Bases para la Creación de unos Criterios Comunes

In section 2.2 I theoretically accounted for the need to include artists, CG, and representatives of the policy paradigm as research participants. This was supported by the most comprehensive insights into AD activity being produced through approaches that included the qualitative experiences of artists and organisations (Cox et al, n.d.; Louise, 2014). Constructivist institutionalism suggests that any socio-political phenomena is context-specific, forged by those (re)interpreting it, and so can only be understood by interrogating the in-situ experiences of the different actors involved. As such, ethnography was selected as the best approach to examine AD. The specific features of ethnography I adopted are outlined in the subsequent paragraphs.

I used three main authors to inform the approach to ethnography I took: Mark P.

Whittaker (1996), John D. Brewer (2000), and Clifford Geertz (1973).

Whittaker’s discussions on representation within ethnography helped me to understand my role in the field, and the nature of the written outcomes I

produced. Mike Crang and Ian Cook (2007) argue that the written outcomes of ethnography risk representing a homogenised culture through “an apparently detached researcher”. Instead, Whittaker (1996) asserts that representation is

“necessary as a part of ethnographic investigation” (Whitaker, 1996, p. 9). Not something to be avoided, representation is rather an “invitation” from the

researcher to the reader (Whitaker, 1996, p. 9). For researchers to commuicate their findings, they must create a codified representation of what it is they have gleaned from the field. Thus, representation is unavoidable if research is to be communicated beyond the researcher themselves. Rather than framing the written outcomes of ethnography as an attempt to capture and convey a culture, Whittaker (1996, p. 8) suggests that they are viewed as a form of “publically displayed learning”.

In understanding the field notes and thesis in this way, I approached the

practices at CG as knowledge to be aquired, not presupposed. This links to the grounded theory aspect of the research (discussed further in section 3.5). In Constructing Grounded Theory, Kathy Charmaz (2014, p. 11) states that “as we learn how our research participants make sense of their experiences, we begin to make analytic sense of their meanings and actions”. Thus, the researcher’s learnt analyses are key. Rather than attempting to generalise or homogenise the culture of small-scale contemporary visual arts organisations, the written account of this ethnographic study is presented as my learnt experiences in the

form of a thesis. Any communication of the research was conducted in the hope that it could and would promote a “lucid interchange through investigative

representations” (Whitaker, 1996, pp. 8-9). In other words, I hoped that myself, individuals, and organisations who could relate to the content would continue the process of learning through critical engagements with the data, post-data collection.

I also referenced the work of Brewer (2000, p. 51) who discusses how ethnography can be attentive to “‘generative structures’ through close examination of human agency”. Termed critical realism, this approach to ethnography understands practice-like power relations between actors and the contexts in which they exist. Not to be confused with what is generally termed

“critical ethnography” (Rossman & Rallis, 2003, p. 96), critical realist

ethnography recognises that “while the enablements and constraints imposed by structures influence individual actions, those in turn either maintain or transform social structures” (Porter & Ryan, 2003, p. 413). Reflecting on counterpublics and constructivist institutionalism, this style of research is necessary when seeking to understand how actors relate to one another in (re)forming the context in which they all practice, and how AD is situated within this scenario.

Brewer outlines how critical realist ethnography necessitates a reflexive

researcher, and highlights a strong link between critical realist ethnography and Giddens’s theory of structuration (Brewer, 2000, pp. 50-51). Understood as the interplay between structure and agency, and the way “agency reproduces (and occasionally transforms) the structure in which it occurs within” (Brewer, 2000,

p. 50), there are strong ties between critical realism and authors from

constructivism in political analysis who have developed Giddens’s theory (Hay, 2002). This specifically connects to the theoretical discussion I have in Chapter 6.

Crang and Cook also critique how ethnography is influenced by the researchers own prior knowledge and presence (Crang & Cook, 2007, pp. 7-8). When

considering my role and influence in the research process, I found Olesen’s (2007) work on reflexivity to be informative. Reflexivity is a built-in part of ethnography. As argued by Olesen (2007), whilst it may never be a perfect process, reflexivity is something to consistently “strive” for (Olesen, 2007, pp.

424-425). While it is a highly-contested term (Mruck & Mey, 2007), to me reflexivity meant a self-imposed interrogation of how “prior knowledge and tacit knowledge” influenced my approach to the field, and whether this lead to me mis-representing the scenario and individuals I was observing (Cutcliffe, 2000).

There were several stages where I checked, reflected upon, and critiqued my observations, something only possible with the open-acknowledgment that I was undeniably producing work that was highly subjective.

Ian Dey (1999) and Cathy Urquhart’s (2013) focus on the importance of the researcher having an “open mind” (Dey, 2007) when engaging in research also helped me to refine my approach to the field. “We should not confuse an open mind with an empty head”, states Dey (2007, p. 176). Keeping an “open mind”

[…] is not to avoid preconceptions, but to ensure that they are well-grounded in arguments and evidence, and always subject to further investigation, revision, and refutation.

(Dey, 2007, p. 176)

An “open mind” is a process of continually assessing the relevancy of that prior knowledge, and to develop or discredit it where necessary as informed by a critical engagement in the field. For me, this helped me to understand how my prior knowledge could come to bear on the phenomenon of AD.

Clifford Geertz’s (1973) described account of ethnography as “thick description”

helped guide my approach to data collection. Brewer outlines how critical realist ethnography involves a reflexive researcher who is aware of “‘generative

structures’ through close examination of human agency” (Brewer, 2000, p. 51).

Geertz’s term “thick description” (Geertz: 2000; 1973) helped to establish how such a “close examination” could take place. While Geertz’s style of execution has been described as “a literary style of ethnography” (Neyland, 2008, p. 17), Geertz’s conceptualisation of “thick description” encourages researchers to “dig-deep” into the nuances their subject matter may present. Ethnography, in this sense, is a process of “explication”; unfolding the many layers and many different forms those layers appear in. The connotations of “thick description”

allowed me to consider the need to uncover multiple sources of data in the one setting, which complemented the adoption of a critical realist understanding of ethnography described as “an attempt to explain the relationships of social structure and social action” (Brewer, 2000, p. 50). Having chosen to use an ethnographic methodology, I then needed to produce a research design to ensure I got the most out of my time in the field.