Interdisciplinary Arts Integrated Research Model
Blending the arts with content in educational settings has demonstrated increased learning engagement and content knowledge (Burnaford, April & Weiss, 2000; Gelineau, 2004). The use of arts integrated methods for teaching and researching are framed within a model called Parallaxic Praxis (Sameshima, Vandermause, Chalmers & Gabriel, 2009).
As a framework in education research, The Parallaxic Praxis model has been used in teacher education (i.e. Sameshima & Sinner, 2009) and in special education (i.e. Marino, Sameshima & Beecher, 2009). The model has also been used in social science research projects by interdisciplinary teams. The framework’s intent is to guide a holistic inquiry perspective, intentionally giving value to multiple voices and discourse, and incorporating dialogic and multi-modal arts as a means of provoking, accessing, engaging, and representing conceptions and thinkings as the research progresses.
Using the arts to learn is synergistic—humans make sense of the world through their writings, music, artworks, and various forms of representation (Barone & Eisner, 2012).The creation of artefacts (writings, artworks, videos, and material objects) serve as “markers” that track and render the thinkings of the researchers individually or as a team. These artefacts may be used just with the research team or can be purposefully used to mobilize knowledge across the audience spectrum and as teaching tools in formal and informal educational settings (Cole & Knowles, 2001). When suitable, the artefacts are returned to the participants’ community as a gift – an interpretation of the research moment. For example, the gifts in this project may include the final versions of educational videos, artworks, pamphlets, and so forth, created with or from the participants’ recommendations for their communities.
There are three organizational phases in the framework. In the Data Phase, researchers collect data in traditional and non-traditional ways. In the Analysis Phase, researchers from different fields interpret the data through dialogue, texts, and various methodologies (life writing, poetic inquiry), and mediums (theatre, music, poetry). In the Rendering Phase, the completed artefacts created during the previous phase are then used by the interdisciplinary team to discuss their analyses, methodological processes, and creative practices. It is during this phase of the model that researchers’ thinkings are discussed. Often, despite our own awarenesses, interpretations are clichéd and so deeply acculturated that we do not see the assumptions we make. Thus, instead of looking “directly” at the data, the use of a created artefact from data the full team is familiar with, provokes critical discussions among interdisciplinary team members, challenging each of us to reflect upon how we “see”. The deflected focus of the interpretative artefact also has the power to open new spaces to metaphorically view and/or render complex issues in material form.
In order to fluidly meld the research process and findings into the development of the education programming design, the artefacts created through the research process are used as teaching tools along with embodied and participatory exercises in the community education sessions. To support wellness, and teaching and learning about cervical cancer prevention in populations of colour, the use of the arts and embodied practices have been integrated successfully through: colourful flip charts (Read & Batesone, 2009); song, dance, ritual, and ceremony, (Strickland, Squeoch & Chrisman, 1999; LeMaster & Connell, 1994); and storytelling and talking circles (Buffalo, 1990; Hodge et al., 1996). As well, the use of multiple sensory teaching, circular models, interactive experiential exercises, and role-playing have been effective in cervical cancer education (Strickland, Squeoch & Chrisman, 1999).
As a framework in education research, The Parallaxic Praxis model has been used in teacher education (i.e. Sameshima & Sinner, 2009) and in special education (i.e. Marino, Sameshima & Beecher, 2009). The model has also been used in social science research projects by interdisciplinary teams. The framework’s intent is to guide a holistic inquiry perspective, intentionally giving value to multiple voices and discourse, and incorporating dialogic and multi-modal arts as a means of provoking, accessing, engaging, and representing conceptions and thinkings as the research progresses.
Using the arts to learn is synergistic—humans make sense of the world through their writings, music, artworks, and various forms of representation (Barone & Eisner, 2012).The creation of artefacts (writings, artworks, videos, and material objects) serve as “markers” that track and render the thinkings of the researchers individually or as a team. These artefacts may be used just with the research team or can be purposefully used to mobilize knowledge across the audience spectrum and as teaching tools in formal and informal educational settings (Cole & Knowles, 2001). When suitable, the artefacts are returned to the participants’ community as a gift – an interpretation of the research moment. For example, the gifts in this project may include the final versions of educational videos, artworks, pamphlets, and so forth, created with or from the participants’ recommendations for their communities.
There are three organizational phases in the framework. In the Data Phase, researchers collect data in traditional and non-traditional ways. In the Analysis Phase, researchers from different fields interpret the data through dialogue, texts, and various methodologies (life writing, poetic inquiry), and mediums (theatre, music, poetry). In the Rendering Phase, the completed artefacts created during the previous phase are then used by the interdisciplinary team to discuss their analyses, methodological processes, and creative practices. It is during this phase of the model that researchers’ thinkings are discussed. Often, despite our own awarenesses, interpretations are clichéd and so deeply acculturated that we do not see the assumptions we make. Thus, instead of looking “directly” at the data, the use of a created artefact from data the full team is familiar with, provokes critical discussions among interdisciplinary team members, challenging each of us to reflect upon how we “see”. The deflected focus of the interpretative artefact also has the power to open new spaces to metaphorically view and/or render complex issues in material form.
In order to fluidly meld the research process and findings into the development of the education programming design, the artefacts created through the research process are used as teaching tools along with embodied and participatory exercises in the community education sessions. To support wellness, and teaching and learning about cervical cancer prevention in populations of colour, the use of the arts and embodied practices have been integrated successfully through: colourful flip charts (Read & Batesone, 2009); song, dance, ritual, and ceremony, (Strickland, Squeoch & Chrisman, 1999; LeMaster & Connell, 1994); and storytelling and talking circles (Buffalo, 1990; Hodge et al., 1996). As well, the use of multiple sensory teaching, circular models, interactive experiential exercises, and role-playing have been effective in cervical cancer education (Strickland, Squeoch & Chrisman, 1999).