2 Editorial

In the opening article of Volume 27 Kristin Baxter, Hugo Ortega López, Dan Serig and Graeme Sulli-van consider studio art as a site and source for dissertation research and they question why studio practice continues to be ignored as a legit-imate site for research that precipitates its own methodological practices and modes of enquiry. Many students are already engaged in theory–practice research degrees in visual art in univer-sity settings and there is an ongoing debate about the interrelation of theory and practice on such degree programmes. In this article the authors argue that although art practices address socio-cultural, political, educational and other issues according to their specific forms of studio prac-tice and enquiry, in order to be considered as legitimate forms of research such practices have to subscribe to dominant modes of research methodologies established within social science. This, they argue, fails to recognise the specific qualities of research or enquiry that emerges from studio practices and the specific dialogues that are precipitated between practice and theory that drive the research and its outcomes.

Of course this kind of research does not equate with methodological processes of a more positivist bent that demand replicability in terms of procedures and outcomes but we know, for example, that in the established area of action research or practitioner-based research in educa-tion and other social fields that replicability is not always possible or desirable. This is not to say that such research is not systematic or theoreti-cally rigorous or that it does not produce clear outcomes. It is and it does. Unless we define research tautologously in terms of replicability then we need to have a broad view of what research is and can be within its different embed-ding spaces. How, for example, do we compre-hend research in the field of philosophy?

I find it interesting to think about the rigidity with which a form is embraced. When we

consider a linguistic device ‘research’ we search assiduously and attempt to define what it means but it seems to me that there can be problems when a form becomes all-consuming. It is not clear how much of this can be attributed to a qual-ity of form which generates a hyper-stability or to a characteristic of people who desire absolute security, in the end these may be likely to be the same thing. It is as though there is a denial or a fear of flow, transience, flux in a demand for certainty. But we could always learn how to swim! This is all concerned with the impossibility of forms surviving independently of the embedding space or, equally, with the imposition of a form on to spaces that are incommensurable to it. If we can only rely on words as forms to hold and capture our thinking this can limit what can be achieved in practice.

In the article by Baxter et al. three accounts of dissertation research are provided that are grounded in studio practice: it is through a critical dialogue of practice and conceptual formation that the research process develops and moves towards its outcomes. Particular questions arise for me concerning the relation between the action or practice which gives rise to theoretical reflection and subsequent evolution but this is not the context for such discussion.

David Gall tackles the issue of cultural diversity and the need for teachers to develop a grasp of processes of social change that impact directly upon identity. The article considers the notion of established cultural practices and values that are resistant to change and which therefore experi-ence change as a form of violence. In contrast the article also considers culture as a continuous process of flux and change. Gall argues for a form of understanding that combines both views of cultural processes in order to cope with diversity and change in educational contexts.

Marie Fulkova and Teresa Tipton argue force-fully that engagement with contemporary art

JADE 27.1 (2008)© 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Editorial

3necessitates a renegotiation of pedagogy in art and design education. Such engagement opens up a context for developing new discourses for teaching and learning. They contrast the life-world practices of school children apropos of their fascination with popular culture and digital media which inform their visual encounters with the more formal traditions that inform art educa-tors. They argue that the codes and discourses that inform children’s visual encounters need to be accommodated into viewing and interpreta-tion strategies that are developed in the educa-tional context.

Eva Van Moer, Tom De Mette and Willem Elias return to the philosophical writings of John Dewey and in particular his ideas on experience and relate these to gallery and museum educa-tion contexts. They argue that although theories that emphasise visitors’ experience as a key element in meaning-making have influenced gallery and museum education, there is little evidence that such visitors’ experiences are taken into account when constructing exhibitions or designing educational tools. With reference to Dewey’s writing on experienced-based educa-tion the article explores visitors’ responses to exhibits in order to create a lasting and meaning-ful experience.

Laura Trafi narrates a project on childhood which she has developed in the context of teacher education. In an intriguing article she describes students researching a biographical exploration of childhood in order to consider the relevance of such work for forming teacher iden-tities. This work further explores the inter-weav-ing of private and public discourses of childhood and one of the major devices or resources for this work, leading to cultural critique and analysing identity, is the family photograph album.

Ian Jackson takes a look at gestalt theory in the context of graphic design. His particular quest is to apply this theoretical field to an exploration of learning by, through and from experience. He proceeds to consider links between the inherent nature of graphic design practice and gestalt psychology. His main purpose is to illustrate the effects on learning that an incorporation of gestalt theory to his pedagogical practice has had upon

students on Higher National Diploma and Foun-dation Degree Programmes.

In the next article Yvonne Pepin-Wakefield examines some drawings and made by young Kuwaiti women resident in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion in 1990. The research is ongoing. Draw-ing tasks are initiated to explore their symbolic and/or semiotic values and the general conclu-sion is that women who experienced traumatic experiences produced similar graphic elements and themes.

Seija Karppinen contributes an article based upon her doctoral thesis that discuses the Basic Art Education system in Finland. The article concentrates upon Basic Crafts Education. The main purpose is to develop a conceptual model of this form of educational practice that embraces art education, socio-cultural education and education for the future.

In the final article Martina Paatela-Nieminen explores the domain of intercultural art education with specific reference to a study that she conducted in Japan concerning Japanese paper theatre, or kamishibai. She applies a particular intertextual methodology that she developed in her doctoral thesis in order to deduce if this meth-odology could be applied to non-Western cultural contexts in order to develop empathy and cultural understanding.

Dennis Atkinson

JADE 27.1 (2008)© 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd