Revealing and Creating Shapes of the Field

Why is historical research significant to education? Four decades ago, Mary Erickson (1977) urged fellow educators to learn historical research methods order to exploit discipline of history in service of (p. 22). Two years later, she described four justifiable uses for history: (1) to induct new educators into field; (2) to examine ambiguous terminology to eliminate confusion; (3) to serve as a basis for formulating worthwhile questions to ask about our present and our future (Erickson, 1979, p. 5); and (4) to rid ourselves of ghosts from past, a purpose that might have motivated Tavin's (2005) analysis of specters haunting approaches to popular (visual) culture.Canadian educator Don Soucy (1985) argued art education historiography is beginning to mature (p. 15), which Karen Hamblen (1988) interpreted as a call for conscious awareness of history and a self-reflexive stance as prerequisites to professional maturity for field.1 Historiography is an ambiguous term, sometimes referring to history of history writing: at one time or another historians have written about past (Hexter, 1967, p. 3). On other hand, many educators use term to refer to written history, or the discipline of history (Soucy, 2013, p. 20). The first version, Historiography-A, examines historical scholarship, how histories are written, methods historical researchers use, and how historians influence each other over time to produce bodies of work accepted as meaningful. Historiography-B, writing history, produces narratives that can be studied by those who do Historiography-A. Hamblen (1988) declared: Written histories both reveal shapes of consciousness and create them (p. 79).What might shapes of consciousness look like education? Hamblen (1988) applied her insight to identify patterns of development field, analyzing articles published Art Education and Studies Art Education from journals' origins late 1950s into mid- 1980s. Building on Soucy's (1985) five categories of historical writing education, convenient pigeonholes (p. 11) for sorting and analyzing written histories, Hamblen (1988) proposed six hierarchical categories indicating field's maturity. Combining their work allows us to make finer distinctions.2Overviews attempting to construct basic historical frameworks constitute Hamblen's first and least sophisticated category. Soucy's first category was somewhat more sophisticated narrowly focused (p. 11). Authors who focus arguments more clearly have potential to contribute significant chapters to larger history of field when others apply that thesis to different researches.Soucy and Hamblen agree on what comes next: biographical research. While history is more than biography, historical studies focused on lives and ideas of individuals might describe facts or interpret a broader issue. Soucy noted need to examine lesserknown educators and investigate leaders, asking new questions leading to revisionist interpretations and more comprehensive understandings. Hamblen split Soucy's biographical category into two: Person-A and Person- B. Person-A biographies describe role models; Person-B histories use biographical research, but interpret lives and works relation to a theme or thesis, demonstrating greater research sophistication their narrower focus.Soucy labeled his third category the paradigm (p. 13); certain subjects of biographical research or sites of professional development might be interpreted as exemplifying larger profession. Hamblen's parallel category is program histories, or institutional case studies. Soucy located critical analyses of books or articles as a subset within paradigm; Hamblen referred to these as reviews. When authors position examples of earlier professional literature social and historical contexts, their essays move away from simple literature reviews and closer toward doing history. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.