Participant observation is a term used to denote a group of research techniques which anthropologists, sociologists, other social scientists, and in this case, critics, use to collect data in natural settings. By critics, I mean educational critics who utilize the paradigm of aesthetic criticism in their evaluation of education situations. From the several appropriate techniques for gathering data for educational evaluations, many educational critics choose participant observation techniques. This paper centers on 1) the similarities and differences between critics\u27 and other researchers\u27 use of participant observation techniques and 2) the differences between their research products

Alexander, Robin R.

VCU Scholars Compass

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Summary of PARTICIPANT OBSERVER AS CRITIC Robin R. Alexander Kanes Independent School District Participant observation is a term used to denote a group of research techniques which anthropologists, sociologists, other social scientists, and. in this case, critics, use to collect data in natural settings. By critics, I mean educational critics who utilize the paradigm of aesthetic criticism in their evaluation of educational situations (Eisner, 1979; Alexander, 1980). From the several appropriate techniques 'for gathering data for educational evaluations, many educational critics choose parti-cipant observation techniques. This paper centers on 1) the similarities and differences between critics' and other researchers' use of participant observation techniques and 2) the differences between their research products. Participant observation techniques are observing, participating, inter-viewing, and analyzing artifacts. Informants who tell more than they were asked and respondents who answer only the questions on a questionnaire are both helpful (Pelto & Pelto, 1978; McCall & Simmons, 1969; Douglas, 1976; Spradley, 1979, 1980). Different roles are adopted by the researcher in each educational situation. Participant observers seeks structures and regularities which they attempt to validate through experience in the sit-uation and through confirmation or disconfirmation by fellow participants through interviews and informal chats. Participant observers often derive the categories for observation from meanings and categories_ provided by participants in the situation (known as ernie); others bring categories in from outside (known as etic). Wax (1971) and Alexander (Note 1) suggest that a stance between the emic and etic is possible where the outsider grasps the logic of insider's configurations although the insider may not realize their existence. Although the critic, the anthropologist, and the sociol ogist use par-ticipant observation techniques in much the same way, there are a number of differences in the final product and the way the total research effort is conceived. The first difference is in the foci of their research. Anthro-pologists focus these techniques on cultures, sociologists focus on socie-ties, and critics focus on educational situations which need to be -evaluated or assessed. Unless hired specifically by contract for an evaluation pro-ject, anthropologists and sociologists do not evaluate. The critic's goal is a coherent eval uation of a situation which draws on both the logic of the insider's configurations and the outsider's background. The second major difference between the critics on the one hand and the anthropologists or sociol ogists on the other is a philosophical one--1 they use different models. The critic uses aesthetic c riticism from the artistic paradigm as a model; the anthropologist uses either the scienti-fic model based on physics or the naturalistic mod el based on investigative jdurnalism (Cuba , 1978; Eisner, 1981; and Alexander, 1981). The most widely used model of aes thetic criticism includes description, interpretation, evaluation or assessment, and sometimes prescription. A third difference is that the educational critic often attends to the qualit ies in the classroom which often correspond to elements and principles of art, e.g., line (as in "line of thought "), shape, rhythm, balance, or repetition, etc. Classroom events and structures are then analyzed much l ike works of art. A fourth difference lies in how the individual critic conceives of the writing task . The language of criticism must, according to Sherman (Note 2) and Eisner (Note 3) convey the emotional qualities of the situation. The affective qualities of classroom life are communicated well through educational criticism. Unlike other researchers, educational critics con-sciously alm to construct forms which communicate affective information. Alexander (Note 1) argues that artistic language--Ianguage which uses colorful nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, and which attempts by its structure to convey meaning as does poetry--is well suited for use in educational criticism. Artistic language, particularly metaphoric lan-guage, conveys most strongly the emotional qualities which color an edu-cational situation such as a "classroom. In the descriptive passages~ the metaphoric mode is utilized to portray the situation and to evoke the qualities that made that situation unique. It is in this stage and the evaluation phase educational criticism most differs from those parts of anthropology and sociology which use participant observation techniques. Thus, the educational criticism draws on participant observation techniques fo r data ga thering in the field--in an element ary or secondar y c lassroom, and art classroom, or perhaps a museum. The critic analyzes the data. The data is then presented using the model of aesthetic criti-cism--description, interpretation, evaluation and, sometimes, prescription. The critic attempts to construct a form that communicates the qualitative, affective, and cognitive meanings of the situation. The result is an under-standing of the situation which is as in depth and comprehensive as the best crit i cism of film , television. l iterature, or visual art. 2 1. Alexander, R. R. criticism. Reference Notes Emics, etics, and grounded metaphor in educational Manuscript submitted for publication, 1981. 2. Sherman, A. The influence of aesthetic theory on educational criti-cism. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Education-al Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981. 3. Eisner, E. W. The perceptive eye: toward the reformation of educa-tional evaluation. Invited paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C., March 1975. 3 References Alexander, R. R. The evaluation of naturalistic, contextualist, construc-tivist, qualitative inquiry in art education, Review of Research in Visual Arts Education, H13, Winter, 1981, 34-43. Alexander, R. R. 'Mr. Jewel as a model'--An educational criticism of a high school art history class. Studies in Art Education, 1980, 21(3). 20-30. Douglas, J. D. Investigative social research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1976. Eisner, E. W. The educational tion of school programs. imagination: On the design New York: MacMillan, 1979. and evalua Eisner, E. W. On the differences between the scientific and artistic approaches to qualitative research. Review of Research in Visual Arts Education, 1113, Winter, 19S1, l-S. Guba, E. G. Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation . Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, 1978. McCall, G. J. & Simmons, J . L. (eds.). Issues in participant observation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969. Pelto, P. J. & Pelto, G. inquiry (2nd ed.). H. Anthropological research: The structure of Cambridge University Press, 1978. Spradley, J . P. The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1979. Spradley, J. P. Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 19S0. 4 • • • -Summary of WHY ART EDUCATION LACKS SOCIAL RELEVANCE: A CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS Robert Bersson James Madison University Contemporary art education is individual -- focused (i.e. self-centered) to the almost complete exclusion of larger social concerns. This is true whether the art education is child- centered, discipline-centered, Rockefeller (Coming to Our Senses) - centered, or competency-based. The primary con-cern, notwithstanding differences, is on individual artistic productivity and, to a lesser degree, on personal aesthetic response. The enormous untapped potential of art education - and ninety-nine percent of us will be viewers and consumers, not artists - is in the social dimension. Cri-tical understanding of the dominant visual culture-·-often dehumanizing in its effect, multicultural understanding through art, and the democratiza-tion of, our visual culture (i.e. culture of, by, and for all of the people) are major social goals largely i gnor ed by art educators. This presentation takes a critical look at contemporary American society, our particular social context, in order to help us understand why our culture, art, and art education are the way they are. By so doing, I hope to reveal alternatives to the deeply engrained definitions of art and art education which we have all inherited, put into practice, and all too rarely questioned. Analyzing the major components of our society - capital-ism, democracy, and technocracy - leads to an understanding of why art edu-cation is so: individual-centered; upper class "high art" in its content and concerns; asocial or antisocial in its avoidance of contact with the larger visual culture which shapes the form and content of our daily lives. Capitalism, our economic system, has had the most decisive influence on our culture, art, and art education. Its deepest values and inevitable socio-economic class divisions define art and art education from head t o toe. Capitalism's encompassing values and goals of private property, private profit, individual freedom and competition. and dynamic production of ever-changing, new, and unique commercial products promote extreme forms of self-centeredness, self-seeking, and atomistic individualism. Self-realization is ever at the height of our concerns while social realization is barely in the ballpark. A balance is clearly needed. That the fine artist and work of fine art are most highly esteemed when most individual-istic, unique, and original comes as no surprise. That privacy and sub-jectivity command a near monopoly on artistic creativity and aesthetic response in art education programs is likewise understandable. Capitalism also creates inevitable socio-economic class divisions through an unequal distribution of wealth and power. Specific upper· c lass groups, because of their wealth and power, gain the capability of supporting, defini~g, and advancing the arts and consequently, art education according to their claSS-based values and preferences. Inasmuch, we have a self-centered art education whose content revolves around the male-dominated. upper class European-American fine arts tradition. Wealthy and powerful mUSeum trustees and boards of directors, art collectors, gallery directors, 5 

Participant Observer as Critic

• • • • • • • • • • • • • 
• 
• 
• 
Summary of 
PARTICIPANT OBSERVER AS CRITIC 
Robin R. Alexander 
Kanes Independent School District 
Participant observation is a term used to denote a group of research 
techniques which anthropologists, sociologists, other social scientists, 
and. in this case, critics, use to collect data in natural settings. By 
critics, I mean educational critics who utilize the paradigm of aesthetic 
criticism in their evaluation of educational situations (Eisner, 1979; 
Alexander, 1980). From the several appropriate techniques 'for gathering 
data for educational evaluations, many educational critics choose parti-
cipant observation techniques. This paper centers on 1) the similarities 
and differences between critics' and other researchers' use of participant 
observation techniques and 2) the differences between their research 
products. 
Participant observation techniques are observing, participating, inter-
viewing, and analyzing artifacts. Informants who tell more than they were 
asked and respondents who answer only the questions on a questionnaire are 
both helpful (Pelto & Pelto, 1978; McCall & Simmons, 1969; Douglas, 1976; 
Spradley, 1979, 1980). Different roles are adopted by the researcher in 
each educational situation. Participant observers seeks structures and 
regularities which they attempt to validate through experience in the sit-
uation and through confirmation or disconfirmation by fellow participants 
through interviews and informal chats. 
Participant observers often derive the categories for observation from 
meanings and categories_ provided by participants in the situation (known as 
ernie); others bring categories in from outside (known as etic). Wax (1971) 
and Alexander (Note 1) suggest that a stance between the emic and etic is 
possible where the outsider grasps the logic of insider's configurations 
although the insider may not realize their existence. 
Although the critic, the anthropologist, and the sociol ogist use par-
ticipant observation techniques in much the same way, there are a number of 
differences in the final product and the way the total research effort is 
conceived. The first difference is in the foci of their research. Anthro-
pologists focus these techniques on cultures, sociologists focus on socie-
ties, and critics focus on educational situations which need to be -evaluated 
or assessed. Unless hired specifically by contract for an evaluation pro-
ject, anthropologists and sociologists do not evaluate. The critic's goal 
is a coherent eval uation of a situation which draws on both the logic of 
the insider's configurations and the outsider's background. 
The second major difference between the critics on the one hand and 
the anthropologists or sociol ogists on the other is a philosophical one--
1 
they use different models. The critic uses aesthetic c riticism from the 
artistic paradigm as a model; the anthropologist uses either the scienti-
fic model based on physics or the naturalistic mod el based on investigative 
jdurnalism (Cuba , 1978; Eisner, 1981; and Alexander, 1981). The most widely 
used model of aes thetic criticism includes description, interpretation, 
evaluation or assessment, and sometimes prescription. 
A third difference is that the educational critic often attends to 
the qualit ies in the classroom which often correspond to elements and 
principles of art, e.g., line (as in "line of thought "), shape, rhythm, 
balance, or repetition, etc. Classroom events and structures are then 
analyzed much l ike works of art. 
A fourth difference lies in how the individual critic conceives of the 
writing task . The language of criticism must, according to Sherman (Note 
2) and Eisner (Note 3) convey the emotional qualities of the situation. 
The affective qualities of classroom life are communicated well through 
educational criticism. Unlike other researchers, educational critics con-
sciously alm to construct forms which communicate affective information. 
Alexander (Note 1) argues that artistic language--Ianguage which uses 
colorful nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, and which attempts by its 
structure to convey meaning as does poetry--is well suited for use in 
educational criticism. Artistic language, particularly metaphoric lan-
guage, conveys most strongly the emotional qualities which color an edu-
cational situation such as a "classroom. In the descriptive passages~ 
the metaphoric mode is utilized to portray the situation and to evoke 
the qualities that made that situation unique. It is in this stage and 
the evaluation phase educational criticism most differs from those parts 
of anthropology and sociology which use participant observation techniques. 
Thus, the educational criticism draws on participant observation 
techniques fo r data ga thering in the field--in an element ary or secondar y 
c lassroom, and art classroom, or perhaps a museum. The critic analyzes 
the data. The data is then presented using the model of aesthetic criti-
cism--description, interpretation, evaluation and, sometimes, prescription. 
The critic attempts to construct a form that communicates the qualitative, 
affective, and cognitive meanings of the situation. The result is an under-
standing of the situation which is as in depth and comprehensive as the best 
crit i cism of film , television. l iterature, or visual art. 
2 
1. Alexander, R. R. 
criticism. 
Reference Notes 
Emics, etics, and grounded metaphor in educational 
Manuscript submitted for publication, 1981. 
2. Sherman, A. The influence of aesthetic theory on educational criti-
cism. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Education-
al Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981. 
3. Eisner, E. W. The perceptive eye: toward the reformation of educa-
tional evaluation. Invited paper presented at the meeting of 
the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C., 
March 1975. 
3 
References 
Alexander, R. R. The evaluation of naturalistic, contextualist, construc-
tivist, qualitative inquiry in art education, Review of Research in 
Visual Arts Education, H13, Winter, 1981, 34-43. 
Alexander, R. R. 'Mr. Jewel as a model'--An educational criticism of a 
high school art history class. Studies in Art Education, 1980, 
21(3). 20-30. 
Douglas, J. D. Investigative social research. Beverly Hills: Sage 
Publications, 1976. 
Eisner, E. W. The educational 
tion of school programs. 
imagination: On the design 
New York: MacMillan, 1979. 
and evalua 
Eisner, E. W. On the differences between the scientific and artistic 
approaches to qualitative research. Review of Research in Visual 
Arts Education, 1113, Winter, 19S1, l-S. 
Guba, E. G. Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational 
evaluation . Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, 
1978. 
McCall, G. J. & Simmons, J . L. (eds.). Issues in participant observation. 
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969. 
Pelto, P. J. & Pelto, G. 
inquiry (2nd ed.). 
H. Anthropological research: The structure of 
Cambridge University Press, 1978. 
Spradley, J . P. The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 
and Winston, 1979. 
Spradley, J. P. Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart 
and Winston, 19S0. 
4 
• • • 
-
Summary of 
WHY ART EDUCATION LACKS SOCIAL RELEVANCE: A CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS 
Robert Bersson 
James Madison University 
Contemporary art education is individual -- focused (i.e. self-centered) 
to the almost complete exclusion of larger social concerns. This is true 
whether the art education is child- centered, discipline-centered, Rockefeller 
(Coming to Our Senses) - centered, or competency-based. The primary con-
cern, notwithstanding differences, is on individual artistic productivity 
and, to a lesser degree, on personal aesthetic response. The enormous 
untapped potential of art education - and ninety-nine percent of us will 
be viewers and consumers, not artists - is in the social dimension. Cri-
tical understanding of the dominant visual culture-·-often dehumanizing in 
its effect, multicultural understanding through art, and the democratiza-
tion of, our visual culture (i.e. culture of, by, and for all of the people) 
are major social goals largely i gnor ed by art educators. 
This presentation takes a critical look at contemporary American 
society, our particular social context, in order to help us understand why 
our culture, art, and art education are the way they are. By so doing, I 
hope to reveal alternatives to the deeply engrained definitions of art and 
art education which we have all inherited, put into practice, and all too 
rarely questioned. Analyzing the major components of our society - capital-
ism, democracy, and technocracy - leads to an understanding of why art edu-
cation is so: individual-centered; upper class "high art" in its content 
and concerns; asocial or antisocial in its avoidance of contact with the 
larger visual culture which shapes the form and content of our daily lives. 
Capitalism, our economic system, has had the most decisive influence 
on our culture, art, and art education. Its deepest values and inevitable 
socio-economic class divisions define art and art education from head t o 
toe. Capitalism's encompassing values and goals of private property, 
private profit, individual freedom and competition. and dynamic production 
of ever-changing, new, and unique commercial products promote extreme forms 
of self-centeredness, self-seeking, and atomistic individualism. Self-
realization is ever at the height of our concerns while social realization 
is barely in the ballpark. A balance is clearly needed. That the fine 
artist and work of fine art are most highly esteemed when most individual-
istic, unique, and original comes as no surprise. That privacy and sub-
jectivity command a near monopoly on artistic creativity and aesthetic 
response in art education programs is likewise understandable. 
Capitalism also creates inevitable socio-economic class divisions 
through an unequal distribution of wealth and power. Specific upper· c lass 
groups, because of their wealth and power, gain the capability of supporting, 
defini~g, and advancing the arts and consequently, art education according 
to their claSS-based values and preferences. Inasmuch, we have a self-
centered art education whose content revolves around the male-dominated. 
upper class European-American fine arts tradition. Wealthy and powerful 
mUSeum trustees and boards of directors, art collectors, gallery directors, 
5 


English

http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=jstae

Participant Observer as Critic

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

VCU Scholars Compass

VCU Scholars Compass