Two theories of action:
theories-in-use - are implicit in what we do and on what we call when describing our actions to others, ie not actually stated; and
espoused theory - the words we use to convey what we do, or what we would like others to think we do.
The difference between these is important.
Why? Not sure why there is a difference. Is it that we like to inflate the importance of our reasons for action? So for me, I think a theory-in-use that is implicit in my practice is that I make most of my art in a classroom setting. I like making artwork in a social setting, and find it very difficult to make it alone. So am I reluctant to state that part of my practice involves art class, because I am embarrassed or shy to reveal that I can't make artwork on my own, therefore I don't draw attention to the social environment of my making?
And for espoused theory, is it that when I went to New York to see The Dinner Party by Judy Chicago, supposedly to research feminist making practice, I wanted others to see that I put effort into seeing famous artworks for real, rather than that I wanted a jolly, in the depths of winter, or that I wanted the status of being able to take a luxurious trip at a time that avoided the crowds.
Argyris and Schon (1974) wrote about Theory in Use. This requires:
Governing variables (dimensions to be acceptable)
Action Strategies (moves and plans in line with dimensions)
Consequences (results of actions - intended and unintended).
Leads to Learning - with the subsequent detection and correction of error. When error occurs, it results in finding another strategy to address the error, while working within the same variables. However it means goals, values, plans and rules are not questioned. This is single loop learning. Action - error - more action - error - more action - error.
Double loop learning leads to better learning because questions are raised possibly leading to changing the variables.
...
Reflection in and on action.
Schon starts explaining Technical Rationality. Uses single loop learning - goals, frameworks, values and strategies are taken for granted. The focus is on techniques and making these more efficient (Usher & Bryant 1989:87). Reflection is aimed to make the strategy more effective (not the outcome). Questions are not asked of the goals, frameworks, values and strategies. Double loop learning 'involves questioning the role of the framing and learning systems which underlie actual goals and strategies' (Usher and Bryant, 1989:87). I think this means double loop learning aims to revisit the purpose, and ask is the goal or strategy appropriate for the purpose? Goes back to an earlier stage of the concept.
Reflection in Action
Goes beyond Technical Rationality - this is the positivist epistemology of practice. Technical rationality addresses rigour of learning but does not address relevance (which changes according to circumstance and context).
Schon enables an alternative epistemology of practice 'in which the knowledge inherent in practice is understood as artful doing' (Usher et all 1997:143).
'The practitioner allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomena before him, and on the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behaviour. ..... When someone reflects-in-action he becomes a researcher in the practice context. He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique but contracts a new theory of the unique case. His inquiry is not limited to a liberation about means which depends on a prior agreement about ends'. Schon 1983:68
In my sampler, Migrant Worker Woman, the glove demonstrates Reflection in Action quite well. Cross stitch is taught in two main ways, when using Technical Rationality. Either each stitch is completed, one cross at a time, with every cross having a left diagonal stitch oversewn with a right handed diagonal stitch, before the next cross is commenced; or, a whole row of left handed stitches are completed, sewn left to right; followed by a whole row of right handed stitches sews right to left. This makes most economical use of thread, but does require knowledge of the amount of thread required to cover the required area. Stitching previous samplers, when I had misjudged the amount of thread required, had led to me identify methods of extending a colour by using two closely toned threads in the needle or stitching a slightly different colour on the top layer of stitch.
When stitching the yellow glove, I did not know how much thread would be required. I stitched the base layer of left handed cross stitches to cover the area required, and calculated the number of threads required for the top layer of right handed stitches. This indicated I had enough of the right colour. This thread had some colour variation within the skein, which gives natural colour movement and makes colour panels less flat. I did not want a flat block of colour, as a rubber glove has some moulding and this needed to be apparent for it to read as a representation of a 3D object. While stitching the top layer of the cross stitches, I started by working horizontal rows, which gave flat horizontal lines of more intense colour where the colour variation occurred. This was contrary to the required effect of moulding. However, while stitching, it occurred to me that if I stitched the more intense colour up and down the edge of the fingers of the gloves, I could give the impression of moulding, and avoid the streaks of intensity in the wrong place.
This shows two stages of adaptation of the working of cross stitch - working one layer at a time, rather than one stitch at a time; and stitching directionally in order to use colour variation where it is needed.
Reflection On Action explores why we acted as we did. This creates sets of questions and ideas about activity and practice. So does Reflection on Action lead to praxis, rather than practice. Praxis is informed, committed action. Schon appears to be more focussed on informed action, than committed action. He does not interrogate his own method. (Usher et al 1997:149). He talks about framing one's practice, to inform it, but 'neglects the situatedness of practitioner experience'. (id ib).
Does this fit with my thoughts about Situated Knowledge artefacts?
No comments:
Post a Comment