or conceptual approach to learning and development. In my initial research enquiries there certainly appeared to be an initial reluctance to work more closely with schools and students and I wondered if this is why Barkho and Saleh proposed a praxis based research approach for media and creativity.
For Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies the reason for using a praxis based approach is to counter the ‘the preoccupation of social science with postmodernism and its heavy emphasis on fallibilism’ (Saleh & Barkho, 2013, p. 6) To engage and question these approaches the Journal of Applied Journalism and Media Studies (AJMS) looks towards the critical work of Jürgen Habermas, Paul Taylor and Richard Bernstein among others ‘for the need of objective validity’; as Bernstein writes ‘there is no way of analysing concepts and judgements without reference to language. And we cannot understand language and speech acts except in the context of social and communal practices. (Bernstein, 2010, p. 170)
According to Saleh and Barkho for these thinkers, ‘social science research has to aim at some degree of objectivity and seek constant dialogical communication with its subjects’ (p. 6). For instance, a key area of study that appeared useful for my own line of enquiry is the philosophical tradition known as American Pragmatism, as it appears to have sympathy with ‘philosophical conceptions and practical results’, the title of a lecture delivered by William James on 26th August 1898 to the Philosophical Union, at the University of California, Berkley. As Richard Bernstein stated in his lecture at Beltoit College in 2013 ‘to be pragmatic is to be eminently practical, to know what the real world is really like and to adopt to its realities’
In his lecture Professor Bernstein noted that it was at the time an unknown philosopher and academic – C S Peirce – who first introduced the word pragmatism into the philosophical canon and indeed, it is felt that any consideration of pragmatism should begin with Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey. Peirce laid out the basic pragmatist tenet that the meaning of a statement lies in its consequences and he gave his views the name “pragmatism” (Smith, 1999,2011) In short, this an approach to philosophy, primarily held by American philosophers, which holds that the truth or meaning of a statement is to be measured by its practical (i.e. pragmatic) consequences.
Referring to my own intentions I was always keen to ensure that my research project would be more than a 80,000 word commentary, and it was always my intention to formulate and develop not only a better understanding of classroom and workroom practice, but to actually put in place a number of objectively real structures that could provide some insight and knowledge into ways in which agents of change could look to bridge the gap and provide much more reliable and transparent pathways for creative people to develop and populate the creative industries.
So, where to start? In chapter 1 of Research Methods in Education, ‘The Nature of Enquiry’, Cohen et al puts forward a broad framework of investigation that attempts to position a range of competing paradigms. Crudely summarised, these can be seen as falling into two separate conceptions of social reality. Basing their writing around the work of Burrell and Morgan (1979), they ask “is social reality external to individuals . . . or is it the product of individual consciousness?”
Cohen draws up a range of competing paradigms and initially sets up a conflict between nominalist and realist or exaggerated realism debates. Drawing on initial conceptions developed by Plato and later revised by Aristotle, both concepts act as a competing dualism of how we apprehend our social reality and existence. Exaggerated Realism holds that there are universal concepts in the mind and universal things in nature. There is, therefore, a strict parallelism between the being in nature and the being in thought. (Knight, 2012)
This is an approach countered by the notion of Nominalism which ‘invents a world of reality corresponding exactly to the attributes of the world of thought’ (ibid) which suggests that what are called general ideas are really just labels ‘mere verbal designations’ for a collection of things or events.
In other words, there is a way of approaching social science research which can be can be characterised by ‘procedures and methods designed to discover general laws, which may be referred to as nomothetic’, against an emphasis placed on explanation and understanding of the ‘unique and particular’ behaviour which may be termed idiographic. (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011)
This therefore presents a sense of knowing, understanding and being as either a set of universal concepts that may be apprehended as hard, objectively real and tangible, an approach which is both universally understandable and available to all. Or, a world where thought is separated from reality, where knowing and being are subjective, fragmented and atomised into individualised and personalised accounts, experiences and understandings. As Knight puts it, Exaggerated Realism and Nominalism find little difficulty in ‘establishing a correspondence between the thing in thought and the thing existing in nature’ but ‘an antinomy arises between the world of reality and world as represented in the mind’.
So this dialectical proposition sets up a difficult starting point for any researcher. Is it the case that we need to look at the world as a series of objective and identifiably real set of things, that we are able to engage with by investigation and analysis in order that the ’thing’ may be able to change for the better (assuming that we may be able to establish what is better or not?). Or do we investigate the individual and subjective understanding of such ‘things’ and attempt to reproduce that understanding into a set of questions and answers which will somehow have an effect on the thing itself?
Cohen draws on the work of Burrell and Morgan, to suggest that researchers will either view knowledge as ‘hard, objective and tangible’ or see knowledge as ‘personal, subjective and unique’ (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011, p. 6). For Cohen this highlights the distinction between a determinism or voluntarism approach to research.
In a graduate paper for the University of Essex, Francisco Pérez investigates Anthony Gidden’s ‘Structuration Theory’ as a way of understanding the dualistic nature of subjectivism and objectivism. Basing his argument around the ‘dichotimist concepts’ of ‘structure’ and ‘agency’, Pérez puts forward the idea that ‘Structuration Theory’ allows ‘structure’ and ‘agent’ to be conceptualised not as separate entities but as ‘different sides of the same reality (ie the two sides of a coin) brought together through practice’ (Pérez, 2009). However, central to this idea there is also the suggestion that (subjective) ‘agents’ when and while engaged in social practice within (objective) social structures are able to exert change and influence ‘in an ever flowing circle’, or as Pérez writes:
Agents draw upon social structures in order to act and, at the same time, they reproduce these same or slightly altered structures, which in the end, are established as the new conditions of action for the next cycle of the structuration process.
Here then Giddens seems to be prioritising the role of subjective agent in the process of social change, although as Pérez notes, Giddens seems to have ‘an overly optimistic view of the ‘agent’, citing much criticism from those who see the voluntaristic nature of Structuration theory as ‘dangerously leaning towards the agent’s perspective and overemphasising the role and freedom of the agent to the detriment of the constraining pressures of social structures’. For example, Pérez argues that in Gidden’s account ‘there is not a clear, material tangible reality ‘out there’ which exerts pressure on the agents to act in one way or another.’
Pérez points to the work of Bourdieu which he feels can be regarded as the major alternative to ‘Structuration Theory’ as a plausible attempt to bridge subjectivist and objectivist approaches in the study of human activity. Highlighting a set of key concepts: ‘habitus’, ‘fields’ and ‘capital’ (Pérez, 2009) around which this logic was explained.
But where does this leave me?
As I started to develop my initial ideas for this research journey, I decided fairly early on that I wanted to base my research and investigation in to a ‘structure’ where young people (acting as ‘agents’) progress from key stage 5 into some pathway of career development in the creative industries. In this sense, there are multiple ‘agents’ working across a number of different ‘fields’ of study. As I started the project, it was important for me to recognise and engage with a range of tangible, objective agencies, institutions and structures. For example, local media professionals who are looking for future employees and ways in which they can strengthen their workforce and business and who may be persuaded to engage in new ways of working with schools and students. I also needed to recognise the role that policy makers exerted as agents making an impact on structures. In other words, it was important to research current policy making decisions, aims, strategies, initiative and objectives which could be reconciled into understanding the context of my research – the aims and aspirations of current school students who had ambitions as future creative employees. Of which I will write more in another chapter specifically dealing the literature research that I have undertaken for this project.
Similarly, from an objective, realist approach I was looking to identify particular individuals within particular groups. So from within my teaching groups, I felt that there was always a small number of students who were interested in studying media as a way of developing a career route or professional pathway into the creative industry.
As such, although the individual may have a specific perspective and a set of individual and subjective needs, there is, I believe, an objective set of elements (which may at times display subtle differences), but which does nevertheless provide a clear and objective set of identifiable characteristics that could be apprehended, understood and positioned. The final aim is that a much more beneficial and productive structure of training and development could be put in place for the benefit of the ‘objectively identified’ community.
In other words, a set of clear practical approaches could be put in place to identify:
- whose needs are to be met,
- what strategies could be put in place and developed
- A set of measurements and tests could be implemented
- To provide a measurable outcome of success
A process which could be an on-going cycle of development.
So overall, it seems to me at this stage that I am looking to develop a framework that apprehends a range of social structures that are real and concrete and work within this set of realities to engage with the way in which individual social actors progress towards some objectively identifiable end point.
Located in a framework put forward by James Arthur, this is an ontology that works in an ‘external realist’ posture. It is reductionist and deterministic, very much assuming knowledge of ‘the way things are’. (Arthur, 2012). In terms of epistemology, the investigator and investigated ‘object’ are assumed to be independent entities; enquiry takes place as if in a one-way mirror, where the investigator does not influence or is influenced by the object and replicable findings are ‘true’. (Arthur, 2012)
However, as I came to understand over the course of my academic research, such an approach does not really fit into either the way I see the world (ontology) or the way in which I was trying to create meaning (epistemology) and actually although the framework above suggests a solid set of objective entities that could be measured at a distance, the concept of working with real people in a number of real environments, for example, school and work, did not lend itself to an external realist posture and actually required quite the opposite.
However, before going into more detail on this I think it may be worthwhile providing a brief outline of the different approaches characterised as ‘positivist’ and ‘anti-positivist’, as this seems to me to help to define the different approaches that could have been applied to my own study.
The following table from Burrell and Morgan presents contrasting positions as a schema for analysing assumptions about the nature of social science, including key concepts such as ontology, epistemology, methodology and human nature (taken from Burell and Morgan)
|SUBJECTIVIST APPROACH||OBJECTIVIST APPROACH|
|Nominalism||← Ontology →||Realism|
|Anti-Positivism||← Epistemology →||Positivism|
|Voluntarism||← Human Nature →||Determinism|
|Idiographic||← Methodology →||Nomothetic|
Among others, Beck (1979), draws on the work of Auguste Comte as a key thinker in developing the notion of positivism, which turns to observation and reason as a means of understanding behaviour. In other words, social phenomena could be understood in the same way as natural or scientific behaviour and phenomena, by observation and investigation together with the application of rules, ideas and formulas. The conclusion seems to be that knowledge can only be advanced by some means of experiment and conclusion. As such, positivist researchers are analysts and interpreters of social reality, generating laws, formulas and rules that may be applied and appointed with a degree of positive action unfolding for the benefit of knowledge, society and the individual.
However, critics of the positivist school would see a certain flaw in this approach. Namely, that studying blocks of objective reality as the basis of knowing and understanding belies and undermines the subjective differences that individual social moments contain. As human behaviour is so complex and diverse with so many subtle differences, the result is a multitude of physiological, societal, psycho-sociological, political, economic, cultural, ethnographic and other interpretations which could impact on both the method of research and the result. As Cohen expresses this dilemma – in reference to Nesfield-Cookson (1979):
The precise target of the anti-positivists’ attack has been science’s mechanistic and reductionist view of nature which by definition, defines life in measurable terms rather than inner experience, and excludes notions of choice, freedom, individuality and moral responsibility.
Critical terms often lobbied at the positivists are the dehumanising, depersonalising and alienating perspective that this theory takes up. As Roszak argues, ‘science in its pursuit of objectivity, is a form of alienation from our true selves and from nature.’ (cited in Cohen p14). Again support from Cohen suggests that, ‘the difficulty in which positivism finds itself is that it regards human behaviour as passive, essentially determined and controlled, thereby ignoring intention, individualism and freedom.’ (p15). Or as Habermas asserts more succinctly, ‘positivism is unable to answer many important and interesting areas of life.’ (Habermas, 1972, p. 300)
The tension between the individual social agent and the operating structure whereupon they weave is neatly summarised by Layder (1994) and helped to guide the theoretical underpinning for my own approach to research in that,
‘humans exercise agency – individual choice and intention – not necessarily in circumstances of their own choosing, but nevertheless they do not behave simply or deterministically like puppets.’
So for me this means that I am looking to explore the relationship between ‘agent’ and ‘structure’ and therefore need necessarily to engage with the individual subjective nature of the agent whilst recognising the objective reality of the those structured organisations: school, university, policy, funding, enterprise and employer and somehow seek to understand and reconcile these two conflicting conceptions into singularly useful methodological framework.
So was there anything already in place that I could use and build on for my own approach?
Again, Cohen is useful as a starting point for a new researcher, as he suggests that humanist psychologists present a model of people that is positive, active and purposeful, with an approach which can be recognised as idiographic as opposed to nomethetic. By probing at accounts of individual agents and their actions, humanist psychology endeavours to come up with an understanding of ‘what those persons were doing in that particular episode.’ (p17) This seems to be a useful approach to my own research in that I will be looking at accounts of individuals who are not currently satisfied with the current working relationship between the classroom and the workplace and are keen to look at a way of developing new forms of social interaction and social movement so that a more productive framework could be put in place that supported those students who were interested in developing a creative or media career pathway. Or, put another way, discovering agents and structure who were interested enough to develop both a better understanding of what is required and to attempt to implement new avenues of exploration and development.
From a theoretical perspective, a way forward could be found in the school of thought known as phenomenology.
Referring back to the position paper from The Journal of Applied Journalism and Media Studies (AJMS) academics such as Alfred Schütz, provide a good starting point, as his work bridged sociological and phenomenological traditions to form a social phenomenology, which is ‘the study of the formal structures of concrete social existence as made available in and through the analytical description of acts of intentional consciousness’. Accordingly, the object of such an analysis is the meaningful understanding lived world of everyday life: the Lebenswelt, or “Life-world”. Or as postulated in Cohen (citing English and English) ‘the study of direct experience taken at face value; and one which sees behaviour as determined by the phenomena of experience rather than by external, objective and physically described reality. (p. 18)
For the AJMS, media research and media theories need to be useful to the community and will have to be relevant to ‘the human activity which has created them’ (Schutz, 1964), which is something that echoed my own belief and approach during the early stages of research.
As such the task of phenomenological sociology, like that of every other phenomenological investigation, is to account for, or describe, the formal structures of the object of investigation in terms of subjectivity. To ensure this approach is distinguished from the “naive” subjective descriptions of the man in the street, or those of the traditional social scientist, is to see this process as developing a body of knowledge that relates empirical observations of phenomena, in a way that is consistent with fundamental theory, but is not directly derived from theory (though they may incorporate principles and laws associated with theories).
Cohen looks at variations within this approach and I felt that the theoretical framework known as symbolic interactionism, appeared to be most suited to the project that I was gradually developing. Drawing mainly on the work of Mead, although also associated with noted researchers such as Blumer, Goffman among others. The defining notion that seemed most appropriate to me is that:
Instead of focussing on the individual and his or her personality characteristics, or on how the social structure or social situation causes individual behaviour, symbolic interactionists direct their attentions at the nature of interaction, the dynamic activities taking place between people. In focussing on the interaction itself as a unit of study, the symbolic interactionist creates a more active image of the human being and rejects the image of the passive, determined organism. (p. 20)
Looking directly at the work of Mead (1962), symbolic interactionism proposes the idea that reacting, interacting, responding and developing as a consequence of our found environment is what makes us human. But more than this we are able to interpret, define and understand the relationship between ourselves as individuals and ‘the other’, which for Mead is the central mechanism of existence:
This mechanism enables the human being to make indication to himself of things in his surroundings and thus to guide his action by what he notes. . . The conscious life of the human being . . . is a continual flow of self-indications. (Mead, 1962, p. 180)
Accordingly, this is a constructivist point of view where ‘reality is not external to human existence but determined and defined through social interaction.’ (Howell K., 2013, p. 81) Thus symbolic interactionism identifies the process in which the individual and the community can be recognised in a symbiotic relationship of both ‘self’ and ‘other’. As Howell puts forward in an earlier work, ‘through language and structure we become a generalised other . . . we attain consciousness of self as generalised other’ (2000, p. 27)
Reflecting on this critically, would be to identify that ‘community and self are intrinsically linked and the distinction between self and the community difficult to ascertain.’ (Howell K. , 2013, p. 89). As such, there arises a key critical issue that faces any research project based upon this paradigm: as necessarily all statements produced will relate to the value of the community (think about the project that I am undertaking in a small community), so therefore all statements produced should be ‘treated with suspicion and continually doubted.’
Although, this may be limitation of process, for certain thinkers such as Gergen (1994), this ‘does not curtail knowledge development but leads toward greater democracy in thought and discussion and the enhancement of critique and reflection of the human condition’ (Howell K. , 2013, p. 93). In summary, this paradoxical framework reflects the significance of critical theory for this approach; providing that self-critical understanding and awareness may enable the transformation of objective reality and subjective understanding. According to Howell, ‘for constructivism, humanity alone is responsible for knowledge development and understanding is a matter of interpretive construction on the part of the active subject’ (ibid)
Similarly, Guba and Lincoln (1989) position the constructivist paradigm, as maintaining that realities are not ‘objectively’ out there but are constructed by people. They also highlight the position of the researcher who cannot act as an independent observer, but must necessarily become absolutely dependent for whatever existence they have (p. 13)
However, such an approach does raise a number of critical questions. For instance, such an approach develops a ‘relativist’ reduction of truth and knowledge, ‘reality is constructed so all constructions are true realities. Thus can given truth in one construction be truth for all?’ Further, truth can ‘only be realised for a given situation and not for another; consequently, it can be true and false simultaneously.’ (Howell K. , 2013, p. 90)
The work of Guba and Lincoln (1989) also considered the notion of axioms with regard to the constructivist paradigm, proposing that constructivist axioms involve ‘holistic, multiple realities’ with Howell commenting that multiple realities raise more questions than answers. In other words, only levels of understanding can be achieved, thus only limited possibilities of generalisation and outcome can be achieved. This is usually reinforced by research which is often time-bound and context-bound, favouring a hypothesis and approach of idiographic statements expressing individual experiences and understandings, as opposed to general nomothetic statements, which, it could be argued create a difficulty in distinguishing cause from effect across the working project. As my own research continued, this was a difficulty that was continually raised and the question was whether something was better than nothing? Whether a small scale, small community project could actually provide anything that was useful in terms of either theory or practice?
On the other hand, in rejecting accepted or normal interpretations, a constructivist approach recognises that the ‘mind is active in the construction of knowledge and knowing is interactive with data’ (Howell K. , 2013, p. 91) This approach is an inviting proposition for educational researchers, but does have some criticism, with limitations of inaccuracy, misleading information, less control and incomplete research and data. Similarly, the hermetic nature of study can sometimes neglect to take account of the bigger relationship that exists between ‘structure’ and ‘agency’, and therefore just as positivist theories can be criticised for their ‘macro-sociological persuasion, so interpretive and qualitative models can be criticised for their narrowly micro-sociological perspectives’ (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011, p. 21)
To try and draw some conclusions from this early enquiry would be to suggest that, to a greater extent, that I am starting to lean towards more naturalistic methods and away from a positivist interpretation. However, to continue to define a complex (and at times competing) framework of knowledge, philosophy and methodology, I would like to briefly outline some of the epistemological stances that underpin my research.
A clear distinction between methodology, epistemology and ontology is not an easy task to define in itself, let alone to define with regard to large and at times daunting doctoral enquiry. Thus, from a personal perspective I was always leaning towards the notion of critical theory as a starting point and foundation for my research, perhaps even only in the hope that this may the most relevant shroud of theory with which to clothe my skeletal research. I don’t want to embark on a history and development of Critical Theory, as this is not the purpose of this section, nevertheless, as Stephen Bonner writes:
Critical theory in its concept formation in all phases of its development very consciously makes its own that concern for the rational organisation of human activity which its task is to illuminate and legitimate. For this theory is not concerned only with goals already imposed by existing ways of life, but with men and all their potentials. (Bonner, 2011, p. 19)
From the founding figures of the Frankfurt School to Habermas, there seems to be a sense of scale that really aims high, ‘to clarify the changing conditions and preconditions for transformative action’ where ‘other forms of thought were seen as affirmative of the existing order in spite of their self-proclaimed neutrality and objectivity.’ (Bonner, p. 22) As such, I have always been inspired by the ‘Grand Task’ put forward by exponents of Critical Theory,
Bonner refers to Max Horkheimer’s essay ‘Materialism and Metaphysics’ (1933) for setting out the point where Critical Theory sought to make its claim, for instance, condemning Positivism and its offshoots for dismissing subjectivity and ethical concerns, while analysing society through criteria derived from the Natural Science and similarly also condemning Metaphysics for ignoring the philosophical relevance of the material world.
Whereas, Critical theory was intended as a general theory of society fuelled by the desire for liberation. Its practitioners understood that new social conditions would give rise to new ideas and new problems for radical practice – and that the character of the critical method would change along with the substance of emancipation. (2011, p. 24)
Drawing on the work of Theodore Adorno, specifically Minima Moralia (1951) and An Essay on Liberation by Herbert Marcuse (1972) Bonner suggests that the Frankfurt School were engaged in ‘redeeming the repressed potential with the lived life of the individual’ (2011, p. 29). Tantamount to such concerns was a Utopian discourse, ‘abolishing not merely social injustice but the psychological, cultural and anthropological sources of unhappiness’ (ibid).
As I mentioned earlier, there is grand scheme at play within the discourse of Critical theory that appears heroic and noble in its quest for transformation, liberty and freedom, that looks for the coordinates charting a path towards Utopian existence. The discussion of unhappiness, meaninglessness and isolation, reconciled with concepts such of alienation, reification, individuation, commodity fetishism, the disciplinary idiot and the division of labour, imbue contempt for current socio-political structures and an appetite for radical action and real change. As Bonner puts forward:
Modern life would increasingly privilege the use of expertise and narrowly circumscribed areas of responsibility with a hierarchical chain of command. The ability to grasp the whole would vanish; what the Germans call the disciplinary idiot would supplant the intellectual; and ethics would be relegated to a domain outside of science and political life. (2011, p. 42)
Grand themes. Grand ideas. But how does a small-town project called Creative Pathways fit into such a plan without a sense of hubris or ridicule? How can such a small idea reclaim individuality, creativity and solidarity against the great erosion of humanity? Before leaving Bonner’s articulation of Critical Theory, it might be worth highlighting some of the criticism of this approach as in many ways such shortcomings may be the starting point of minimising (before realising) my own project.
As Bonner notes, the assaults on system logic ‘carry a price’, threatening to ‘plunge critical theory into relativism’; it remains stuck in analytical concerns, with a central thesis that ‘remains defined by what it should oppose’ (2011, p. 33). In summary, Bonner writes:
The Frankfurt School originally saw itself articulating a new form of materialism infused with critical reflection, a capacity for fantasy and the prospect of resisting an increasingly bureaucratised world. But it became very less clear what practical purpose its speculative inquiries were meant to serve. The understanding of resistance grew increasingly vague. It was as if the real conflicts of interest, the real imbalances of power, were vanishing within a world totality defined by alienation and reification. (2011, p. 34)
So, could Creative Pathways be recognised with such a Grand Narrative? Could one drop of transformative action contribute to the bigger struggle without appearing trite, inconsequential, irrelevant or facetious?
The problem with attempting to use critical theory as a research paradigm is that ‘when we examine the works of members of the Frankfurt School, none claimed to have formulated a unified approach to social investigation and criticism’ (Howell K. , 2013, p. 75).
As already implied, ‘the aim . . . is to serve the emancipatory project’, (Alversson & Skoldberg, 2009, p. 144), a utopian premise, that without clarification remains resolutely and pragmatically difficult to apply. Similarly, Howell suggests that ‘Critical Theory is about hope in a cynical world’. It involves ‘ideas relating to empowerment of the people’ where ‘transformation [and] conscious emancipation is central’. Research is therefore not about ‘the accumulation of knowledge but political activity and social transformation’ (Howell, 2013, p. 81).
Therefore, if approached from another direction it may be easier to understand and apply critical theory in terms of a research paradigm, as a negative realisation. In other words, it may easier to identify what critical theory is not, than to easily frame up the new position that it puts forward?
As a starting point, it seems clear that thinkers from the Frankfurt school, such as Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse and Fromm rejected positivism. For example, Howell notes that when the Frankfurt School left Germany they were ‘shocked by the positivistic nature of research in the USA and how this form of research was taken for granted in the social sciences’ (2013, p. 76) to the extent that they were responsible for challenging the notion of the ‘objective observer’ challenging and disputing also the ‘specific methodological rules for acquiring knowledge’ (Alversson & Skoldberg, 2009, p. 145).
Having worked through the devastation of the First World War and now working under the rise of National Socialism in Germany the Frankfurt School appeared to have questioned the result of the Enlightenment project. As Eric Fromm (1997) wrote, ‘Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself’ (p. 3) but men now ‘pay for the increase of their power with alienation from that which they exercise their power’ (p. 9).
Here then we identify the way thinkers of the Frankfurt School developed a critical theory that engages with (and as such questions) established ideas of the Enlightenment project, with the result that we now question notions that ‘human beings determine their own destinies’ which gives an impetus to social research, (Howell, 2013, p. 97). Indeed, through the lens of critical research there is the implication that this ‘has removed both spiritual and rational guidance and rendered nature an objective entity external to human existence’. (ibid).
As Howell (2013) puts forward, a central and generalised perspective of critical theory is the idea that such an approach engenders and empowers critical beings who can then question the status quo. Accordingly, therefore, a main idea of critical theory was to formulate a social theory based on a range of philosophical positions and empirical theory, which as Max Horkheimer (1972) considered as a research programme should absolve the opposition between the individual and social structures and should embrace the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity.
In this sense, critical theory is a philosophical approach that can be clearly identified as political. Indeed, Adorno and Horkheimer (1997) considered the paradigm of inquiry was about connecting critical theory with everyday life in the interest of abolishing social injustice. Thus ‘research is not about the accumulation of knowledge but political activity and social transformation’ (Howell, 2013, p. 81)
In summary, Howell (2013) summarises this position as one where ruling elites should be challenged, where a greater equality and liberty should be sought. An approach that makes an attempt to expose positions of power between institutions, groups and individuals, that identifies the rules and regulations and norms that prevent people from taking control of their own lives, and the means by which they are eliminated from decision making and be consequently controlled.
Once again: big ideas for a small project. So that once more the same question presents itself to me: how do I reconcile such big thinking to such small work?
In the 1960’s Jurgen Habermas raised an epistemological discussion around critical theory which was based on principles of self-reflection and emancipation, which indicates that reflexivity is a central mechanism for critical theory, for instance, the ‘realisation that the dominant culture is not a natural state of affairs’ which is perhaps only ‘revealed through interaction between the researcher and researched.’ (p. 81) John Dryseck in his essay Critical Theory as a research paradigm (1995) interpreted and developed this notion further, suggesting that as a research paradigm, critical theory can be applied by subordinating control and understanding in favour of emancipation and liberation. Specifically, within a research project such as my own, this means that a social science approach should understand:
the ideologically distorted subjective situation of some individual or group . . . explore the forces that have caused that situation of some individual or group . . . explore the forces that have caused that situation and . . . show that these forces can be overcome through awareness (Dryseck, 1995)
Consequently, as Howell (2013) notes, critical theory involves reflective action, specifically the ‘reflective action of those individuals and groups involved in the research programme’ (p. 83). Continuing with a critical distance between current research demands and the limitations of positivism, Habermas identified the main difficulties of positivism and a possible solution whereby, instead of ‘controlled observation . . . there arises participatory relation of the understanding subject to the subject confronting him.’
It is a paradigm, according to Habermas where it is no longer ‘the observation but the dialogue – a communication in which the understanding subject must invest part of his subjectivity’ (2004, pp. 10-11). In the same work Habermas seeks for a theory of the social sciences applicable for social systems, as distinct from machines or systems, one that reflects subjective tendencies and takes into account ‘the relationship of inter-subjectivity and the relation between ego and group identity’ (p. 13). Similarly, referring to Schutz (1964) the Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies (AJMS), prioritises media research and media theories which need to be useful to the community and will have to be relevant to the human activity which has created them. In other words, the task of phenomenological sociologist, like that of every other phenomenological investigation, is to account for, or describe, the formal structures of the object of investigation in terms of subjectivity.
In summary, it is therefore possible to understand a general perspective of critical theory as approach towards social science research which constructs an ontology where reality is shaped through social and historical processes and may be defined as ‘historical realism’.
Howell (2013) supports this idea and goes on to position the epistemological aspect of the critical theory paradigm which considers that findings and theoretical perspectives are discovered because the investigator and the investigated are intrinsically linked through historical values, which must influence the inquiry. As such, this leads to a specific methodology, which he identifies as dialogic and dialectical in approach. In this methodology ‘structures are changeable and actions affect change’ and theory is changeable and developed in an interaction between researcher and researched, where ‘historical values influence the analysis’. (p. 81)
Epistemologically this links to the theory of ‘constructivism’, where (as suggested previously) research results and thus reality is locally constructed and based on shared experiences and consensus, including those of the investigator. As Howell suggests: ‘theory in this paradigm is relative and changeable, reliability and prediction almost impossible and cause and effect difficult to identify’ (2013, p. 88). Or, as Navon writes, ‘for constructivists the mind creates reality and claims that facts are produced by human consciousness’ (2001, p. 624). Similarly, Greene (2000) underlines the notion that constructivists seek to understand contextualised meaning, recognising the meaningfulness of human actions and interactions, as experienced and construed in a given context.
Echoing the sentiment of Max Horkheimer, Howell suggests that ‘both subjective and objective elements exist and a participative process develops reality’, consequently the methodological position involves ‘collaboration and action with everyday existence’, indeed, ‘the participatory paradigm relies heavily on action research’ (2013, pp. 88-89). Early pioneers of action research, such as Lewin (1946) argued an action research experiment must express theory in such a way that the results of the experiment can be fed directly back to the theory, as well as the proposition that theory can be directly expressed in action.
Action research is sometimes called ‘practitioner based research’ and according to Cohen, can be seen as a ‘powerful tool for change and improvement at the local level,’ where some change or feature will result in a beneficial and improved outcome or goal (p. 344). As Ferrance argues action based research is a positive course of action for teachers and is often ‘addressed towards a problem that they have encountered themselves’ and that the research becomes more effective when they are encouraged to examine and assess their own work and then consider ways of working differently. (Ferrance, 2000). Both of which have resonance with my position and seem to be an attractive model to structure this research project.
Defining action research further would be to suggest a combination of action and research which renders the action a form of disciplined, rigorous enquiry, in which a personal attempt is made to understand, improve and reform practice. (Hopkins, 1985). Overall, the aim is to improve practice and as such there is a reflective and reflexive element to this particular approach. As I will establish there is an approach that revolves around action, diagnosis and reflection so that at each stage of the cycle the researcher is encouraged to not only reflect on their own development and practice, but also to become part of the process of development.
In simple terms this means that the researchers are also participants and practitioners in action research – they are part of the social world that they are studying. In other words, ‘reflexivity is an integral element and epistemological basis of emancipatory action research’ (Hall, 1996) As such, there is a self-consciousness and awareness of being part of a project, which has as much involvement from me as those that the project is hopefully going to be set up for. It may be therefore necessary to track and monitor the effect of a participant-as-researcher-and-practitioner, as clearly there is a personal involvement in terms of perceptions, feelings, emotions, actions, opinions, which Tricia Le Gallais explored in her own research paper from 2008 (Wherever I go there I am: reflections on reflexivity and the research stance)
Nevertheless, the key focus of action research is that it is concerned ‘equally with changing individuals, on the one hand and, on the other, the culture of the groups, institutions and societies to which they belong.’ (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1992, p. 16). From this perspective it is possible to position and understand action research from within the critical school of thinking as first developed by the writers of the Frankfurt School and developed subsequently by other academics including Jürgen Habermas.
As Cohen notes, it is possible to locate ‘action research in the German tradition squarely as ‘critical social science’ – ‘a hermeneutic activity of understanding and interpreting social situations with a view to improving them’. As such, this approach rejects positivistic views of rationality, objectivity, truth and methodology, preferring hermeneutic understanding and emancipatory practice. (p. 349)
To position the methodological approach within a recognised academic and philosophical approach would be to see this kind of research as ideographic, dialectical, hermeneutical. In terms of the framework presented by Arthur, such an approach recognises the ‘variable and personal nature of social constructions’ and suggests that ‘individual constructions can be elicited and refined only through interaction between and among investigator(s) and respondent(s)’.
Conventional hermeneutical techniques are used in interpretations and compared and contrasted through a dialectical interchange. It is not a matter of eliminating conflicting or previous interpretations, but to distil a more sophisticated & informed consensus construction. (Arthur, 2012)
Cohen also notes that such an approach is a ‘praxis-based act’, noting with reference to Habermas that action research ‘empowers individuals and social groups to take control over their lives within a framework of the promotion, rather than the suppression of generalizable interests (Legitimation Crisis, 1976). Indeed, ‘empowerment’ appears to be a key term in this type of research, but could easily be open to criticism – too utopian and ‘unrealisable’.
A key schematic characteristic of an action research approach is the adoption of an ongoing, cyclical process that allows action to feedback into theory, which improves and develops the framework of action. This cyclical notion of research and action is characterised by a number of models, of which the following have been useful in developing my own approach, specifically the 5 point action model by Greenwood and Levin (2000) and the full action research cycle by Tripp (2003). I have also been influenced by the “flow of fourth generation evaluation” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) and the short works by Ferrance (2000) and Hopkins (1985) who have also contributed useful written documents to this topic.
From a historical perspective, it was Schön (1995) who advocated that it was time for a new scholarship, a new way of knowing that meets the everyday needs of people working in real-life situations. The new scholarship suggested action research as a form of practical theorising (in action) appropriate to all professional practice including education. As Schön (1995, p. 31) suggests, “if teaching is to be seen as a form of scholarship, then the practice must be seen as giving rise to new forms of knowledge” and further,
If community outreach is to be seen as a form of scholarship, then it is the practice of reaching out and providing service to a community that must be seen as raising important issues whose investigation may lead to generalisation of prospective relevance and actionability. (ibid)
As McNiff (2000, p. 2). expands such propositions are ‘rooted in the unarticulated tacit knowing of practitioners as they try to make sense of their lives.’ McNiff recognises that such practical theorising is not yet highly valued by the academy and the theory-practice gap remains, suggesting that research from traditional organisation studies and practice is “far removed from the worlds of real-life practice which are, to use Schön”s language, messy, uncontrolled and unpredictable” (ibid). This raises the paradigm of the teacher-researcher of which Pring (2015) among others: (Stenhouse, 1975; Hargreaves 1996; Elliot, 1991; Putnam and Borko, 2000) have commented upon, highlighting the importance of the teacher as researcher. Indeed, Pring (2015, p. 158) states that such practice is “crucial to the growth of professional knowledge”. Pring argues for a greater recognition of professional judgement developed from classroom, practitioner based research which could usefully contribute towards an understanding of professional activity, which in turn could shed significant light on other, similarly conceived situations. It holds a social political position that echoes critical theory, one of emancipation, change, reflexivity and calling into question the normative values of the status quo.
This standpoint serves to underline the importance and significance of the teacher-as-researcher perspective and the importance of “situated cognition” (Putnam & Borko, 2000), a concept which recognises the value of those who know what they do, but want to reflect on what they do, for the better and for change. It is a contribution to the research community, that uses a focus on an improvement in practice to a growth of knowledge, even if this is “context bound, tentative, provisional and constantly open to improvement” (Pring, 2015, p. 157). As McNiff (2000, p. 4) points out action research “is undertaken by people who want to improve their understanding of their practice in order to improve their dealings with others in social situations.”
The field of action research is therefore able to cover a wide range of different disciplines, for example, the experiential learning movement (Kolb, 1984) action learning (Revans, 1982) & (Marsick & O’ Neil, 1999), Participatory Research (Park, 1999), Action Science (Putman, 1999), Action Inquiry (Torbet, 1999), and Co-operative inquiry (Reason, 1999). As such, it is clear that action research lends itself to the teacher-researcher paradigm, as Pring puts forward this is a new approach to scholarship where action research can be contrasted with theoretical research:
It aims not to produce new knowledge but to improve practice . . . the conclusion is not a set of propositions but a practice or a set of transactions or activities which is not true or false but better or worse. It is “situated cognition”. By contrast with the conclusion of research, as that is normally conceived, action research focusses on the particular, thereby not justifying generalisation, no one situation is unique in every respect and therefore research in one classroom or school can illuminate or be suggestive of practice elsewhere. (2015, p. 153)
In simple terms this means that the researchers are also participants and practitioners in action research – they are part of the social world that they are studying. As such, there is a self-consciousness and awareness, of being part of a project, in which the researcher is “constantly adjusting to unforeseen circumstances, responding to the levels of understanding of the learners [and] trying new approaches” (Pring, 2015, p. 143)
McNiff (2000), breaks this process down and recognises three separate action research paradigms:
- Critical theoretic social science
- Empirical research
- Interpretative research
Of which the latter – interpretative research – forms the basis for my own enquiry. As McNiff (2000). sets out this approach encourages practitioners to undertake their action enquiries into their workplace practice, acting perhaps as coaches, who are “often positioned as field tutors, managers, consultants or academic supervisors. The aim of these supporters is to observe, describe and explain the research of those whom they are supporting or otherwise monitoring.” (2000, p. 201) It can therefore be established that contemporary forms of action research place great importance on collaboration between all those involved in the inquiry project, aiming to help the individual practitioners develop skills of reflective practice and organisation as well as helping community members develop a culture of open inquiry as part of their work life.
|Fig 1 cog / gear system, whereby one iteration informs the next Invalid source specified.|
A more realistic criterion for this methodology is that it leads to successively better understanding and in order to carry out such an inquiry, a process must be instituted that first iterates the variety of constructions (the sense-makings) that already exist, then analyses those constructions to make their elements plain and communicable to others, solicits critiques for each construction from the holders of others, reiterates the constructions in light of new information or new levels of sophistication that may have been introduced, reanalyses, and so on to consensus – or as close to consensus as one can manage (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) (Greenwood & Levin, 1998) (Bryman A. , 2012)
Indeed, Habermas (1976) notes in his book Legitimation Crisis that action research empowers individuals and social groups to take control over their lives within a framework of the promotion, rather than the suppression of generalizable interests. Indeed, ‘empowerment’ appears to be a key term in this type of research, but could easily be open to criticism, as being too utopian and ‘unrealisable’. I also recognise that such an approach could be seen as grandiose and fey for such a small scale initiative as a parochial media work placement scheme, however, I hope I have established that this framework is the most appropriate academic foundation for my research and I would argue that change for the better is not based on a league table of scale, size or impact, but rather that if change for the better can be identified at an intellectual level and apprehended, encoded and implemented at a practical level, then change is emancipatory, worthy and worthwhile.
Morgan, H. (2014, November 21). Guidelines for Writing a literature review. Retrieved July 25, 2015, from http://www.duluth.umn.edu/~hrallis/guides/researching/litreview.html
Ashton, D. (2011). Media work and he creative industries: Identity, work, professionalism and employability. Education and Training, 53(6), 546-560.
Banks, J., & M, D. (2009). Co-Creative labour. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(5), 419-431.
McCash, P. (2008). Career Studies Handbook: Career Development Learning in Practice,. Manchester: Higher Education Careers Services Unit and the Higher Education Academy, .
Ball, L., Pollard, E., & Stanley, N. (2010). Creative Career Stories, Creative Graduates, Creative Futures. Brighton: Higher Education Partnership and the Institute for Employment Studies.
(2015). Education Business Plan. Education. Jersey, Channel Islands: States of Jersey. Retrieved from http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/BP%20Education%2020150513%20PH.pdf
Roberts, P. (2006). Nurturing Creativity in Young People: A report to Government to inform future policy. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Ball. (n.d.). Creating Growth: A Blueprint for the Creative Industries. London: Confederation of British Industry,.
Howkins, J. (2001). The Creative Economy: How People make money from ideas. Penguin Press.
Force, Creative Industries Task. (2001). Creative Industries Task Force mapping document. Sport, Education and Culture. London: UK Government. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183544/2001part1-foreword2001.pdf
Cunningham, S. (2002). From Cultural to Creative Industries: Theory Industry and Policy Implications. Media International Australia incorporating culture and policy: quarterly journal of media research and resources 102, 54-65.
Schlesinger, P. (2009). Creativity and the Experts: New Labour, Think Tanks adn the Policy Process. International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(1), 3-20.
Smith, C. (1998). Creative Britain. London: Faber & Faber.
Banks, M., & Hesmondhalgh, D. (2009). Looking for work in creative industries policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 415-430.
Communian, R., Faggian, A., & Jewell, S. (2011). Winning and Losing in the Creative Industries: an analysis of graduates’ career opportunities across creative disciplines. Cultural Trends, 291-308.
Banks, M., & Connor, J. (2009). After the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 343-359.
DCMS. (1998). Creative Industries Mapping Document. London: UK Government.
Knell, J., & K, O. (2007). London’s creative economy: An accidental success? London: The Work Foundation.
Taylor, C. (2006). Beyond Advocacy: Developing an evidence base for regional creative industry strategies. Cultural Trends, 3-18.
Work Foundation. (2007). Staying ahead: the economic performance of the UK’s creative industries. London: Work Foundation.
Hauser, A. (1999). The Social History of Art. London: Routledge and Paul Kegan.
Hirsch, P. (1972). Processing fads and fashions: an organisation set analysis of culture industry systems. American Journal of Sociology, 639-659.
Garnham, N. (2005). From Cultural to Creative industries: an analysis of the implications of the ‘creative industries’ approach to arts and media policy making in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15-29.
Creative and Cultural Skills. (2004). Britain’s Creativity Challenge. London: Creative and Cultural Skills.
Nixon, S., & B, C. (2004). Pleasure at Work? Gender, consumption and work based identities in the creative industries. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 129-147.
McRobbie, A. (2002). Clubs to Companies: notes on the decline of political culture in speeded up creative worlds. Cultural Studies, 516-531.
Neilson, B., & Rossiter, N. (2005). From Precarity to Precariousness and Back Again: Labour, Life and Unstable Networks. Retrieved August 9, 2015, from The Fibreculture Journal: http://journal.fibreculture.org/
DCMS. (2008 ). Creative Britain: new talents for the new economy. London: DCMS.
McDougall, J., & Livingstone, S. (2014). Media and Information Literacy Policies in the UK. London: EU/COST: Transforming Audiences Project.
Habermas, J. (1993). Modernity: an incomplete project. In T. (. Docherty, Postmodernism: A reader. London: Wheatsheaf.
Livingston, I., & Hope, A. (2011). Next gen report. Nesta. Retrieved from https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/next_gen_wv.pdf
DCMS. (2011). The Government’s Response to the Next Gen. London: HM Gov. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/77596/Govt-Resp_NextGen_Cm-8226.pdf
A Manifesto for Media Education. (2012, June 10). Why a Manifesto? Retrieved August 10, 2015, from A Manifesto for Media Education: http://www.manifestoformediaeducation.co.uk/why-a-manifesto/
Richmond, H., & Sanders, D. (2014). Mickey Mouse learning: discourses of the vocational/technical in higher education.
Lovett, S. (2014, December 14). Is a degree in the humanities no longer appreciated? Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/student/istudents/is-a-degree-in-the-humanities-no-longer-appreciated-9918847.html
Skillset. (Annual Report 2012-13). Skillset A year in focus.
Hutchinson, D. (2014, December 24). Education Secretary Nicky Morgan: Arts subjects limit career choices. Retrieved from The Stage News: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2014/11/education-secretary-nicky-morgan-arts-subjects-limit-career-choices/
Postlethwaite, T. N. (2005). Educational research: some basic concepts and terminology. University of Hamburg: UNESCO.
Gallais, T. L. (2008). Wherever I go ther I am: reflections on reflexivity and the research stance. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 9:2, 145-155.
Unsworth, D. (2014). Apprenticeships in the Film Industry: An ethical analysis. West London Business School: University of West London.
Mason, R. (2013, October 24). Former Education Secretary Lord Baker attacks Michael Gove. Retrieved from Guardian News Politics Education Policy: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/24/kenneth-baker-attacks-michael-gove
Krancberg, S. (1994). A Soviet Postmortem: Philoshophical Roots of the ‘Grand Failure’. Rowman and Littlefield.
Wikipedia Praxis. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis_%28process%29
Whitmore, P. G. (2009, January). A new mindset for a new mind. American Society for Training and Development, pp. 61-65.
Pyle, W. H. (1924, Volume 31 (4)). A theory of Learning. Psychology Review, pp. 321-327.
Nixon, G. M. (2012, Volume 5 Issue 15). You are not your brain: Against teaching to the brain. Review of Higher Education and Learning, pp. 69-83.
Noe, A. (2009). Out of our heads: why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. Hill & Wang.
Ginnis, P. (n.d.). Ginnis Training. Retrieved from http://www.ginnis.eu/
Weatherley, C. (2005, November 25). Time to channel critical skills. Retrieved from TES education: https://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2169655
Abbot, J. (n.d.). To be intelligent. 21st Century Learning Initiative.
Cskszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper Perennial.
Dall’Alba, G., & Barnacle, R. (2007, December Volume 32, No 6). An ontological turn for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, pp. 679-691.
Heidegger, M. (1998/1967). Plato’s Doctrine of Truth. In W. McNeill, Pathmarks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ball, S. J. (1995, September Vol 23, no 3). Intellectuals or Technicians? The Urgent role of theory in educational studies. British Journal of Educational Studies, pp. 255-271.
Angus, L. (1993). The Sociology of School Effectiveness. British Journal of Sociology fo Education, pp. 333-345.
Robinson, S. K. (2006). How Schools Kill Creativity. TED Lecture Series. http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity/transcript?language=en.
Robinson, S. K. (1999). All our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. London: National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education.
Tony Blair: the celebrities who added glamour to Labour. (2010, September 01). Retrieved from Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/7975344/Tony-Blair-the-celebrities-who-added-glamour-to-Labour.html
Aronica, K. R. (2013). Finding Your Element: How to Discover Your Talents and Passions and Transform Your Life. Penguin.
Robinson, K. (2009, June 16). ABC 7:30 Report. ‘Education Systems are too narrow’. (K. O’Brien, Interviewer) ABC. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2600125.htm
Flew, T. (2012). Creative Industries: Culture and Policy. Sage.
Wright. (2009). After the Crunch.
Duhamel, R. (2015, March 13). Education must learn. Jersey Evening Post.
Council of Ministers. (n.d.). Proposed Strategic Priorities 2015-2018. Retrieved March 8, 2015, from http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/default.aspx: http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyReports/2015/R.8-2015.pdf
Ibrahim, L. B. (2013, May). Towards a praxis-based media research. Journal of Applied Journalism and Media Studies, 2(1), 3-18.
Saleh, I., & Barkho, R. (2013). Towards a praxis-based media research. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 2(1), 3-18. doi:10.1386/ajms.2.1.3_1
Pring, R. (2015). Philosophy of Educational Research 3r Edition. London: Bloomsbury.
FOI request from States of Jersey. (2015, September). 202-03-76207. States of Jersey.
Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing relationships between university societies. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln, Fourth Generation Evaluation (pp. 85-106). London : SAGE.
Tripp, D. (2003, February). Action Inquiry. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from Action research e-reports 017: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13568/20030320-0000/www2.fhs.usyd.edu.au/arow/arer/017.htm#Action Inquiry
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Evaluation, Fourth Generation. London: SAGE.
Ferrance, E. (2000). Action Research. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from Brown University: http://www.brown.edu/academics/education-alliance/sites/brown.edu.academics.education-alliance/files/publications/act_research.pdf
Hopkins, D. (1985). A teachers guide to classroom research. Milton Keynes: OUP.
Schön, D. (1995, November-December). Knowing-in-action: the new scholarship requires new epistemology. Change.
McNiff, J. (2000). Action Research in Organisations. Oxon: Routledge.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge adn thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1).
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development. . London: Prentice Hall.
Revans, R. W. (1982). The Origin and Growth of Action Learning. . London: Cartwell Bratt.
Marsick, V. J., & O’ Neil, J. (1999). The Many Faces of Action Learning. Management Learning Special Issue: The Action Dimension in Management: Diverse Approaches to Research, Teaching and Development, 30(2), pp. 159-176.
Park, P. (1999). People, Knowledge and Change in Participatory Research. Management Learning Special Issue The Action Dimension in Management: Diverse Approaches to Research, Teaching and Development, 30(2), pp. 141-158.
Putman, R. (1999). Transforming Social Practice: An Action Science Perspective. Management Learning Special Issue: The Action Dimension in Management: Diverse Approaches to Research, Teaching and Development, 30(2), pp. 177-188.
Torbet, W. R. (1999). The Distinctive Questions Development Action Inquiry Asks. Management Learning Special Issue: The Action Dimension in Management: Diverse Approaches to Research, Teaching and Development, 30(2), pp. 189-206.
Reason, P. (1999). Integrating Action and Reflection through Co-operation Inquiry. Management Learning Special Issue: The Action Dimension in Management: Diverse Approaches to Research, Teaching and Development, 30(2), pp. 207-227.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Munn-Giddings, C. (2012). Action Research. In J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe, & L. Hedges, Research Methods adn Methodologies in Education (pp. 71-75). London: Sage.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Oxford: OUP.
Tripp, D. (2003, February). Action research e-reports 017. Retrieved from Tripp, D. (2003, February). Action Inquiry. Rehttp://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13568/20030320-0000/www2.fhs.usyd.edu.au/arow/arer/017.htm#Action Inquiry
Gibbs, G. R. (2012). Software and Qualitative Data Analysis. In J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe, & L. Hedges, Research Methods and Methodologies in Education (pp. 251-258). London: Sage.
Kemmis, & McTaggart. (1992). The Action Research Planner. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Arthur, J. (2012). Research Methods & Methodologies in Education. London: Sage.
Masterman, L. (1985). Teaching the Media. London: Comedia Press.
Consortium for Media Literacy. (2013, March). Connections / Media Lit Moments. Retrieved from Connections: http://www.medialit.org/sites/default/files/connections/len%20masterman%20and%20the%20big%20ideas%20of%20media%20literacy.pdf
Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies. Paris: Editions de Seuil.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. NY / London: Continuum.
Ashton, D. (2011). Media work and the creative industries: Identity, work, professionalism and employability. Education and Training, 53(6), 546-560.
Morozov, E. (2017, December Sunday). The Digital Hippies want to integrate life and work – but not in a good way. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/03/digital-hippies-integrate-life-and-work-wework-data-firms?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other