Actors and Academics
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•697 vues
What can we tell about actors and academics from the way they use museum artefacts? This talk describes a project - Digital CoPs and Robbers - that included individuals from these two communities of practice and examined how they interact with artefacts in physical and digital form. It suggests that the ways in which actors and academics use the artefact reveals different ways of seeing it.
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
En vedette
En vedette (19)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Actors and Academics
- 2. Digital CoPs and Robbers: Communities of Practice and the Transformation of Research
- 4. • Externalise • Bottom-up • Nomothetic
- 5. Main Findings: 1. CoPs exist 2. 3 general processes of use 3. Different patterns of use between CoPs 4. CoPs have distinct learning styles 5. Learning styles are mutable
- 6. reading from the artefact assessing materials looking more analysing detail closely assessing looking condition looking from viewing further away holistically reading the label tasting looking from different angles handling touching measuring listening opening gathering smelling identification evidence question use thinking object types reconciling with metadata
- 7. 12.96% physical 21.29% Actors Academics 1.80% digital 6.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% Identification of the Artefact Using Sight
- 8. 6.76% physical 6.09% Actors Academics 1.20% digital 1.01% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% Identification of the Artefact Using Touch
- 9. 1.81% physical 0 Actors Academics 1.20% digital 0.23% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% Identification of the Artefact Using Smell, Taste and Hearing
- 10. Frames of Reference in the Contextualisation of Artefacts CoP Physical Digital Actors Actor (15%) Actor (9%) Character (11%) Play (8%) Play (9%) Production (7%) Production (4%) Character (2%) Maker (2%) Text (2%) 41% 28% Academics Character (2%) Character (4%) Production (2%) Play (3%) Actor (1%) Text (2%) Play (1%) Production (1%) Maker (0.2%) Actor (1%) Maker (0.2%) 6.2% 11.2%
Notes de l'éditeur
- Before talking about Actors and Academics - explain a bit about a project that explored how these two professional groups interact with items from museum, library and archive collections – my working definition of ‘an artefact’ (a ‘digital artefact’ is simply digital material generated from an item in a museum, library or archive collection). What I hope to show is that how they use artefacts reveals different ways of seeing them
- The project was created around two research interests:Selfish: my primary research interest - social factors that affect usage of artefactsSelfless: AHRC interest in how digital technologies are changing the way we work and the way we thinkA theory which helps explain the influence of those associated with the selection, digitisation , packaging and use of artefacts is Etienne Wenger’s (cognitive anthropologist) conceptual model of Communities of Practice developed from 1991 following studies of apprenticeship. Wenger describes CoPs as people ‘informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise’. This can range from a knitting club to a Shakespeare society to what might be considered more professional groups like actors and academics, the focus of this talk.I also wanted to challenge Wenger’s model and the authority associated with those associated with the care of collections and the ‘expertise’ surrounding them. Therefore the project also included ‘outsiders’ hackers (dismantlers and rebuilders of data), educators outside of HE, and (no offence) postgraduate students who use collections material in sometimes unconventional ways. ‘CoPs and Robbers’ connotes tensions, boundaries and dependences around the artefact and between the producers and users of content, as well as being quite cheeky. In terms of the Transformation of research – AHRC most interested in how digital changing how we carry out research and, most importantly, how the individual is transformed in the process. Believe it or not, despite rush to create lots of collections-based content from mid 1990s, research on actual usage has lagged behind supply curveThis has become more important as funding has tightened: both HE and museums looking at Impact + ROIIn other words, attention is switching from content creation to content useHow did the CoPs and Robbers project aim to explore this problem?
- Here’s the Shape of the project (or research design) – the basic workflow.6 stage process – Feb – Aug 2012 involving 32 participants14 students (11 FT, 3DL); 18 practitioners (4 groups of practitioners: 5 Heritage practitioners, 4 DigitalCreatives, 5 Academics, 4 Actors)Stimulus for project was response to a research question: how can artefacts reveal performance choices? To narrow things down, The Tempest selected. Digitisation of costumes, props and items from the time of Shakespeare that link in some way to The Tempest rationale for the project was to test dualities central to the CoP model within the context of artefact use: individual-group (i.e. what difference does membership of a CoP make to the way an individual acts?), user-producer (do roles matter in how artefacts are utilised in research?), and physical-digital (does medium affect engagement?) generated data – lots of it. Transcripts of store visits and workshops.Presentations, reflective journals, forum discussions on WebCT, blogs. 20 hours of video footage and 172,000 words Video footage started at Wharf Road store as students were recorded selecting artefacts to address the research question. This is the first frame from that visit...
- Darkness – there was a power failure in the art storeJust wanted to make the point about the unpredictable nature of social research: it involves a certain amount of freefall regardless of the time spent on research designAlso wanted to point out three features about my researchmethodology (data collection and analysis):Externalise: artefact use is a quiet business and difficult to detect and describe - emphasis then on creating conditions for individuals to externalise thoughts on use rather than relying on actual usage . To turn a quote from Coriolanus on its head, ‘eloquence is action’ in other words looking at signifiers for use in what people say as well as observing what they do (‘words are deeds’ E. M. Forster). Done through structure of project – stimulate discussion – and recording mechanisms (video, audio, reflective journals, discussion fora)Bottom-up: Use of Ethnographic methods (action) and Grounded Theory (words – spoken and written) to base theories on what is found in the data, not testing hypotheses with data. Theories more authentic and usable grounded in data.Nomothetic: human behaviour is not hopelessly subjective, working in the belief that patterns can be found (an approach more at home in the natural sciences; the humanities tend to favour idiographic methods). This is a positivist, quantitative methodological approach which generalisesThis generated numerical data - extremely unusual to generate numerical data for artefact use – I apologise in advance for one or two graphs that follow...So what did we find?
- Broadly speaking, these were the top level findings:Communities of practice exist to a meaningful extent (evidence of other concepts like networks of practice and thought collectives but Wenger’s model most adequatelyexplains patterns of behaviour)There are three main ways of using artefacts: identification (what is it?), contextualisation (where does it fit in?) and interpretation (what does it mean?). These are non sequential, connected processes but ones which use different forms of physical and cognitive interaction with the artefactCommunities of practice use artefacts in different ways: the extent to which users identify, contextualise and interpret artefacts varies within each CoP as does how they do thisCommunities of practice learn in different ways: mapping patterns of identification,contexualisation and interpretation to theories of experiential learning (learning through experience) suggests that each CoP has a dominant and distinct learning style (Learning style is an individual's natural or habitual pattern of acquiring and processing information in learningsituations)These learning styles are mutable: they are influenced by the quality of engagement with the artefact (whether it is in physical or digital form)In light of these findings look like for two CoPs: actors and academics (refers to lecturers but I will speak about students from time to time)I’d like to compare how actors and academics use artefacts suggest that their way of seeing them is markedly different.
- 3 broad processes of use shared by all users: identification, contextualisation and interpretationUsing Grounded Theory to recognise manifestations of artefact use, 112 codes for usage were identifiedThese child codes for use fall into three broad processes of use (identification, contextualisation and interpretation): this is the taxonomic scheme for how users identify the artefact, each blue box represents a type of use which has been taken from the transcriptIncidence rates were recorded for each analysis unit (individual and CoP)Can see from the taxonomy that identification mainly involves sensory interaction with the artefact to try to establish what something is – use of senses varies between actors and academics
- Sight is the main sense used to identify artefacts by all CoPsAcademics use visual perception to identify the artefact far more than actors (particularly in variety of ways of looking at the artefact)Graph: academics use sight twice as much using the physical and three times as much with the digitalVariety of views of the artefact wanted by academics marks them apart as a CoP. For example: Looking from further away (scale)/ Viewing holistically (part and whole) / Looking from different angles (perspectives)/ Reading from the artefact (details on artefacts are ‘read’ from)This differed according to discipline: Shakespeare Studies students – variety of views important for recapturing artefact’s life on stageMASSACHRE students – strong connection between 3D views of the artefact and realityAcademics wish to ‘see’ in multiple ways – greedy for as many visual perspectives of the artefact as possible – unlike actors who didn’t call for same variety of views. Interesting point – digital artefact especially frustrating in this respect. Dissatisfaction among distance learning students using digital material only. Possibly a symptom of crystallisation involved in digital capture, or limitations of the virtual environment
- However, use of the other senses, actors take overIn terms of handling artefacts, actors are marginally more inclined to use touch with both physical and digital artefacts: made most obvious by their temptation to touch in the museum store (see in a minute)Split among academics: for historians, tactility and generation of new ideas inextricably linked ‘the manipulation, the handling of the object seems to be incredibly important when generating new ideas and new ways of thinking about it’ (AP) Whereas, most often, for Shakespeare Studies value in an early edition most often resides in ‘what the words are doing intellectually, artistically’ although obviously there are exceptions to this (where medium is a crucial part of enquiry).This tendency to use extravisual sensory engagement with the artefact is more pronounced with the use of the other three senses: smell, taste and hearing...
- Far greater use of smell, taste, and hearing among actors, especially with the physical:SMELLAW talks about the smell of costumes on the stage (and having to disguise these from those in the stalls after a long run) and how they must stink in the store. AW suggested a ‘scratch and sniff’ facility in the SBT database – their personal connection with an artefact – less romanticisedOnly references to smell from academics used while talking about the odour detected when ‘rifling through old newspapers’ – used in a romantic, atavistic sense but not quite taken seriously like the lower senses of smell, taste and hearingSOUNDAnother actor interviewed for the project, said that music is a ‘major’ resource to consult – ‘more subjective’, more room to personalise and make it your own – part of collageTASTETaste not mentioned by either actors or academics but, interestingly, discussed by a digital creatives who gave the example of a child sticking an unknown artefact into its mouth to identify it – maybe this is one of the senses we’ve left behind in academic research but a curious equating of taste and truthTherefore, the way that actors and academics have of identifying an artefact reveals not only distinct ways of seeing it, but different ways of touching, smelling, and hearing it. Broader range of senses used by actors and evidence to suggest that either more used to dealing with the physical and / or digitisation diminishes sensory stimulation for this groupBut how do these CoPsmove beyond identification of the artefact?
- In terms of the contextualisation of artefacts (placing them in a particular social, historical, cultural or intellectual frame of reference)stage artefacts: use the same 6 reference points: Actor / Character / Play / Production / Maker (as in costume or prop maker) / Text Usage varies between two CoPs and depends on whether contact with the artefact is physical or digital Overall Actors contextualise to a far greater extent than academics, particularly with the physicalWhen confronted with the physical artefact:Actors: Actor + character + play (accustomed to playing a role – stage perspective – also power of the real in contextualising – in 2012 Philip Breen took a company of actors preparing for The Merry Wives of Windsor to Hall’s Croft – Breen describes the play as having a‘realistic, recognisable setting’ and, anecdotally, building an idea of context through the artefact, the most significant part of the visit for actorsAcademics: Production (objectivity – production history is the most important context)REVERSE IS TRUE WHEN USING DIGITAL – academics more used to dealing with material in digital sphere – easier to connect to other data (making links and comparing – students on mobiles using Google to look for production photos). This might also suggest spatial and temporal qualities of digital lend themselves more to thinking about the bigger pictureTherefore, the way that actors background the artefact is qualitatively and quantitatively different from academics suggesting different ways of seeing the artefact in context
- Looking at the interpretation of an artefact – this is a complex area but there are similarities and differences in the data which reflects different ways of seeing the artefact and making meaning from itOverall, rates for academics tend to be higher - as you might expect from a thinking profession – esp with digital but evidence to suggest qualitative differences from interaction with physical [Spirit shape, Ron Daniels’ production of The Tempest at the RSC in 1982] But both CoPs share a typically humanist interest in the artefact as a bridge between people or a conveyor of ideas 2 areas of difference: authenticity and other interpretations of the artefact Authenticity important for both CoPs – but for different reasons:Actors use authenticity of the artefact to tap into emotions. Vatican - Julius Caesar – interest in authentic artefacts can illicit an authentic response from people – allows the actor to tap into a ‘mental state’ associated with a character. For actors, it is the space between artefacts and people which is of interest Academics used authenticity of the artefact in a more factual way: whether something is real or fake; the ‘stream of authenticity’ which comes from definite association to real events. Use this to assess value or significanceOther interpretations important for academics, less so for actorsAcademics: close reading of the artefact from different perspectives (likened to ‘interpretive lenses’) and the creation of multiple narratives around the artefact. In this way, academics hope to enrich understanding of a time, place or artistic production through the artefact. Mention the importance of metadata far more, and speak about symbolic interpretation – thrive in complexity – reading of the artefact is spectralActors: other interpretations or simply to see what has been done before to make sure that what they do is different – creative act – practical reasons for making meaning – normally has to lead to something – degree of convergence in the interpretation of the artefact – leading to somethingTherefore, way of making meaning from the artefact hints athow these CoPslearn from the artefact I had a Damascene moment during the project when interviewing a theatre educator (and former actress) who said that, ‘I’m active and physical by nature and I learn by doing (D: right) so the theatre is really interesting to me...all the choices it offers’ I understand everything more by doing and believe profoundly that, and this is my beginning and end point, that as a teacher we deepen our understanding by doing things’This suggested to me that the way CoPs use the artefact might be connected to how they learn collectively within their CoPShort video clip of the actor XX – I’m asking him what it is about a costume (Prospero’s cloak worn by Jacobi in 1982) that he would want to communicate to the user online
- [video]From the transcript,‘I suppose you’d want to communicate...I dunno...the way it moved I suppose you see how long it is and how it affected his movement it would be huge and then that maybe gives you a clue about how how he was how he you know portrayed Prospero you know, because I’m guessing that with this you’d have to do strong movements...sorry I’m touching this without gloves...strong impetus and...you can’t do subtle things with something that long...(or you’re gonna fall over’Movement mentioned 3 times and the word impetusUses gesticulation to make his pointAnd reaches out to touch the artefactUnderlines point that acting community appear to be kinaesthetic learners – they ‘learn by doing’ – something which increases with contact with the physical Another actors talks about the muscular language of Shakespeare, written with breathing in mind and retaining lines by muscle memoryThis contrasts with academics who tend to be assimilative (abstract learners, especially with the digital) – strong focus on use of metadata around the artefact - though students showed signs of being more imaginative around the real thing (divergent learners) [incidentally, references actor four times, and the character – Prospero – once – taken as contextualisation of the artefact using reference points of actor and character]
- Taking a step back, looking at usage of artefacts as a form of experiential learning I was able to match use processes to Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (widely used in museum education to conceptualise object-centred learning)Kolb proposes that a ‘transformation of experience’ (1984, 38) occurs as individuals move through the four quadrants of the cycle, between concrete experience and abstract conceptualisation on the perceptual axis, and reflection and experimentation on the processing axisAlthough learning depends on the learner passing through each quadrant, they will have strengths in one particular quadrant
- Matching use processes with characteristics of the four learning styles we find that:Actors learn more by doing – divergers, more so with physical material (55% with physical, 42% with digital) – they are imaginative and active around the artefactAcademics are assimilators - learn by abstract thought (40% with physical, 36% with digital)Interestingly though, students – showed signs of more divergent thinking in museum storeWould have expected actors to be in activist quadrant had trial been more hands-on
- Summing up:Idea of the project and its methodswasn’t to stereotype users – much of info unsurprising – but significant generated from interaction with the artefact (method robust and extensible) Data gives us a behind the scenes look at how actors and academics use artefacts and how they see themActors: their way of seeing is a physical, embodied response to the artefact – greater emphasis on multisensory identification and contextualisation – and interpretation focused on characterisation. Appear to have an active, kinaesthetic learning style Academics: although a broad church, their way of seeing suggests a shared preference for the physical and a cognitive response (interpret more and in different ways) but also signs that the physical engagement with the artefact influences the course of interpretation. Overall, an assimilative learning style DIGITISATION affects learning style – removes sensory data - tendency is to make more assimilative learnersFindings should change the way that we go about using the artefact – 3 processes framework for digitising, cataloguing, packaging, teaching from, and utilising collections in research, and assessing impact eg. make capture more mulitsensoryFindings should change the way that we learn from artefacts – knowing that CoPs have distinct learning styles shouldn’t mean that we focus on one dominant learning style (the so-called ‘meshing hypothesis’) – research suggest this is counter-productive. Instead, tending towards multi-modality (catering for different learning styles) would be more productive making actors more like academics and vice versa more likely (making cops more like robbers and vice versa), to produce better results Findings should change the way that we work together around the artefact –increase in contact with RSC and with other acting companies – appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of each CoP, and make us aware of some of the boundaries and dependences in the shared use of artefacts