Chapter 4. Methodology

I did not conceive of the three UAL projects as research while leading them, and I did not stop to reflect or write at length about them as I was focused on the practice and compelled by the momentum and energy they generated. I feared that stopping to think and write about the projects as academic research at that time would lead to doubt and analysis paralysis, and I feel this was the right thing to do and true to the decolonial praxis of the projects in their promotion of ‘alternative ways of knowing, sensing and being’ (Ortiz, 2023). I have chosen to frame and reflect on these projects now as practice research, with the benefit of distance and hindsight almost two years after leaving UAL. There are many theories and methods I could write about in relation to these complex and dynamic projects. In this thesis, I retrospectively apply practice research as an underpinning methodology and the Critical Race method of counter-storytelling, which aims to magnify the stories of racially marginalised communities and highlight patterns of racial injustice. I was not conscious of this underpinning method at the time, so it is now, for this PhD by Portfolio, that I seek to understand:

What is the value of counter-storytelling in higher education and how is this exemplified in the curriculum decolonisation projects I led from 2018-2022? 

I have already described the projects and context of decolonisation and decoloniality surrounding them, as well as my positionality as project leader. Before I discuss counter-storytelling in the projects, I will outline and reflect on the practice research methodology in relation to the projects and thesis, including ethical considerations I made along the way.

‘In practice research, forms of intuitive, embodied, tacit, imaginative, affective and sensory ways of knowing can be conveyed, and its sharing presents an opportunity for the modernising and revitalising of research communication, uncovering novel dissemination routes in the digital era’ (Bulley and Şahin, 2021, p.12).

Although I did not lead the three UAL projects as practice research, this statement about the methodology precisely describes the ways in which I, other staff and students conveyed within the projects intuitive, imaginative ways of knowing, sometimes tacitly, sometimes embodied, and always with intentions to affect. Bulley and Şahin’s latter point about sharing practice research is also applicable, retrospectively, to the digital project outputs being made public and open access. For the remainder of this chapter, I will further discuss how other attributes of practice research also apply.   

Practice research ‘challenges and critiques the mainstream research publication process’ and ‘develops methods for capturing and sharing knowledge creation that may not be catered for by traditional research types’, Bulley and Şahin write (p.5). They explain that ‘there is no one definitive way of knowing’ and that practice researchers demonstrate an aptitude for ‘methodological pluralism’ and ‘agile knowledge acquisition, with practice combining with other methods to create the most appropriate pathways to novel insight’ (p.6). Such methodological pluralism and pragmatism (Cohen et al, 2018) and epistemological agility (Powell, 2020) were key to how I approached the three UAL projects and align directly to the epistemologically disobedient and pluriversal decoloniality outlined above. Bulley and Şahin explain how writing, like that of this thesis, seeks to make explicit key aspects that are implied or embodied in practice research, describing such writing as a ‘meta-narrative’, which suggests something being articulated above and beyond the narratives of the practice, in this case retrospectively.

I put pen to paper to write this thesis/meta-narrative now, from my current position and view of the projects, framing them as practice research and identifying philosophical underpinnings not yet examined. If I had written this at the time of the projects, the framing may have been different, influenced by my position and view of that time. Bulley and Şahin explain:

‘In traditional accounts of practice, the operation of logic is often overlooked. But, as sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has ventured, strategies are not always predetermined, they occur ‘in-the-game,’ they emerge and operate according to specific demands of action and movement in time’ (p.8-9).

Curriculum decolonisation was an explicit goal of all three projects, articulated in various ways while they were running. I see now that the operating logic and strategy of counter-storytelling underpins the projects, yet this was not identified or articulated at the time. I will explain and exemplify this in the next chapter. Before that, there are some other aspects of practice research that are relevant to discuss regarding knowledge production.

Research as an act of knowledge production suggests a static noun, a product or object, whereas practice research shifts this to the active verb of ‘knowing’, which aligns to the onto-epistemological processes of decoloniality described above. Bulley and Şahin position practice as ‘an experiential mode of inquiry that when located in a research framework, as practice research, reveals insights and understandings that expand our capacities for knowing’ (p.11). They cite anthropologist Steven Feld, who describes this as ‘knowing-in-action: a knowing-with and knowing-through’ and explain that ‘practice is an active method of research that acknowledges each practitioner’s unique perspective’ (p.12). This was true of the three projects, as each involved experiential inquiry into curriculum coloniality and decoloniality through the unique perspectives of those involved, developing ways of knowing-through counter-storytelling and knowing-with communities of practice and sites of possibility, as illustrated in the next chapter.

Bulley and Şahin explain how ‘practice research conveys not only explicit and exact knowledge, but also embodied and tacit ways of knowing, entering them into discourse’ and that ‘practice researchers often involve themselves in complex, changing, messy problems and situations’ highlighting ‘intuition, iteration and trial and error... curiosity, complexity and emergence’ as key characteristics in this (p.12). This is true of my practice generally, and of the three UAL projects presented here, which were complex and messy, with new iterations continuously evolving and emerging, vital aspects I supported with curiosity, intuition and care, which I will discuss now in relation to research ethics.  

The three UAL projects on which this PhD by Portfolio is based, generated numerous outputs between 2018-2022. Most of these outputs are in the public domain, as listed in my Portfolio Index. There are various other project outputs which are internal to UAL and partner organisations, including project evaluation reports, LCC Changemakers curriculum co-creation files, and MSc Creative Computing student course work for DWN. These outputs are not in the public domain and I have not obtained consent from those concerned to use them for this PhD. All internal outputs have therefore been purposefully excluded from my portfolio and from my analysis. My Portfolio Index maps these in relation to the other public domain outputs.  

My thesis is based on the public domain outputs and focuses on seven outputs (1 x Zine + 6 x YouTube videos) selected for examination purposes to exemplify the theoretical underpinning of counter-storytelling. The remaining public domain outputs are cited throughout the thesis to support this. Before starting work on this thesis, I obtained USW ethical approval to conduct a retrospective, secondary analysis of these public domain outputs. This was deemed to be low risk by the ethical approval panel, due to prior consent being given by contributors at the time of the projects, through existing UAL processes. If I had wanted to analyse any of the internal outputs, I would have needed to obtain permission from UAL and explicit consent from former contributors, which would have been difficult given the time passed since the projects and the fact that most student contributors have now graduated from UAL. This was a complex decision to make at the time which ultimately led me to focus on dynamic, multimedia outputs which lend themselves well to this thesis and my analysis of counter-storytelling sites and spaces (Chapter 5.4).   

Although I write about public outputs, to which participants have contributed voluntarily and with consent for public dissemination, there are other ethical practices I adopt for this research, following Bulley and Şahin, who explain:

‘As with most forms of research operating within social interstices, practice researchers commonly employ collaboration to enhance ways of knowing. Recognising and accounting for collaboration is an ethical cornerstone of how practice research outputs should be formed...’ (2021, p.13).

They cite practice researchers Hann and Chow, who say that ‘accurately detailing collaboration and participants in practice research projects is a vital aspect in forming ethical research... “ensuring that where people have been involved in the production of these things, that they are cited and they are mentioned”’ (p.63). I honour this practice by naming and citing collaborators and contributors as I write about the projects, in addition to handling internal/unpublished participant details in accordance with General Data Protection Regulations (2016). 

My secondary analysis of the public domain outputs as ‘data’ is subjective, as I had an active role in the production of each project and various professional relationships with participants. Part of my ethical process is to acknowledge this here. In project 1, I worked closely with Hansika Jethnani and Rahul Patel, who were both paid Student Union and UAL staff. Together we worked with students and staff across UAL, who participated voluntarily on the basis that their contributions would be published and named according to their preference. I was the hiring manager and supervisor of the UAL students and graduates who were actively participating in project 2 and project 3, employing them through UAL’s ArtsTemps agency on temporary contracts. UAL staff and employees of external organisations participated in these projects as part of their existing paid roles. For some project 2 and 3 outputs, additional UAL funding and Heritage Lottery Funding was used to pay speakers from external organisations. UAL students and staff contributed to project 2 and 3 outputs voluntarily and consent for publishing outputs is covered by existing UAL privacy notices. Speakers from the external organisations gave informed consent by completing LCC photo release forms prior to contribution.  

Contributors are named in all project outputs, except for one contributor, who wished to be known only by initials in zine 1. In project 2 and 3 videos, contributors faces are visible according to their wishes. As each project intended to make the stories and experiences of marginalised people visible and audible, the ethical research practices of confidentiality and anonymity are not requirements for this thesis. The wellbeing and safety of contributors was an ethical consideration at the time of the projects, especially as many were revealing sensitive personal information when speaking about curriculum decolonisation, often based on lived experiences of racism. They did this voluntarily, in the hope that sharing their experiences will lead to change, and safety came in numbers, as racially minoritised students and staff became the majority within these projects, an aspect I discuss in Chapter 5. 

As I write about the project outputs and contributions retrospectively, there is a risk that former participants regret their contribution or do not want their contribution to be written about in such a way. Although this risk is an intrinsic aspect of contributing to public outputs, should any participant come forward to withdraw their contribution, I will exclude them from this thesis and subsequent outputs I produce. There is also the risk of the research affecting my own wellbeing and safety as a researcher, as the topic of decolonisation and counter-storytelling can be as emotionally draining as it can be empowering. This is something I am accustomed to, having worked in this area for several years, but I have the support of supervisors, colleagues and a therapist as needed. Now that I have discussed the methodological framing of practice research and the ethical considerations this entailed, I am ready to introduce and exemplify the other selected theories and methods underpinning the projects.