MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W315129068

A/r/tography: Rendering Self through Arts-Based Living Inquiry

2006· article· en· W315129068 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barbara Bickel

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Art Education · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe artsScholarshipSociologyPraxisCurriculumSurpriseArt historyAnthropologyEpistemologyPedagogyVisual artsArtPhilosophyLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A/r/tography: Rendering Self through Arts-based Living Inquiry Rita L. Irwin and Alex de Cosson (2004). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press. 220 pages. ISBN 1-895766-70-2Reviewed by Barbara BickelThe University of British ColumbiaIn recent seminar, curriculum historian and theorist William Pinar spoke of the growing renown of a/r/tography in North America. It does not come as surprise then that he has written the Foreword to the first edited compilation of a/r/tographic work. Pinar highlights scholars who have preceded and informed this integrative scholarly practice: Green, Huebner, Eisner, Grumet, Aoki and others. Pinar recognizes this book as a significant advance in the sector of scholarship and research ... characterized as understanding curriculum as aesthetic (Pinar, cited p. 23). The influence of Aoki, in particular, is present as the a/r/tographers live and render the in-between spaces (represented by the slashes in the word a/r/tography) of borderlands in this arts-based of living inquiry.Irwin's Introduction offers an engaging theoretical overview of a/r/ tography with its integration of theoria, praxis, and poesis, or theory/ research, teaching/learning, and art/making (p. 28). Although Irwin does not have chapter in the collection, I found myself returning to her Introduction numerous times as I moved through the chapters of the book. It provides rich contextual ground that adds new insights into understanding a/r/tography with each re-read.Irwin likens the life of the artist/researcher/teacher to life that embraces metissage existence that integrates knowing, doing, and making,... that desires an aesthetic experience found in an elegance of flow between intellect, feeling, and practice (p. 29). She encourages artists/researchers/teachers to embrace multilectical view (p. 28) that moves beyond dialogic opposition through opening third space for meaning-making; not favoring any one category or discipline, yet existing between and amongst them all. The a/r/tographers in this first collection are visual artists, researchers and teachers, who are committed to living life of deep meaning enhanced through perceptual practices that reveal what was once hidden, creat[ing] what has never been known, and imaginfing] what [they] to achieve (p. 36).A/r/tography as living inquiry incorporates the transformative practices of action research and autoethnography. It combines and unites the visual and the textual, allowing doubling of meaning to emerge from the and the writing, which is distinct and complementary. Irwin offers the idea of theory as a/r/tography where Art is the visual reorganization of experience.... Research is the enhancement of meaning... and... Teaching is performative knowing in meaningful relationships with learners (p. 21). She argues that theory includes the discussion and analysis of text, combined with visual imagery which emerges from educational experience.Irwin and de Cosson have organized the book into three parts: (1) Explorations of Self: Fragments and Meaning; (2) Self Process: Learning and Praxis; and (3) History and Self: Temporal Spaces. Visual images of each author's complement and extend the text aesthetically. Throughout the book, the contributors reflect autoethnographically on their roles as artists/researchers/teachers and engage the complicated conversations that arose through their a/r/tographic process. Part One is woven with the thread of personal revelation. Sylvia Wilson explores the narratives hidden behind the public face of the teacher, that of mothering, loss and hope (p. 42). She maneuvers this delicate terrain with an emergent understanding of art not just as an investigative process and research but as spiritual as well (p. 57). Stephanie Springgay pulls the inquiry thread into troubling sutures of the abject body and the ecstatic step towards.. …

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Art EducationSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207