“The tasks
in this section have been developed to encourage you to take ownership of your critical thinking process.
Questions are a way of looking at practice in a new way and identifying issues from your
professional context that are meaningful to you.”
I noticed
upon observation that tasks are not being discussed or set out categorically
like the first module handbook but the above quote supports the aforementioned
in that the programme is nurturing a more independent behaviour as a developing
professional. The idea is strengthened by the fourth reader when it mentions
that it “is not meant to tell you precisely what to research” and that it
“introduces a number of relevant, but not exclusive, concepts that might help
to frame the structures and processes for your practitioner research.” (Reader
4, 2015) This means that values and ideas can be exchanged between myself and
other BAPP peers but in the context of our individual or similar subjects for
inquiry.
Although I
one day see myself transitioning to the more stable and grounded environment
that comes with teaching, for the moment I work with a number of seemingly
individual but unmistakably synonymous organisations in helping to carry out my
professional practice as discovered whilst studying the concept of networking
during module one (see an earlier post to find a diagram identifying my current
modes of networking). If I can identify their presence and interaction between
one another, the above diagram (Reader 4, 2015) presents a fashion in which
they can be divided and some even melded together to form two separate factions
for simplified network correspondence in planning my professional inquiry. It
works like a trickle-down system in that two different networks (in this case
the BAPP community and that of the workplace) receive an aspect of inquiry from
myself with the hope the two networks can cast some similar or contrasting
views that then feedback up to myself for consideration before the process
begins anew and continues in this manner. Judi Marshall, renowned for her involvement
in developing self-reflective and action-oriented form of inquiry compliments
and builds upon practitioner’s work into reflective practice that has come
before. She has referred to her way of thinking as ‘self-reflective inquiry’.
“Some of this approach derives from
my belief that much research is partly personal process… In this integrated
life, in which research is not separate or bounded, I must hold an
attitude of continuing inquiry, as I seek to live with integrity, believing in
multiple perspectives rather than on truth, holding visions of a more equal
world and hoping to contribute to that practically, not separating off academic
knowing from the rest of my activity.”
Ironically,
it is hard to think about being conclusive in an academic environment (such as
BAPP) when discussing an ongoing development within professional activity. Even
after the course has finished, I will be discovering new aspects to my
professional practice given that I actively remain inquisitive to my
surroundings, inside and outside the professional sphere. Marshall mentions,
however, that a background of “academic knowing” (1999) should not be neglected
whilst accumulating these new findings. Marshall’s findings were partly
influenced by earlier research as performed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schön. Argyris and Schön, who were further influenced by the likes of
Kurt Lewin, John Dewey and other reflective practitioners, explored the idea of
‘theories in use’ and ‘double-loop learning’. They suggested that if a single-loop
learning cycle, similar to that of David Kolb’s (1984) cycle, cannot bring
about a successful alteration within the professional workplace, it may be
right to look beyond organisational learning.
Argyris (1985) further defined the concept
of theories in use into two separate methods of engagement known as ‘Model I’
and ‘Model II’. Model I essentially deals with self, not accounting for other
persons or the prospect of a shift in the environment surrounding them. Argysis
categorises characteristics of a subject operating in this manner. These
include a desire to win and not lose, suppress negative feelings, emphasise
rationality, treat ones’ own views as obviously correct. The repercussions of
this thinking are severely damaging to inquiry leading to low freedom of
choice, defensive relationships and reduced production of valid information.
Argysis aims to encourage attributes for practice as found within the
“governing values” of Model II. These include an openness to choice, sharing of
information and participation with others as well as an acceptance of
self-conflicting and surrounding ideals with an interest for investigation and
pursuing a balanced argument. This latter model is the product of the
individual employing double-loop learning.
My research into the aforementioned
practitioner’s is prompting and reaffirming my view and I feel it will only
serve to grow stronger; that the work of an actor and the concepts as found
thus far on the BAPP course are fascinatingly intertwined. Arygsis sought
broadly to eliminate self-consciousness in the individual, a bold task that has
been shared with many acting practitioner’s over the years. Declan Donnellan
(2001) uses an analogy that similarly describes the need for change as Argyris
presented.
“Imagine
you are hungry and have no food in your flat. It doesn’t matter how often you
search the fridge: it will remain empty. The only place to get food is outside.
If you stay in, you’ll starve, no matter how often you rummage round the wire
racks. For the actor, ‘seeing’ is like going outside. It seems so safe at home,
it seems so frightening on the streets, but this is a delusion.
It
is not safe at home; it is only safe on the streets. Don’t go home.”
The excerpt from the text is of course
written and intended for developing actors but it shares parallels in breaking
the conventions of organisational learning. It is the correlation between these
ideas, moving away from familiar and comfortable activities focusing on self to
look beyond and trust that the individual’s surroundings can in fact provide
answer. Environment and its effect on the professional workplace is a topic that
seems to be becoming something of a fascination for myself, particularly after looking
back at task 2d from the last module. That said, the series of prospective
questions for inquiry found below feature some unchanged, unrelated topics and
others that I have thought about since. I have provided some with sub-questions
with an aim to provoke more tailored thought. I have decided to proffer all
existing findings in order to refrain from pigeon-holing or blocking any other possibilities
for investigation before giving them consideration, not only by myself but from
peers also. It is also an opportunity to employ Argysis’ ‘model’ theory.
Can the arts industry ever return to or accommodate for the demand in today’s current climate? Is performing arts becoming exclusive to those of the higher class?
·
Does this affect the type of practice/work
and performance that is produced?
In comparison to dancing and singing, what makes acting as
an art form subjective?
Why is there
so much conflict of ideals within performance (with particular regards to acting)
when theorists of reflective practice seem to acknowledge one another?
·
Does this qualify an argument for art against education?
·
Can any examples of a crossover between ideologies be proven?
·
How does this translate
within the context of the professional workplace?
·
Does vocational training,
formal public/syllabus education or self-acquired skills from separate practitioners
within a single company affect collaboration?
I understand that my communities of
practice are ever changing and collating information within my personal
professional field will prove difficult compared to practitioners who work
within the more confined parameters of a school, for example. Projects I have
worked on of recent have lasted no longer than four or so weeks and although
networking has taken place via social media platforms such as Facebook, it is
sometimes difficult to create and sustain a steady stream of communication,
especially due to the freelance nature of performance work. I have, however,
taken the task’s guideline into consideration and realised I have a number of
other arts practitioners who exist outside my immediate performer community at
my disposal, such as musicians. It can be noticed that I have drafted my
developing questions without detailing particular areas within professional
practice. My hope is that this leaves responses open to interpretation,
potentially leading to a set of differing results than originally predicted due
to the various types of practitioners who have drawn upon their own
experiences. This can only serve as a positive for my developing line of
inquiry before I begin honing in on a particular area. Until then please feel
free to comment on any of my prospective lines of inquiry you have seen above,
whether you can relate to them in any way and ultimately if you feel they are
worth pursuing moving forward.
Bibliography
Donnellan, D
(2001) The actor and the target, 2002
re-print, London: Nick Hern Books.
Marshall, J,
1999, “Living life as inquiry” Systematic
Practice and Action Research 12 (2), pp. 115-171 [online] Available at: http://www.jmarshall.org.uk/papers.htm
[Accessed 19 October. 2015]
Middlesex
University, Module 2 Handbook, 2015
Middlesex
University, Module 2 Reader 4, 2015
Smith, M, K,
2001, 2013 “Chris Argysis: theories of action, double-loop learning and
organizational learning”, the encyclopedia
of informal education [online] Available at: http://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyris-theories-of-action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning/#_Single-loop_and_double-loop [Accessed 19 October. 2015]
No comments:
Post a Comment