Task #3 - Qualitative Research Methods
Thinking about Positivism in regards to dance research I can understand how this method would not fit. Dance research involves looking at the human body. The body is an ever-changing, dynamic, diverse, unique, living being. There is no "fixed reality" when it comes to the human body.
The logical side of me sees aspects of positivism that make sense for some things in life. However in terms of dance research I let go of this because I understand how human dance is. While reading through my notes on Positivism I decided to Wikipedia the term for a quick definition. Wikipedia explains Positivism as rejecting "introspective and intuitive knowledge". So much of dance training and instruction involves these two things, so it must not fit within this approach.
In all of my readings on the Positivist approach I realize that Science is the King! It is through science, mathematics, reason, and logic that knowledge is gained. Experience can be "exactly determined" (Wikipedia). This is not the case with dance. As a student or instructor you can not predetermine the experience that you or your students/dancers will have. Each body and class offers a completely different experiences and outcome. Non-positivism focuses on diversity, experience, humanism. Human experience can not be replicated, it is an ever changing, growing, developing thing. It is not predictable, instead it responds to it's surroundings and feedback.
This information has made me fully aware of how important the Non-Positivist approach to dance research is. Each body, class, student, learner, teacher, studio, environment, etc… creates a completely different experience then the next. There is no "fixed reality" in dance. While some outcomes may be expected, you can not say with certainty what the outcome will be. As dance instructors/choreographers, we often have desired outcomes when it comes to teaching technique or choreography to our students. But each student's body is going to receive and embody that information differently.
When I translate this to performance or technique class this Non-Posivist approach makes more sense to me. In performance you have a desired or expected outcome - the dancers will perform as instructed/rehearsed, they will mesmerize the audience, there will be no mistakes. Unfortunately it is not that simple. Dance performance is a live art, presented by humans. Humans are unpredictable. The performance could be more amazing then expected or it could be a complete disaster! This goes for technique class and rehearsal as well. As the teacher I come in to class with a plan and expectation of how it will go. However, I am dealing with living beings that change frequently, and I as well am a human. I believe dance and the human body are impossible to predict and impossible to replicate. This is life!
I also feel that as a researcher in an area that is so familiar with me, it is impossible for me to be objective - which is an aspect of Positivism. I will have biases because of my own experiences with dance. This may hinder me in some ways, but in many ways I feel it will deepen my understanding of the research and ability to observe and notice details within the research that others may not pick up on.
Knowing that Positivism relates to Dualism in that they both focus on the mind being the source of knowledge - I see how these do not fit in dance or human research. In order to view, critique, experience or research dance one must experience the body in movement. Dancers receive their information, knowledge and experiences through their bodies. They are the perfect example of Embodiment. There are no external tools in dance. The teacher/choreographer directs the student/dancer in movement by demonstrating with their own bodies or verbalizing physical movement through terminology and imagery. The student/dancer then physically translates that message into their own body. Then the teacher/choreographer gives feedback by viewing/observing the students body in movement. It is a completely embodied cycle of giving and receiving information. Even the language used is body focused. I believe the body and mind work together to understand what they are seeing and experiencing and to respond to feedback. Because of this relationship I can not see how dance could ever be done, taught, or researched from a dualistic perspective.
Hello Ainsley.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog post to read. I totally agree with your point of view and have written something similar on my blog. However after reading through a diversity of books in regards to my area of research I found something interesting, in regards to the dualist view of the dancer. Buckroyd (2000) discusses in her book “The Student Dancer” the holistic theory and the long tradition of the dualist thought within dance in Europe. In regards to the latter ‘there is undoubtedly a powerful tradition within dance that thinks in term of the dancer subduing or conquering her body, her appetites and her physical needs, especially for food and rest; ignoring pain or discomfort as messages from a part of her that should be tamed and disciplined’ (Buckroyd, 2000, p15). This view of the separation between the body and mind is also commonly referred to in relation to dance classes: you have all probably heard the famous cliches: “your body is your instrument”, or been told just to “get on with it” when having pain, or just to “ignore that you are tired and keep on moving”. She finish of the paragraph about the holistic view with stating the importance of teaching dance with this in mind. Dance teachers need to provide a model of understanding that our minds can not be separated from our bodies and that physical, emotional and mental aspects of us are inextricably interrelated. As also demonstrated by neurophysical research (Damasio 1996 and Goleman 1996). With this in mind the dancers might be protected from the abusive behaviour that is so often seen in students pursuing a career in dance (Buckroyd, 2000). This way of looking at teaching aspects in relation to the dualist/embodiment view has made an impact on me. I like to think of myself as quite sensible and holistic thinking pedagog. I teach mostly children and adolescents up to the age of 16 and all at recreational purposes. I do not encourage low body weight and are positive to working within the bodies that we all have. But in regards to pain and tiredness I tend to be quite strict. If they are physically participating in a class I demand full execution and concentration (strictness also dependent on age), and sometimes tell them to just to “get on with it” or “ignore that you are tired and keep on moving”(!). Might rethink that now!
Maria
Hi Ainsley,
ReplyDeleteI think you've summed up many aspects of the positivist/non-positivist argument really well. I also found it difficult to work through various theory on qualitative research methods and methodology in module 2. I would say, be very factual about what you propose to do and why. I found the most difficult part was writing about how I intended to anayse the collected data once collected.
Reading Maria's comment, the conflict we sometimes have between what we believe, our values as dance teachers (or want to believe) and and our actions, is interesting! As you say, age is probably a major factor in how we approach the issue of authority in classes. I've been experimenting with asking students to chose a lower percentage of effort to work at if they have a minor injury or a mild headache for example, and they have chosen to dance that day. This gives them the responsbility but is interesting to observe in practice and sometimes difficult to manage. I have to stop myself pushing them sometimes! Also, what I might see as working at 50% in class, the student might see completely differently. But does this matter? maybe it's more important that they make their own choices? Students are 18+.