CONTEXTUAL STUDIES AND BODY OF WORK

31.10.22

Q: How do you mesh BOW and CS? we concluded that most of us began working them together but later tended to work them at separate periods.

CS doesnt have to mirror BOW. They contextualise each other offering context and support. You shouldn’t have to read them together to understand them individually.

29.8.22

We shared how we had turned the learning outcomes into questions. These are mine:

CS: Learning outcomes Turned into questions

LO1 undertaken research and study demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of your area of specialisation and built a theoretical framework for your creative practice.

Q: Have I researched and studied my specialisation and demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge?

Q: Have I built a theoretical framework for my creative practice?

LO2 synthesised and articulated your critical, contextual and conceptual knowledge and understanding into a coherent critique of advanced academic standard.

Q: Have I pulled together research and written using evidence?

Q: Have I referred to my BOW contextualising practise and theory?

Q: Have I evidenced in writing my concept thoroughly and how broader concepts have fed into this?

LO3 applied your own criteria of judgement, reviewed, criticised and taken responsibility for your own work with minimum guidance.

Q: Have I reviewed, judged, and critiqued myself?

LO4 selected and applied information management skills and used appropriate technology in the production of an accomplished critique with minimal supervision.

Q: Have I used information management skills and technology?

Q: Have I produced a good critique myself?

BOW: Learning outcomes

LO1 produce convincing visual products that communicate your intentions, using accomplished techniques in complex and unfamiliar environments, with minimal supervision from your tutor.

Q: Have I produced a convincing visual product?

Q: Have I communicated my intentions?

Q: Have I used accomplished techniques?

Q: the above in complex and unfamiliar environments?

LO2 demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of your area of specialisation and be able to situate your own work within a larger context of practice in your field.

Q: Have I shown comprehensive knowledge in my area?

Q: Have I placed my work in the context of practise in my field?

LO3 transform abstract concepts and ideas into rich narratives and integrate them in your images.

Q: Have I transformed abstract concepts and ideas?

Q: Have I created rich narratives? Are they integrated into my images?

LO4 critically review your own work and evaluate it against desired outcomes.

Q: Have I critically reviewed my work?

Q: Have I evaluated it against learning outcomes?

LO5 demonstrate management, leadership and communication skills and have deployed them during the negotiation and production of the final body of work with your tutor and third parties.

Q: Have I shown management, and communication skills.

Q: Have I used these when discussing with my Tutor, and others?

Alexander, J. (2013) Contextual Studies. Barnsley: Open College of the Arts.

25.7.22

Discussion on previous session which I missed which showcased Anna and Helen’s work – I must watch the recording.

Comments were particularly about the visual impact of the work and that their self-reflection was also presented visually which was good. Remember the assessors are visual as well.

Their work showed their commitment and how they entwined BOW and CS.

Learning Objectives:

Q: why do we have Los? Suggested to work against LO’s so that you stay on track and understand the expectations of the units

Engage with the level, context, and quality of the work at each stage every time you submit – this gives you the opportunity to achieve your best. It helps to keep you coming back to the bigger picture.

To find your research question you first need to decide on your subject (broad) which may change when you find evidence.

You need to be able to articulate your work in terms of LO’s. Articulate how you’re fulfilling the LO’s because it will change, and will help you to find evidence of how you have fulfilled the LO’s. 

LO’s force you to change perspective on your work – find your niche, find the missing bits and evidence

Makes you think how your project/research does this – do it regularly. Reflecting on LO’s enable you to undertake reflective learning and to write your self-reflection at the end.

Evidence in Research, essay, self reflection.

LO example: Synthesized and articulated your critical contextual and conceptual Knowledge and understanding into a critique of advanced academic standards. Coherent (in assessment criteria)

Key words:

• Synthesise- pull together from research cross pollinated ideas- something that led me to write the dissertation but isn’t explicitly in it. So maybe in a reflective commentary, could photograph evidence in docs of evidence used. But need to be showing them process, so some elaboration is needed. Choose evidence that is straightforward then it’s evident
• Articulate- shown by writing in order
• Critical – forming judgement with evidence
• Contextual Referring to BOW showing assessor how you’ve done it contextualising practise and theory
• Conceptual- that you’ve fulfilled a broad idea and taken other concepts
• Knowledge and understanding: anything above falls under understanding – so showcase the above and the rigour and thoroughness of your concept.

3 or 4 per LO but could do more Find in assessment and the module

Break them down and consider these learning outcomes as questions. Turn them into critical direct questions that you can pose to yourself. How have I? Ask How did I review critique…take responsibility for my work…undertake research that demonstrates…     Target your area of specialisation.

Theoretical framework is found in academic arguments and creative practice. How did I build a theoretical framework for my creative practise – showcase how my creative practise and my contextual topic relate BOW & CS.

NB. Proposals easier to write when you’ve finished a project

For next time:

Turn your Learning outcomes into direct questions. If they are cumbersome, break them down into more than one question.
Locate the keywords that allow you to turn abstract sentences into tangible guidance.
Consider how your topic and research relate to each learning outcome.
Articulate this as an answer to each of the questions (LOs).
Consider what evidence you could submit to prove your articulated answers.

31.5.22

Q: How to fit your literature review to your dissertation? Can adjust your literature review later or simply write a reflective piece explaining why the dissertation and literature review have ultimately differed. The importance of resources will change.

When writing articulation means that we own our thoughts, articulation is discovery.

When including research methodologies in the dissertation think about what the reader needs to know- how much or how little?

Audience needs to understand your work although the work is aimed at the theoretical audience the ultimate authors are the sources in your work. Have theoretical debates with your sources.

25.4.21

This was a general, Q&A session.

Q: How to decide what to cut out from your work to meet a word count.

• Be concise- eradicate the imprecise
• Take out repetition
• Move some info to footnotes
• Be especially precise in introductions and conclusions, Only 5-6 sentences each. The first and the  last sentences are particularly important and should echo each other

Remember the literature review can morph, as long as you explain your reasoning. Later Q: so how would I rewrite? Completely? Or as a comment on?

My question: How do I stop researching and write my literature review?

A: The literature review is the framework to form my argument – to form the context. In order to avoid self plagiarism need to reformulate later.

• Ask what do I really need for this?
• What would I need to include if explaining to someone else
• Keep to the essentials – it is important to analysis to the full potential
• Analyse the most important blocks I need – 4-5 sources only

My question: If the literature review is to form the theoretical framework for my argument do I only use theorists/philosophers?  Ie; not those who critique the work of my chosen photographers?

A:

• Ask how important is their work to the topic?
• Do they argue about the photographers work or the central arguments?
• If semiology is important it would be daft not to include Barthes

Other tips on sources:

• Download books to google books as PDFs.
• Use google scholar
• Get articles sent by local libraries????

28.3.22

Discussions on literature reviews

• It’s an abstract concept which should not be rigid, it should allow you to change direction, it’s just a step in the research
• Though it might not seem immediately relevant it is about the journey rather than the output
• Treat it as a theoretical framework to return to
• It is relevant to everything we do including BOW – could theoretically do one for BOW
• Helps you to synthesis things that are relevant and not so relevant and to synthesis them
• Helps you to find and make links in your own work

Q to those who’ve finished it: How has the lit review developed in your dissertation drafts?

• It gives a structure
• Keeps you on track

Q: How can you work out what is relevant in your research?

• Tutor guidance – so I should seek this now
• Look at potential sources
• Abstracts, summaries, tables of contents, introductions

Best if the literature review has some uniformity:

• Relate the sources to each other
• Firstly, discuss them source by source but then connect them together to make a theoretical framework

How to open up more sources?

• Find and make links in your work and research

Dissertation: 500 words inc quotes

• Is for your interpretation of others theories, where you find links, to show your perspective.
• Paraphrasing is better than quoting as you are then filtering and showing your understanding

Footnotes

• Put in the text definitions, elaborations that our text cant do without
• Put in footnotes that which isn’t intrinsic but could help a reader understand better- that which is helpful. Clarity and guidance that is beneficial but not needed, eg. recommending sources not embedded in our sources, to show wider reading.

Next time I should ask for support on finding texts, sources, libraries.

28.2.22

Much of this session was around being “stuck” and how to move on.

Learning points for me were:

• Consider why what I am working on fascinates me?
• Why does what I’m reading fascinate me?
• Don’t be too focused on the outcome at the beginning
• Follow the tracks (continuing on from the last tutorial on Ginsberg, before they grow cold, or you lose the trail
• Ensure I’m keeping bibliography list – extract from paper pile
• When reading think/visualise my practical work and when photographing think about my writing

Next time ask about theories of realisim? Garry interested in?

Can an artist represent something of themselves in a place?

31.1.22

We began with a Q & A session which was useful:

Matt Q: In the Lit review and dissertation proposal, what is the normal number of photographers to use? Ariadne: Less is more, with analysis, we are not here to provide lists but contextual analysis, ask how many do you need to contextualise your work? Think why are they there, and why have you chosen them, use 4-5 maximum. The Lit review should be a clear, in depth review of my literature, to contextualise my thoughts; but you will read more than you’ll summarise in your lit review. The lit review should be the backbone of my contextual framework, texts that my argument can’t do without, interrelationship, extrapolation – be brutal to get depth.

Sue Q: If you change track should you revise your lit review? Ariadne: moving away from the lit review will show development of research, so no. For final assessment interlink your lit review and your final thoughts explaining why you moved away from it. Or develop also a final lit review, but then you would need to cover in your presentation as the assessor may not have time to read it – a summary of the core lit underpinning my dissertation.

Lit review advice: https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/book-review/ and https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/literature-review/ These are very useful

Catherine Q: Referencing? Referencing a bibliography alphabetically doesn’t show which sources were the most important. Could we do a reflection on this bibliography as we don’t have many words?

Ariadne: Yes you could do a primary, secondary and tertiary sources bibliography in alphabetical order, but suggests avoid separating these types of sources.

Holly Q: A bibliography just helps you see where the reference sources have come from? What about footnotes? Ariadne: everything relevant about your argument should be in essay, that that informs your essay should be in footnotes, everything else should be omitted. Your bibliography may lead you elsewhere in he future.

Rob Q: How to narrow a topic down? Lynda says the reading, keep reading for your “ahha” moment. Ariadne agrees. Susan ahha moment came from the body of work.

Ariadne: Ahha moments come when you don’t expect them so have a notebook with you.

Ariadne says ask why are you photographing what you are in your BOW? You’re not trying to explain your BOW in your CS, but just contextualising it?

Ariadne set out before the session what we would cover, a discussion on methodologies; a topic suitable for all stages of research and all models of level 3. We were asked to watch the video interview below and to consider the notions of clues, evidence and hunters as well as the definition of microhistories in relation to a methodological approach to L3 theory and practice.

The Hunter’s Evidence: Carlo Ginzburg

Carlo Ginzburg & David Kutcher anthropologist

In “The Hunter’s Evidence” Carlo Ginzburg used the Stone Age hunter as his intellectual metaphor, He said the hunter could look for evidence as he wasn’t hindered by other things:

“Man has been a hunter for thousands of years. In the course of countless chases he learned to reconstruct the shapes and movements of his invisible prey from tracks on the ground, broken branches, excrement, tufts of hair, entangled feathers, stagnating odors. He learned to sniff out, record, interpret, and classify such infinitesimal traces as trails of spittle. He learned how to execute complex mental operations with lightning speed, in the depth of a forest or in a prairie with its hidden dangers…The hunter would have been the first ‘to tell a story because he alone was able to read, in the silent, nearly imperceptible tracks left by his prey, a coherent sequence of events…What may be the oldest act in the intellectual history of the human race [is] the hunter squatting on the ground, studying the tracks of his quarry”.

My notes and our discussion on the above:

Micro histories is the unfolding of small events into larger information clues, putting things under a microscope, and magnifying things in such detail that we see grand narrative. It is the analytical element, which is crucial. Ginzburg also relates micro histories as being about generalisations, but using analytical methods, a methodology to make sense of fragments of evidence. He also described it as a method for finding the relationship between the written and visual world.

This was described by Ariadne as “Grand narratives through small case studies”.

Ariadne: “Research is about sniffing out our prey, so that we can tell a compelling story, as researchers we have to be hunters”.

But where should we look for the best evidence, and reconfigure our scopes to find it? The “ahha” moment which is unpredictable which can lead to something larger. However interesting a piece of evidence may be, we don’t know where the evidence will lead us. The larger relevance may not be immediately visible. Ariadne suggests even if it’s a tiny thing, collect it and it may make more sense later.

In Ginzburg’s essay “Clues,” in Myths, Emblems, Clues (1990), he gives 3 models of micro historians, Sherlock Holmes (detective), Sigmund Freud (uses semiotics in a medical sense) and Giovanni Morelli (19th Century art historian). The trick, as Freud put it, is to divine “secret and concealed things from unconsidered or unnoticed details, from the rubbish heap, as it were, of our observations.” He is thereby suggesting, detective, medical and historical methods of looking for minor details. Ginzburg says the skill is “the flexible and rigorous insight of a lover or a horse trader or a card shark.” To deduce from evidence he also gives analogies of the flexible and rigorous eye/experience of the lover (the relationship between two lovers), the card shark (eg the hesitation in a card game- a silence). I think he is talking about intuition.

What Ginzburg is teaching is a way of looking at the world right around us.

Ariadne pointed out not to assume your narrative is evident in the evidence, the fragments that you have pieced together.

References:

The Hunter’s Evidence: Carlo Ginzburg (2022) At: https://radioopensource.org/the-hunters-evidence-carlo-ginzburg/ (Accessed 31/01/2022).

Ginzburg, C. (1990) ‘Myths, Emblems, Clues, trans’ In: John and Anne C. Tedeschi, London: Hutchinson Radius

29.11.21

Old course model and new model: New is research unit 1^st, then practical: 1 year each.

Course

Research and ideas for CS & BOW are different but may overlap. CS is not for explaining our visual work with the theory but the 2 do come together and the end result should be bigger than the sum of its parts.

Level 3 is about your passion and interests, must be sustainable.

• Anna talked about changing her topic but Ariadne said it was only a “hange of prism”, where the research led her down a different route, and that this is the correct approach:

“The wild goose chase is not about the goose, its about the chase” Ariadne

Consider-redefine- reconsider- redefine

• We articulate better visually when we articulate in writing and vice versa, the two aid each other. Articulation is needed to open the next door.
• Research helps you to work out where your work fits into the photographic world, and eventually you won’t differentiate between your practical and academic work.
• Ariadne: Talk about your ideas, your methodology, challenges…
• Ariadne: Pinpoint areas of academic areas that you need help with- vocalise on the forum.

I shared my experience about being hesitant to write, Ariadne did say get on with writing; ask why something interests me, what overlaps, document your journey. I should also diary key words and how one idea leads onto another.

Me: Landscape as a visual metaphor for community. Different ways of seeing, perception, and responding.

What is ontology in simple terms?

In brief, ontology, as a branch of philosophy, is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects. In simple terms, ontology seeks the classification and explanation of entities. … Ontology concerns claims about the nature of being and existence.

Liminality is a state of transition between one stage and the next, especially between major stages in one’s life or during a rite of passage. … In a general sense, liminality is an in-between period, typically marked by uncertainty.

I am in a state of liminality!

31.1.22

We began with a Q & A session which was useful:

Matt Q: In the Lit review and dissertation proposal, what is the normal number of photographers to use? Ariadne: Less is more, with analysis, we are not here to provide lists but contextual analysis, ask how many do you need to contextualise your work? Think why are they there, and why have you chosen them, use 4-5 maximum. The Lit review should be a clear, in depth review of my literature, to contextualise my thoughts; but you will read more than you’ll summarise in your lit review. The lit review should be the backbone of my contextual framework, texts that my argument can’t do without, interrelationship, extrapolation – be brutal to get depth.

Sue Q: If you change track should you revise your lit review? Ariadne: moving away from the lit review will show development of research, so no. For final assessment interlink your lit review and your final thoughts explaining why you moved away from it. Or develop also a final lit review, but then you would need to cover in your presentation as the assessor may not have time to read it – a summary of the core lit underpinning my dissertation.

Lit review advice: https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/book-review/ and https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/literature-review/ These are very useful

Catherine Q: Referencing? Referencing a bibliography alphabetically doesn’t show which sources were the most important. Could we do a reflection on this bibliography as we don’t have many words?

Ariadne: Yes you could do a primary, secondary and tertiary sources bibliography in alphabetical order, but suggests avoid separating these types of sources.

Holly Q: A bibliography just helps you see where the reference sources have come from? What about footnotes? Ariadne: everything relevant about your argument should be in essay, that that informs your essay should be in footnotes, everything else should be omitted. Your bibliography may lead you elsewhere in he future.

Rob Q: How to narrow a topic down? Lynda says the reading, keep reading for your “ahha” moment. Ariadne agrees. Susan ahha moment came from the body of work.

Ariadne: Ahha moments come when you don’t expect them so have a notebook with you.

Ariadne says ask why are you photographing what you are in your BOW? You’re not trying to explain your BOW in your CS, but just contextualising it?

Ariadne set out before the session what we would cover, a discussion on methodologies; a topic suitable for all stages of research and all models of level 3. We were asked to watch the video interview below and to consider the notions of clues, evidence and hunters as well as the definition of microhistories in relation to a methodological approach to L3 theory and practice.

The Hunter’s Evidence: Carlo Ginzburg

Carlo Ginzburg & David Kutcher anthropologist

In “The Hunter’s Evidence” Carlo Ginzburg used the Stone Age hunter as his intellectual metaphor, He said the hunter could look for evidence as he wasn’t hindered by other things:

“Man has been a hunter for thousands of years. In the course of countless chases he learned to reconstruct the shapes and movements of his invisible prey from tracks on the ground, broken branches, excrement, tufts of hair, entangled feathers, stagnating odors. He learned to sniff out, record, interpret, and classify such infinitesimal traces as trails of spittle. He learned how to execute complex mental operations with lightning speed, in the depth of a forest or in a prairie with its hidden dangers…The hunter would have been the first ‘to tell a story because he alone was able to read, in the silent, nearly imperceptible tracks left by his prey, a coherent sequence of events…What may be the oldest act in the intellectual history of the human race [is] the hunter squatting on the ground, studying the tracks of his quarry”.

My notes and our discussion on the above:

Micro histories is the unfolding of small events into larger information clues, putting things under a microscope, and magnifying things in such detail that we see grand narrative. It is the analytical element, which is crucial. Ginzburg also relates micro histories as being about generalisations, but using analytical methods, a methodology to make sense of fragments of evidence. He also described it as a method for finding the relationship between the written and visual world.

This was described by Ariadne as “Grand narratives through small case studies”.

Ariadne: “Research is about sniffing out our prey, so that we can tell a compelling story, as researchers we have to be hunters”.

But where should we look for the best evidence, and reconfigure our scopes to find it? The “ahha” moment which is unpredictable which can lead to something larger. However interesting a piece of evidence may be, we don’t know where the evidence will lead us. The larger relevance may not be immediately visible. Ariadne suggests even if it’s a tiny thing, collect it and it may make more sense later.

In Ginzburg’s essay “Clues,” in Myths, Emblems, Clues (1990), he gives 3 models of micro historians, Sherlock Holmes (detective), Sigmund Freud (uses semiotics in a medical sense) and Giovanni Morelli (19th Century art historian). The trick, as Freud put it, is to divine “secret and concealed things from unconsidered or unnoticed details, from the rubbish heap, as it were, of our observations.” He is thereby suggesting, detective, medical and historical methods of looking for minor details. Ginzburg says the skill is “the flexible and rigorous insight of a lover or a horse trader or a card shark.” To deduce from evidence he also gives analogies of the flexible and rigorous eye/experience of the lover (the relationship between two lovers), the card shark (eg the hesitation in a card game- a silence). I think he is talking about intuition.

What Ginzburg is teaching is a way of looking at the world right around us.

Ariadne pointed out not to assume your narrative is evident in the evidence, the fragments that you have pieced together.

References:

The Hunter’s Evidence: Carlo Ginzburg (2022) At: https://radioopensource.org/the-hunters-evidence-carlo-ginzburg/ (Accessed 31/01/2022).

Ginzburg, C. (1990) ‘Myths, Emblems, Clues, trans’ In: John and Anne C. Tedeschi, London: Hutchinson Radius

Next post: https://nkssite6.photo.blog/category/reflective-journal/hangouts/l2-l3-stundent-led-hangouts/