Here, I reflect upon the arts-based methodology of this study and describe how my research path has developed during this dissertation. In qualitative research, it is important to review the choices made through the research process and reflect upon them. This is part of making the research transparent and, in this case the study, and evaluating myself as a trustworthy researcher.
The theory of perception phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty, 1962/2005) was my foundation when I started working on this doctoral project. Gradually, through working with Cases 1 and 2, it became clear to me how to place the project within an embodied cognition theoretical framework. A good match between practice and theory was found in the embodied cognition theory. I understood how these theories largely confirmed the perception of phenomenology and how they would be helpful in developing deeper and more nuanced understanding of both individual and joint sense-making in interaction with different materialities, rather than relying on phenomenology alone.
When I started working on this dissertation, I began doing a systematic review of picturebook apps to determine how features in such technologies could contribute to sense-making. I made systematic searches in different databases and related these to the Preferred Reporting Items within the Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) process (Liberati, et al., 2009). During this search, I found some useful studies that were tangential to what I was searching for an answer to, but I could not go into depth or understand sense-making in interaction with a picturebook app using this approach. A next step was therefore to conduct a study of my own touch interaction with a virtual picturebook app to find its relationship to sense-making. My first consideration in studying my own interaction with the app was to take
a phenomenological approach. I considered this especially since I was familiar with using the phenomenology method because it has been a tradition in studying the making process using school methods within arts and crafts teacher education at my university for a long time (see Halvorsen, 2007). I also decided to use audio-visual documentation and make phenomenological descriptions of my experience interacting with the app. However, I found think-aloud accounts and diary questions as part of an arts-based approach to be more relevant for my study.
At an early stage in my planning, I considered doing design-based research (Barab &
Squire, 2004). I knew that the focus in such studies is on the learners, their localities, and their communities. My idea was to collaborate with teachers in an ECE context to plan and implement a number of theory-based teaching interventions. However, as a first step in researching children’s explorations of different materialities, I decided to tailor a case (Stake, 2010) and invite the children into exploration in a prearranged large-scale project room. The idea was to use my own knowledge as a/r/tographer working with materials and digital technologies in ECTE over many years to tailor a case to study children’s exploration and sensory experience in such surroundings. The aim of tailoring the case was to examine children’s touch interaction in material and digital surroundings and document what might otherwise be difficult to capture. I could have spent time mapping ECE’s with a staff working with similar types of practice, and conducted a case in such a kindergarten; however, I chose to tailor the case to come closer to the scope of the target. Another argument for not choosing a design-based research approach was that it could have led toward a socially oriented direction between teachers and children, while my intention was to study sensory perception and especially the tactile and haptic experience in a social context.
The ABR methodology allowed me to use my own experience in developing understanding of sensory experience and sense-making. As Stake (2010, p. 62) has noted,
“Understanding grows deep through experience.” Using my senses and subjectivity in research was essential, but also proved challenging in relation to distancing my understanding from my own assumptions and preconceptions. Ahead of this study, I had an understanding that software and digital technologies are developed and largely used to achieve predefined learning outcomes and, to some extent, invite participants into exploration and creative processes. This stance was especially influenced by my practical experience as teacher but also from theoretical perspectives (Bølgan, 2018; Johansen, 2015; Nordkvelle et al., 2015). In exploring materialities together with children and teacher students, I was part of a shared experience, which had many
understand it. I sometimes think my experiences are richer when I take out my “researcher lens,” as they become more vibrant because I am paying a certain kind of attention. What is important generally in such contexts is to not draw conclusions too quickly, but try to avoid possible misinterpretations as a result of one’s own expectations, biases, prejudices, etc.
Nevertheless, this study was never intended determine one ultimate truth, but rather to provide a personal, credible, and reflective contribution to realizing how involved students, children, teachers, and other can make sense exploring and interacting with different materialities.
The ABR methodology gave me the opportunity to examine sense-making in explorative touch interaction in different contexts. During the study, I turned my examination closer to studying touch, which required me to approach sensory experience to a greater extent than when I started the study. I needed methods that could help me develop an understanding of experiential knowledge. Based on this, I looked into sensory ethnography (Pink, 2015).
Moreover, as an artist, researcher, and teacher, it was obvious for me to relate to a/r/tography (Irwin, et al., 2019) in this study. In Case 1, we were three a/r/tographers observing and interacting with students. When something relevant appeared in our joint exploration, we took photos. The choice of using observation as a method, and not audio-visual documentation, had a definite effect on my attention and presence during data collection. The study in Case 1 was dependent on our subjective experience and on our ability to remember interesting instances and to make detailed descriptions. This may be problematic in relation to the natural inaccuracies of memory. However, in this case, the photos were important, as they helped us to remember the selected instances in a more detailed way. In addition to our observations and photo documentation, we had access to the student’s reports and photos. Another strength in this case was that there were three a/r/tographers that observed and could analyze the data in different ways. This was a form of data triangulation. However, we did not have the opportunity to go back and reexamine audio-visual data of important instances, which could have provided us with richer and more nuanced data.
When I was examining my own interaction with the picturebook app, I took advantage of think-aloud accounts (Bolger et al., 2003; Groth, 2017), video documentation, and diary questions (Groth, 2017). A strength in this study was that only I worked with the app, and there were no other factors that could interrupt my focus. One factor that needs to be noted in this context is that the think-aloud account has been criticized for influencing the experience and for its data being incomplete or irrelevant (Cross et al., 1996, as cited in Groth, 2017, p. 75). It might also be questionable whether a person is able to speak, experience, and reflect at the same time, and if the reflection in action (Schön, 1983) can only be an inner reflection. I experienced
the combination of the think-aloud account and video as valuable especially in capturing emotions, because this gave me the opportunity to observe my own non-verbal utterances, bodily movements, and bodily and facial expressions together with my think-aloud reflections during interaction. The combination of subject camera (camera attached to my body) and the overview camera that captured my entire body in the room also provided excellent opportunities to study the combination of my own verbal, facial, and bodily expressions. By responding to diary questions, I managed to capture some of the immediate in the sense-making process. It also provided me with verbal descriptions of my experiences.
Audio-visual empirical data proved to be important in Cases 2 and 3, but there were also limitations in what the video could capture. My own observations were valuable in this study.
In Case 3, I considered inviting a third person to take photos and capture video. However, I decided that it was less disturbing for the children and me to use one headband camera on me, and one video camera in the corner of the room. This choice affected the angles of the video documentation and the quality of the visual material. When data are presented as thick descriptions and photo collages, many choices have been made in advance of presenting them.
This kind of ABR presentation leaves interpretation open to the viewer or reader. This means that they can interpret the “findings” beyond my aim of the research, although some might say that this is a questionable way to present empirical data in a research context. However, I know that such data presentation can be effective in helping a viewer or reader to make sense of research findings. In the next section, I will present my suggestions for further research.