Hickman, Richard (Ed.) (2008). Research in Art & Design Education: Issues and Exemplars. Reviewed by Janine Johnson, Auckland University of Technology

Hickman, Richard (Ed.) (2008). Research in Art & Design Education: Issues and Exemplars. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books, The Mill Pp. 206         ISBN 978-1-84150-199-4 Reviewed by Janine Johnson August 7, 2009 Research in Art & Design Educationis fifth in a series of anthologies surveying a range of issues in art and design education. My review considers how the text opens components of the research project for discussion. Project management is currently my more frequent frame of reference versus a more academic perspective. With this caveat, my “way into” this text was to consider its strength as a research skills development tool versus a primer on art and design education research methodologies. As a research project-planning tool, I’ll discuss how the articles position audience roles, definition of baselines, feasibility, success metrics and sustainability of interventions to develop rigor formalizing a methodology and planning the research project. Richard Hickman’s editing focuses possibilities for making explicit better research methods for art and design and raises questions about how to indicate sustainable art program changes and art production worthy of funding. The authors demonstrate how to open up investigation of the constituent parts of a research methodology to a more rigorous investigation of research methodology interventions. This text surveys three areas of concern: types of different research methodologies, perspectives on possible approaches and how to improve research methods for art and design. The issues of these exemplars fall within the chasm between research and program evaluation. Research applies data from constituent parts of research methodology in order to develop theory and inform practice. Sustaining these theories to inform practice implies a quest for sustainable results. This means research planning must consider discussion stakeholders, the choice and feasibility of interventions (or means to an end) and their consequential issues. A researcher presents results for critique of design, validity and reliability. However, earlier in the process the hypothesis represents an estimate of the indicators of results. The articles in this text expose data for consideration of indicators we’d expect to see as results if these research interventions were deployed for sustainable results and art production to attract funding. Some of the indicators mentioned in the text include growth of cultural citizenship, standards development for curriculum and better art production. Reviewing this text for stakeholders and their documented roles provides a broad spectrum of potential influencers on research methodology. Community and government art education sponsors and funding bodies have visible roles in research linked to art education projects if sustainable results are required. There are several articles positioning role examination for teachers and students engaging with research in art education. Artists are choosing from a range of responses to their role as they consider the praxis of theory and practice. And there are theorist and historians from art and design as well as other disciplines to consider. Each of these stakeholders impacts definition of sustainable program change and art production. Dick Downing’s article considers classroom teachers and art education curriculum. This opens a platform for measuring the results of teachers’ roles and addressing ambivalence utilizing art education curriculum designs. Martyn Denscombe suggests teachers’ affinity with ethnographic approaches offers accessible methodologies. This implies an opportunity for carefully controlled contextual interventions to consider variations between groups. Kristen Eglington’s outline of theoretical underpinnings of participatory visual ethnography could explore how the young researcher reads research benefits as intrinsic versus helping to shape a public policy focus on benefits to society as a whole. John Hockey’s article presents three response types for artists applying research theory to practice. These three perspectives expand a conversation if they each ‘write’ terms of program sustainability and adoption for art practice. Feasibility of the text’s exemplars to produce sustainable results underlies their presentation in this text. New researchers might consider drafting a feasibility checklist from the research results this text presents to explore new behaviors, infrastructures, resources, funding, governance, sponsorship and cultural buy-in issues. For example, what is the feasibility of designing for cultural citizens to improve a nation’s economic outlook when the expected behavior of seeing research methodology as an integral part of art education is incongruent with cultural views? Often sponsorship is spotty and not assured, which impacts sustainability. Fiona Candlin’s article on the relationship of art practice to academia pursues this issue as related to the emergence of PhDs and market-oriented reform. The feasibility of long term resources for art and design education is difficult to predict without research results. Acknowledging the overview of current research methodologies this text contributes, I think sustainability and adoption strategies are equally interesting conversations within the texts of this book. Much hinges on our definition of the values we prescribe to indicators and measurements of results. The text poses questions about how research methodology is valued as integral to making art, how does it address cultural diversity, what measures do we use and what support quality is needed for sustainability. Research interventions offer the potential to change interpretations of research data. This implies project management of a research methodology estimates the interventions that help make a research strategy successful. Examples of data in this text include community and government studies, personal development stories and documented research experiences. Rafael Denis’ survey of historical data on the discourse, influencers and formats of drawing manuals production is information focused and offers possible tactics such as looking at how these manuals were designed, how multiple perspectives see potential results and redesigning non-linear histories. Another intervention approach is to consider the consequences of rewarding and making a methodology public. Gabriele Esser-Hall, Jeff Rankin and Dumile Johannes Ndita’s article about an artist’s narrative upsetting institutional power opens up current cross-cultural approaches to ‘giving voice’, their sustainability issues and aligning goals with consequences. Interventions can address design measures. Mei-Lan Lo’s cultural comparison of approaches to art educator professional training highlights issues of culturally rewriting methodologies for professional standardization. Capacity and capability interventions could reframe data from research methodologies that apply art education for personal development. The text has several examples that open up these issues. Sheila Paine suggests possible impacts of art-based methodologies applied to specific learning types. Lynn Beudert documents a phenomenological approach outlining the daily practice of an art teacher to examine developing art and design education capabilities. Several articles touch on the opportunities for research interventions to explore the congruence of art practice alignment with research methodologies. Issues of oversight in research methodology programs and processes are also presented for consideration of their impact on sustainability and art production. University and classroom approaches are presented alongside community programs and individual artist projects. Questions about degrees of formality, documentation and who needs to be on the ‘steering committee’ in research methodologies leverage Robyn Steward’s questions about sustainability if pluralistic neonarratives end art education’s credibility. Definition of the impact of who approves, coordinates, resolves issues, recommends and allocates resources for research methodologies would encourage analysis of the structure of research methodology for art and education. It would also inform new stakeholders, the mediums to reach them and the content developers, as well as assist to measure adoption of change. Research in Art and Design Educationencourages sustainable results by continuing and expanding conversations about research in this field and attention to the structure of the research project. It leaves open opportunities for how we measure the adoption of the practice of research methodology by all stakeholders and how to create feedback loops on these results to improve art funding. Hickman positions ownership for all stakeholders in this conversation to embrace the initiative, take responsibility for its success, improvement and enrolling others. This text assists the art and design researcher to recognize philosophical implications for choosing research methods and procedures, as well as structuring an approach with an understanding of research design parameters for procedures to collect, analyze, interpret, and present information. About the Reviewer Janine Johnson is a Learning Consultant/project manager and previously taught research methodology for the Masters Program, School of Art and Design at Auckland University of Technology in Auckland, New Zealand. Her research interests include knowledge mapping, development and performance measurement and cognitive design.