 |
| Habitat Series by Alois Kronschlaeger |
I have had a long, strong,
although not necessarily steadily-worked, interest in a closer connection
between theory, research and practice in schools and museums. I’m not sure
where this came from although I do recall that in graduate school the
separation of these three areas felt artificial and unproductive to a young,
inquiring mind.
Action Research
A seminal experience I had before I worked in museums was working in professional development with
the Madison (WI) school district. In my last few years, I facilitated several groups
of K-12 grade teachers engaged in year-long action research projects.
Teachers in these action research groups spent the school year questioning,
observing, introducing new strategies, reflecting, and changing their practice
in areas of importance to them. They were invigorated by formulating research
questions that mattered to them and critiquing their own classroom practice in
order to change it. Modest as it was, these studies laid the foundation for a 25-year
action research program in the Madison schools.
Sometimes called collaborative (or participatory) action research, this interactive
inquiry into one’s practice is a reflective, collaborative process with a goal
of a deeper understanding of practice and change. It moves through stages of
looking at current practice, planning and gathering information, taking action,
critical reflection on the findings, changing practice, and informing subsequent
inquiry. When teachers, or designers, direct their inquiry into their own practice,
a new space between research and practice opens, bringing context and
relevance to research and experimentation in daily practice.
Moving into museum work, I
carried a strong sense of what pursuing an extended inquiry with others could
do for a community of learners and for growing a museum. Along the way I found
some practices and a few projects using this approach–just enough to keep the
possibility alive.
In an early project at
Minnesota Children’s Museum we used action research to investigate
exhibit safety. With its rapid, iterative inquiry process, prototyping also brought research and practice
together Sometimes small research
studies around museum practices (design, visitor experience, interaction,
learning, or play) were grounded in learning frameworks.
Three children’s museums used action research to continue investigating results
of an exploratory study on play at their museums. I have also come across museum
proefessionals exploring questions of practice using action research, here and here.
Documentation
Museums introduced me to documentation,
a practice developed in the Municipal Schools in Reggio Emilia. A shared,
iterative, reflective process, documentation is both a way of working (practice) and researching that starts
at the beginning of a project, not its conclusion. The 4-step process begins
with generating hypotheses about what teachers think
they might find through the exploration. Observation
takes many forms: mental (and written) notes,
photos, video, transcriptions of remarks and conversations, drawings, and
material explorations. Interpretation reviews and reflects on the collected record of
children’s thinking, individually and with colleagues, in a generative way. Relaunch considers the most significant elements that appear to have advanced the
learning process and where children's explorations might go next. Part of the daily life of the school, documentation is
intent on getting at the deeper structure of learning in this setting.
From my experience, documentation
inspires more than a few people working in museums. Yet, because it is a
challenging practice to adapt to museum settings, documentation-inspired
approaches tend to be practiced at a small scale and in limited ways. What
documentation offers, and, I believe, will be increasingly appreciated, is an open
flow between research, practice, and theory with discipline and possibility.
Research Practice Partnerships
A recent article in Curator,
Research and Practice: One Way, Two Way,
No Way, or New Way? by Bronwyn Bevan, encourages me to hope for more and
stronger working connections between research, practice, and theory. Bevan, a
Senior Research Scientist at the University of Washington, Seattle, sees an
opportunity for museums to contribute to research about learning in informal learning
settings and to inhabit a larger role in the learning ecosystem. Her brief review
of old ways of conceptualizing the relationship between research and practice
notes the persistent dualism around them and the limited use of research in
practice. A new cultural model that deeply integrates the perspectives of
research and practice is one, she suggests, that co-creates knowledge through jointly
negotiated research-practice partnerships, (RPP’s). Bevan describes several approaches
to RPP’s including Relating Research to Practice with a set of
excellent briefs summarizing research
studies for raising practitioners’ awareness of research and theoretical assumptions.
Bevan’s concern with
theory helps bring this more challenging piece into a closer relationship with both research
and practice. Educators and designers do work with theoretical assumptions and draw on their working theories about program design, instructional strategies, the use of materials, or staff interactions in even small action research studies. Often, however, theory is in the background (or simply missing) from discussion and
thinking around practice and research in museums. Theory is needed to inform conceptualizations
about meaning making, place, the role of objects, engagement, etc. in these
settings. Bringing theory into framing research questions and approaches more
deliberately means that research findings are more likely to be useful in that
specific context as well as contribute to a broader understanding of practices
across contexts.
Many of the 7
characteristics of RPP’s that Bevan identifies align with qualities of action
research and documentation. These are long-term explorations concerned with a
pressing problem of practice and use iterative processes that test, revisit, and
inform practice. These approaches engage practitioners in habits of inquiry and reflection
through observing their own and others’ work to deepen and develop everyday practice.
Because the questions emerge from those most involved and their particular
context, the thinking, discussion, and findings have relevance to the work and setting at
hand. As collaborative efforts they build shared language and understanding
across teams, museums, and networks.
Possible Encounters
Integrating the
perspectives of researcher, practitioner, and theory maker allows us to step closer to theory, research, and practice and to explore possible encounters among them. These usually separate endeavors
become 3 reciprocal, productive practices. Daily practice is stretched and
strengthened by a deeper involvement with research and awareness of theory. Research findings
are integrated into a team’s practice and supporting processes. Seemingly inaccessible theory-making presents
itself as a tool at multiple scales and becomes an on-going practice like research.
Ultimately, daily practice is not just a by-product of research, but is, in its
own way, the ultimate objective. Any one of the 3 is a starting point for museums
becoming better at their practice, deepening understanding, and building
knowledge.
Related Museum Notes Posts
Related Resources
• What are useful ways to think about museum research? (Museum Questions)
• Research and Practice: One Way, Two Way, No Way, or New Way? by Bronwyn
Bevan
