Planning the journey

1. Literature review is now called Contextual Review because now, “increasingly information exists in a wide range of media, for example in digital forms on the web, as documented events/exhibitions, and not simply paper-based ‘literature’.” (14)
2. “By the so-what stage, you should be able to make a conclusion about what you have discovered and its value and significance to the wider research context. At PhD level, this should be a new contribution to knowledge. At Masters level, you should be able to demonstrate a critical evaluation of your research context and show that you have an understanding of methodological issues.” (15-16)
3. It will be necessary to ‘defend’ your argument – especially for a research degree – in an examination viva. (16)
4. An important part of your thesis is the identification of future research leading on from your work. (16)
5. Methods are specific techniques and tools for exploring, gathering, and analysing information, for example observation, drawing, concept mapping, photography, video, audio, case study, visual diary, models, interviews, surveys, and so on. (17)
6. Methodology is the study of ‘the system of methods and principles used in a particular discipline’ (New Collins Concise Dictionary, 1986) (17)
7. Positivist paradigm of research is characterised by a ‘realist’ ontology – reality exists ‘out there’ (19)
8. Objectivist epistemology – the researcher is detached (19)
9. Realist ontology – reality exists ‘out there’ (19)
10. Objectivist epistemology – the researcher is detached (19)
11. Relativist ontology – multiple realities exist as personal and social constructions (19)
12. Subjectivist epistemology – the researcher is involved (19)
13. Insert visualising research pg 20 picture
14. “ In the role of practitioner-researcher, subjectivity, involvement, reflexivity is acknowledged; the interaction of the researcher with the research material is recognised. Knowledge is negotiated – inter-subjective, context-bound, and is a result of personal construction. Research material may not necessarily be replicated, but can be made accessible, communicated and understood. This requires methodology to be explicit and transparent (documentation is essential) and transferable in principle (if not specifics).” (21)
15. “A characteristic of artistic ‘artistic’ methodology is a pluralist approach using a multi-method technique, tailored to the individual project. Increasingly, this has involved the use of multiple media to integrate visual, tactile, kinaesthetic, experiential data into ‘rich’ information.” (21) – Relate to artistic research that Mahesh used to tell us about in Srishti. 
16. “Schon proposes that much of this activity is personal knowledge, not usually articulated, sometimes indescribably, and that it relies on improvisation learned in practice. In fact he likens it to an intuitive ‘art’ – knowing-in-action, the characteristic mode of ordinary practical knowledge’. This kind of knowing is dynamic – knowing how rather than knowing what. Schon identifies that the professional’s inability or unwillingness to articulate this kind of knowledge has led to a separation of academic and professional practice.” (Pg. 22)
17. Practitioner-researcher: someone who holds down a job in some particular area and at the same time carries out inquiry which is of relevance to the job. (23)
18. The advantages of the practitioner-researcher role are compelling: your ‘insider’ knowledge, experience and status usually lends your research credibility and trustworthiness in the eyes of your peers, that is, you are not an ‘external’ researcher. Most importantly, you are inquiring as a reflective practitioner, acknowledging the complexity, dynamism and unpredictability of the real world. (23)
19. The use of two or more methods of gathering information on an issue is called ‘triangulation’. (31)

Mapping the terrain: methods of contextualising research

20. The Contextual Review helps to identify precisely the nature of your own research question by gaining more information about its context, both what has already been addressed, when, where, and by whom, as well as what has not yet been addressed. Through the Contextual Review, the hunch that initiated your research project becomes a tangible ‘gap’ in knowledge. (36)
21. Phase 1: Initial Surveys – to form a set of relevant references/sources that establish the proposal’s rationale and viability. (36)
    1. Initial Surveys enable researchers to:
       1. Establish the proposal’s rationale – that the research is really needed, that it has professional relevance, and that it should be viable to undertake;
       2. Gain some background information around the proposed topic, define key terms, and elicit some external feedback, perhaps through contact with other researchers/advisors;
       3. Focus the proposal, or in some cases refocus;
       4. Gain information on validated research methodologies used in other completed research. (37)
22. Phase 2: Critical Review – use of the references to develop a critical review of your research context, leading to the identification of your own particular research question and the development of a convincing argument. (36)
    1. In evaluating the terrain you will encounter a range of perspectives. The review allows you to acknowledge these different contributions, but also encourages you to state your responses to them – both positive and negative! (37)
    2. Criteria for the critical review – ‘breadth and depth, rigour and consistency, clarity and brevity, and effective analysis and synthesis’ (37, 38)
    3. At the end of this process, you should be well placed to ‘locate your position’ within the professional context and formulate a viable research question and research strategy. 
23. The structure of arguments:
    1. Claim – an arguable statement, for example formal research in Art and Design is an important activity. 
    2. Evidence – data used to support the claim, for example an analysis of the Higher Education Statistics Agency data reveals a rapid increase in completed research for higher degrees in the creative arts and design between 1994 and 2002. 
    3. Warrant – an expectation that provides the link between the evidence and claim, for example formal research in Art and Design should be encouraged. 
    4. Backing – context and assumptions used to support the validity of the warrant and evidence, for example formal research should be encouraged because it contributes to the rigorous investigation of practice encouraging new developments and new roles and practitioners. (39)
24. Intellectual standards – The critical thinker bases arguments on the use of evidence and sound reasoning. There are intellectual standards that you can apply to check noth your own use of critical skills and those of others:
    1. Clarity – Is a statement expressed in the best way? How else could it be expressed? Is it sufficiently elaborated? Is there too much jargon/over-specialised language? Are there relevant examples or illustrations?
    2. Accuracy – Is this true? Can its accuracy be checked? Is it appropriately attributed? 
    3. Precision – Is there enough detail to explain the meaning? Could it be more specific or more clearly defined? 
    4. Relevance – How is this related to the topic? Is it truly relevant? Is it out of context?
    5. Depth – Are the complexities of the question addressed? Is the statement qualified by reason and evidence? Is it a superficial treatment? 
    6. Breadth – Are there issues that have been omitted? Is there another way to look at this? Are there other acknowledged perspectives on this? Is a balance provided?
    7. Logic/reason – Does this really make sense? How does this follow from what was said before? Is it consistent? Does it contradict the previous statement? (39-40)
25. To keep a reasonable focus on your subject area, use keywords. It is worth reflecting on their relevance and accuracy. They provide criteria and parameters for searching and may need to be expanded, contracted or amended depending on the results of initial searches. (43)
26. Keep track of all searches, especially names and sources, for example ‘ARIAD database’, keywords used, number of results, etc. (44)
27. About reading for a Contextual Review:
    1. Obtain reference/source material and mention the publication details. 
    2. Try to get a quick overview of the content and structure – look at the index/chapter/section headings;
    3. Keep your keywords/research descriptors in mind – they help focus and select;
    4. Scan and skim read, scan down the middle sections of the page
    5. scan/skim read the introduction/abstract and the summary/conclusions;
    6. Read more carefully the various sections that seem significant;
    7. use coloured highlighters on the copy to code key content
    8. Extract key information
    9. Take a note of the quality of the information – check it again critical criteria (45)
28. Use bibliographic software such as ProCite or EndNote or FileMakerPro (46)
29. Add additional details such as:
    1. A summary field – a brief and accurate description of the reference
    2. A critical evaluation field – critical statements on the significance and value of the reference to the research context and to your research in particular 
    3. A key notes field – selected brief quotations that illustrate significant arguments/points
    4. An other media field – for the inclusion of video/audio/multimedia extracts (47)
30. In masters courses a Contextual Review might be directed at your professional peers and/or the people with whom you work. You may want to use it for:
    1. Demonstrating your professional awareness;
    2. Demonstrating the value of your research to your particular working context;
    3. Using it in an application for funding or securing resources;
    4. Locating and relating your own particular practice;
    5. Developing a new research project (49)
31. Whatever the preferred structure of the contextual review, the content should include:
    1. Clear and brief objective descriptive summaries of each key reference;
    2. Judicious use of brief key quotes to illustrate significant arguments/ideas;
    3. Use of visual overviews and more specific visual materials, for example photographs;
    4. Critical evaluation of the significance and value of reference material to the wider research context, and to your research proposal in particular;
    5. Demonstration throughout of critical thinking skills and critical writing, and an attempt to develop a language appropriate for practitioner research. (52)
32. By playing with the references – organising them in different ways – you could end up with several maps to help you decide how to structure your review. (53)
33. Mind map – The basis of this map could be a target like structure with concentric rings to help locate and differentiate between degrees of importance. Locate all references on such a structure. Some might be so far towards the edge of the map that they can be removed. (53)
34. Software that helps in developing mind maps – Inspiration (53)
35. Matrix – x, y, z dimensions that can map different variables, for e.g., Concepts/Issues, Number of references, and year of publication. Such a matrix can help visualise where there are an appropriate number of references and where gaps exist to guide further search for appropriate references. (54 & 55)
36. Network – collection of nodes (points) connected by links (lines) and can be visualised as a tree structure with branches or plant with roots. (55)