After just having had a meeting with Pasi, I’m interested in building on my earlier ‘methodologies I like’ blog: https://open.substack.com/pub/stevenkolber/p/methodologies-i-like?r=1ky45t&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post (which will likely go unread by many).
It’s clear that I’m deep into Qual territory and my preparation of PhD documentation has made me realise I’m perfectly capable of writing and publishing research, including but not limited to my and Keith’s book. So I’m not pursuing a PhD to learn the ropes of writing for publication or academic writing - I’m doing it to push the boundaries and do something new and fun. In many respects I’m doing it to ‘unlearn’ (still not a thing) the boring way of writing academically approved writing.
Maybe I can do what I’m trying to do in these blogs - write stuff in a way that’s kind of approachable and (I hope) interesting.
So here’s the juicy approach to research he mentioned! It’s a cracker!
As an overview:
“Portraiture seeks to blend art and science, bridging empiricism and aestheticism. It draws from a wide variety of phenomenological and narrative traditions. One of the ways in which it is distinct from other research methodologies is in its focus on
"goodness"; documenting what is strong, resilient, and worthy in a given situation, resisting the more typical social science preoccupation with weakness and pathology.” (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2016, Pp.19)
So look, I’m all about teaching being a blend of art and science, so why shouldn’t we approach research in the same way. We can’t all be limping around with data falling out of our pockets - and gant charts to share.
Also, focussing on the challenges of teaching and education doesn’t seem to have gotten us very far at all! So let’s get some strength based thinking in here?
Continuing:
“Another way in which portraiture is distinct from other qualitative inquiries is in its explicit focus on "goodness." And by that I don't mean that it tries to idealize or romanticize human experience or social reality, but rather, that it is a counterpoint to so much of social science inquiry that has traditionally been preoccupied with pathology, with searching out what is wrong and trying to remedy the wrongs.” (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2016, Pp.20)
Since I’m all about ‘Empowering teachers’ this seems like a super logical approach.
Because,
“After all, every human endeavour possesses imperfection and weakness. In another sense, we want to document what's strong and worthy, in great detail so that we might figure out ways of transporting those "goods," that goodness, to other settings and transforming them as well.” (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2016, Pp.20)
What’s going well, whose shaping up good outcomes from the same raw and shite materials that we are all constrained by, policies that act as prison bars.
When speaking on how she approaches inquiry and research, she note:
“always tell my students that they should begin framing their research by identifying their burning question. What is it that you are really curious about? What do you want to know and pursue? What truly interests you? Identifying the burning question should come before asking, "How am I going to study this? What are the methodologies I'm going to use? What's the literature I'm going to cite?" It's good to start with the thing that really grabs you, troubles you, puzzles you.” (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2016, Pp.22)
Which is such a cool way of thinking of it - don’t do the boring stuff first - follow your fire, follow what your gut thinks then logic it later.
Engaging with your puzzle before your process, so cool - I’d love to explore this approach with a bunch of students too!
Research as aesthetic process
“Through portraiture, researchers can demonstrate a commitment to the research participants and contextualize the depictions of individuals and events. Portraiture is best described as a blending of qualitative methodologies life history, naturalist inquiry, and most prominently, that of ethnographic methods.” (Dixson & Chapman, 2005, Pp.17)
So moving from auto-ethnography which is something that has informed my proceed to ethnography seems super sensical to me.
Breaking it up:
“Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (1997) categorized the major aspects of portraiture research to include emergent themes, relationships, contexts, voice, and the aesthetic whole. These major characteristics highlight and complicate the many roles performed by the researcher during the multiple stages of the research process. In this "seventh moment," researchers are able to explore the complexities of participants' lives through conducting lived research that seeks to forefront the perspectives, voices, and experiences of the researcher and the participant, the portraitist and the subject.” (Dixson & Chapman, 2005, Pp.17)
Relationships are key to empowerment, it’s very much not what you know but who, especially in the teacher as activist, teacher as thought leader space I hope to explore. Lived research is what I’ve spent my professional and personal life committed to, why not keep it rolling?
What does it do?
“Portraitists examine the ways in which subjects meet, negotiate, and overcome challenges. The methodology serves as "a counterpoint to the dominant chorus of social scientists whose focus has largely centered on the identification and documentation of social problems" (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997, p. xvi).” (Dixson & Chapman, 2005, Pp.18)
How do we overcome the problems we all know about? Such an important thing to know!
And what about the researcher? Are they invisible?
“The experiences and ideology of the researcher must be shared with the readers to acknowledge biases, lenses of analysis, chosen imagery, and the presentation of selective voice both the researcher's and the participants' words and actions. The ideology of the research is further reflected in the stories the researcher chooses to tell and the was in which the researcher tells them. Much like the stories and counterstories that are presented by critical race theorists (Duncan, 2002; Fernandez, 2002; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1994; Solorzano & Bernal, 2001; Villenas & Deyhle, 1999), Lawrence-Lightfoot (1983) made the political commitment to relate the stories of strength and complexity that she built using the data.” (Dixson & Chapman, 2005, Pp.19)
This lays a clear basis of me doing my own thinking and exploration first, setting out my positionality - my ‘dog in the fight’ as it were - and also my role as not just innocent bystander but person who might lean in and help or guide as necessary.
Almost like a more formal kind of mentorship, or mentoree situation - depending on whose portrait is being rendered.
And then,
“Each author also extends herself to her audience by articulating her positionality and subjectivity with regard to the research. In each article, the portraitist/ musician/poet makes known the personal and professional connections that are inherent in the chosen project.” (Dixson & Chapman, 2005, Pp.20)
As outlined above - nothing is neutral, human beings gonna be relational.
It’s all putting together a:
“COLLAGE OF RESEARCH
Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (1997) referred to the ultimate projects as an aesthetic whole where all the pieces of the work appear, as guided by the researcher, in the final portrait.” (Dixson & Chapman, 2005, Pp.20).
Something more sensical than bricolage, although it still sounds cooler.
Now the question is, why have I never heard of this? And why doesn’t it dominate the approaches among the academy? Welp - not sure.
References
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2016). Commentary: Portraiture methodology: Blending art and science. LEARNing Landscapes, 9(2), 19-27.
Dixson, A. D., Chapman, T. K., & Hill, D. A. (2005). Research as an aesthetic process: Extending the portraiture methodology. Qualitative inquiry, 11(1), 16-26.
Running Word Count (the second 100,000): 37,131