International Journal of Education & the Arts
Volume 1 Number 4
October 5, 2000
Rescripting the Script and Rewriting the Paper:
C. T. Patrick Diamond
Carol A. Mullen
This paper is a sequel to our playlet ("Performance as Rehearsal") that was performed as part of a larger presentation called "Passion Play" at a national-level educational research conference in 2000. We reflect here on our experience of scripting and performing our "two hander" and on the audience's reactions to it documented by means of a response/evaluation sheet. We begin with a dramatic dialogue to evoke our initial (even self-defeating) reactions to our playlet as script and as performance. We then feature the audience's reactions to the playlet. Finally, in a reflective narrative, we affirm our need as teacher educator researchers to perform our academic texts by using aesthetic techniques such as literary allusion and allegory, postmodern interruptive modes, and invitational prompts. We end with the script that we originally (first) created for the playlet.
Introduction: Rescripting the ScriptAfter performing and writing about our playlet, "Performance as Rehearsal," we are wary of any staged reading/text that precludes opportunities/invitations for the improvisations and spontaneous interactions of the players, the audience, and even the authors. We include a panoramic photograph (Figure 1) of our performance scene to suggest our struggle to overcome the prescribed script by reaching out to the audience participants to find a less contrived formeven as we do here in this paper.
Ironically, we found that in completing this article we had to let go of our previously written or overwrought text as a form of reporting/evoking arts-based inquiry and development. We now invite our reader to join us in considering how writing with aesthetic vision might avoid linear presentations and smoothed out themes (Alvermann & Hruby, 2000) so as to differentiate it both from traditional/scientific and even qualitative/interpretive forms. We also invite our readers to turn to and engage the script (see Appendix) if at any time they should feel excluded by our references to the playlet and its performance.
A Postpartum DialogueSetting: It is late Friday afternoon, the last day of a week in April 2000 of the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Each of us had completed more traditional presentations during the conference and our anxiously anticipated and much-rehearsed joint performance was finally over. We felt too dazed to notice the smattering of applause. Having quickly to clear away the props and gather together the scattered overhead transparencies and the disordered sheets of our script, we were spared what we then anticipated would have been embarrassment. Fortunately, the next and final performance in our sequence of three playlets (titled "Passion Play") was about to begin. We also figured as players but as not authors in the other two playlets.
"Are you alright, Carol?" asked Patrick awkwardly sensing her discontent.
Our Initial Response: Letting Go of the ScriptWhen we engaged in the "originative acts" (Barone, 2000) of scripting and performing our playlet to recreate the worlds of doing research in which we live, the process was painful. We were disturbed by what we had co- created. We needed to realize emotionally that aesthetics, unlike the study of abstract ideas using science or logic, represents another still emerging branch of the study of knowledge, one that is concerned with the nature of art and the sensory character of our emotional experience of art. As Audi (1999) writes, "while in science or logic we must always prefer discursive clarity, in art we respond to the maximally dense (or 'confused') intimation of ideas" (p. 74). Our mounting concerns for clarity had been symptoms of our fearful yearning for the containment of uncertainty. But, "to be able to state a problem," as Spivak (1994) reminds postmodern researchers and arts-based author-actors, "is not to perform the solution [and it may] indeed be the opposite" (p. 35). But, in writing this paper, the "confused intimation of ideas" still seemed too daunting a description of arts-based inquiry and development.
We agreed after reflecting on our experience of the performance that we could not return to logical presentations and papers. But, we did not know how to proceed farther with dramatic and literary forms of arts- based work. We were then ready to abandon our hard-earned but over-written script. Like the creator of the Frankenstein monster (Shelley, 1818/1994), we felt raw, exposed, and even defeated. And so we searched for new research leads, first emotionally through disclosing our disappointments to each other and then through welcoming the indirections hinted at by our responses to the experiences of performance and of drafts of the script and of this paper. After many rewrites, we came to see that dramatic and postmodern uses of allusion were the ways in which we had tried to materialize the conceptual abstraction of arts- based educational research and development. But we make no claims of finality or mastery.
One problem that we faced when scripting the playlet was trying to create dialogue out of conceptual material about research. Would the audience be able to "get it" when the words were just flying past them? They could not stop the action at will and return to savor this or that nuance. The words had to carry them and the play forward at the same time. The words had to support the audience members as they improvised with the dialogue to gain at least partial understandings of what was going on or being implied. In a playlet about aesthetic inquiry and development, we could not just provide a dramatic incident to drive the action relentlessly forward. "Obviously [in doing research] we can't have a dead body on the carpet or 'a new dug grave.' It isn't as easy as just having a murder to solve" (see Appendix for script). In our postmodern attempt at dramatic de/re-construction of meaning, our script threatened to become a Frankenstein-like academic textone that ached from the all the pushing and pulling of its forced stitching!
Our preferred device for grounding and sensitizing the abstraction of doing arts-based educational research has been to invoke literary allusionsfirst Mary Shelley's (1818/1994) Frankenstein story in the script and now Edmund Morris's multi-form, postmodern biography of Ronald Reagan, the former American President, in this article. In the writing of our self-consciously crafted script, in its performance, and in the writing of this intertextual paper, we felt that we were/are on the edge of "constantly overreach[ing], puffing out [our] own dry-ice, prowling after every irony, foreshadowing and frisson" (Mallon, 1999, p. 274). We here cite Mallon's (1999) description of the effect on him of Morris's biography of Reagan to evoke the multi-voiced character of the postmodern turn and to provide an allegory of the effect on us of the interplay of our script- performance- paper-based inquiry. Mallon's voice, as a critic writing in a chic, pop culture magazine, is contrasted with that of Morris the creative biographer, even as Morris' voice is contrasted with that of the biographed Reagan. Each seeks to speak on behalf of the other. We are relying on allegory as a rehabilitated postmodern device. As De Man (1969) claims, allegory is "a representational mode that defers meaning indefinitely and that puts the interpreter in contact with 'an authentically temporal predicament'" (cited in Edmundson, 1994, p. 173). Knowing is unfinalizable.
In the first drafts of this article, we relied on the comments of our audience participants to speak on our behalf as author-performers and as educational artist-critics. In the end, though, the Frankenstein creature had to speak emotionally on its own behalf and on that of its creator, using "wild and incoherent self-reproaches" (Shelley, 1818/1994, p. 208). So, too, in the end we realized that the playlet and the article must each be left to speak on its own behalf. We could not stop rewriting the script and the article until we resisted anticipating the demands of others for "discursive clarity" above all else. The prospect of an expected hostile reception had to be put on hold.
In his arts-based depiction of Reagan's life, Morris assembled a complex body of literary forms to "increase the array of perceptions available to [him as] the author" (Barone, 2000, p. 141). He inventively broke up the certainty of his narrative life history of Reagan with mini-memory plays, documentary script, entries from his own diary, poems, instructions on how to read the book, and, most controversial of all, with the construction of a fictional self-narrator who accompanies the President as if they were both characters in a novel (Mallon, 1999). In our playlet and this paper, we also sought to break up the expository argument that has characterized much of the discussion of arts-based inquiry and teacher educator researcher development.
We used the arts-based forms of drama, metaphor, literary allusion, and allegory to give life to our thinking. In our script and in this paper, we also created a multi-layered Frankenstein creature out of our inquiring duo of fictional joint narrators who, however clumsily, seek inclusion in the arts-based educational research community. We improvised with the authorial form of duography to show how two individual stories can merge to provoke intellectual discovery and to express the process emotionally (Diamond & Mullen, 1997).
As co-authors, we have replaced the "&" with "=" at the top of this article to suggest a new inquiry relationship symbolizing genuinely equal authorship (see Mullen = Kochan, in press). We also created a visual duography (Figure 1). This panoramic view of our separate but joined selves shows our AERA 2000 performance and the closing of the gap between them (the audience participants) and us (the players). (Note 1) Just as we are on the edge in the reconstructed photograph, so too we are "on the edge of the exploratory" (Note 2) in our inquiry and development. We seek to close the gap between our previous performance of "script" and our present representation of it here.
Rescripting the Script: Recovering NerveOur initially harsh reaction to abandon the script of our playlet and any further writing about it softened as we accepted each other's reactions. Recalling our earlier use of Patricia Highsmith's (1949/2000) Strangers on a Train, we began to see that her boundary blurring Tom Ripley series provided us with another allegory of our own efforts. Highsmith created a fictional form and character, Tom Ripley, that explored the "integration of good with evil, no longer cast out as other, but slipping, undifferentiated, into the totality of human behavior" (Summers, 1995, p. 363). But how could we integrate our playlet and this paper about it into the "maximally dense" range of arts-based inquiry? Tom Ripley helped us by providing a third explanatory figure or exemplar for our paper.
In our own tentative way, we had violated logical research conventions and had sought to enlist sympathy for previously outlawed subjects and forms. While like Tom Ripley, the murderous anti-hero, we were operating from outside the usual bounds by defying authorities, we felt that, unlike him, we had not escaped unscathed. Perhaps we needed to heed Ripley's advice to "go on stage at the last moment, with dash and momentum. Too much briefing and rehearsal could be a bad thing" (Highsmith, 1992, p. 10). As we realized later, Ripley's cool subversion of conventional notions of literary justice had encouraged us to improvise more daringly during our performance and during writing this paper about it.
The problem we faced remains: How can we more effectively subvert the limiting notions of the empirical tradition in research, propositional knowledge in teacher education, and of transmissive conference presentations? When we approach this challenge as educator-outlaws determined to break out of the imprisoning assumptions that traditional forms of research, teacher education, and conference presentations leave unexamined, the risks escalate (Mullen & Diamond, 1999). We have written together for 10 years to find aesthetic ways to encounter ourselves differently and to push against our own previous ways of being in the academy. In these latest attempts (playlet and paper), we are trying to make arguments meaningfully implicit in our writing so that the words can resonate with and suggest memories, images, common experiences, and intimate viewpoints (Yukman, 1997).
Audience Interaction and ResponsesWhen we returned to our separate institutions after our AERA 2000 apparent fiasco, we were able to pause and to re-evaluate. Glancing at the response sheets that we had collected from the sparse but supportive audience (of 17) after our session, we were unexpectedly encouraged by the feedback. We then shared our reactions. In extremis, the audience and even the work had pardoned us. Somehow, during our playlet, "Rehearsal as Performance," we had managed to create conditions that enabled spontaneous interaction between the audience and ourselves (the two players). Our stitched together form had produced the inclusion that we longed for. The participants valued the experience of having been cast as "patrons" in the restaurant scene. We had invited them to listen in on our conversation as two writer-performers anxiously rehearsing for their first public performance. By removing the fourth wall separating the audience from us as performers, we had authorized them to interrupt us during our performance and after it to provide us with their written reflections on how they felt.
As overly self-consciousness and beginning playwright-performers, we had to confront our reliance on the tightly polished script that precludes anything from going wrongor becoming messy and confusing. But such a project, whether dramatic or in paper form, can only foreclose openings both for others to find their way in and for the authors to find their way out! We had been yearning to break out of our usual academic scripts. We needed to confront what this meant. But first we had to have the experience of breaking-out and to see where it might leave us. And so we went "fear-ward" to reflect on what had dismayed us.
Through the narrator's introduction to our playlet, we had invited responses to our script and its layering of techniques. In the actual performance, we managed to stay open to audience interaction. On the response sheet, we had created spaces for them to engage with the work and us. We wrote, "This is our first time staging a dramatization of our research. Please respond to what you experience. Feel free to interact with our playlet as it occurs." We asked further questions on the evaluation form so that we could learn from our first dramatic experience and more about arts-based inquiry.
As we read the participants' responses, we felt relieved for having persevered and grateful that some of them, as they had shared, were also searching for new forms. Like us, they do not have any answers. Once we felt validated by our enthusiastic audience (unlike the harried wedding guest in Coleridge's "The rime of the ancient mariner," cited in Edmundson, 1994), we gained a new view of and respect for our notions of "rehearsal as performance" and "performance as rehearsal." All inquiry is a work in progress. The unforeseen has to unfold in action in order for something new or even startling to be created.
We couched our audience invitation, "What do you think about how we chose to 'stage' our performance?" as a three-part question. We first asked for comments on our choice of having staged our playlet as a dramatization at an AERA conference (as opposed to presenting an arts symposium, forum, or installation). The audience participants, who were faculty members and graduate students in the United States and Canada, responded very positively. Typical comments (italicized throughout) included simple statements of enthusiasm:
Wonderful! The best thing I have done at AERA.Other comments embraced the value of alternative pedagogical techniques:
I liked the addition of more variety, as in this multi- media presentation.Still other comments celebrated the value of process and particularly of process-based presentations for helping to rethink our research epistemologies and to elude our conditioning within the academy:
I very much enjoyed the process-oriented presentation, that attempt to stay on the edge of the exploratory without the tie down of the polished event.The second part of our question asked: "What do you think about how we chose to 'stage' our performance as part of a larger passion play made up of different playlets and performers?" Together with the creators of the two other playlets, we had worked hard over many months to help to make the whole event dramatic for the audience. We felt challenged by our need to involve the audience in the entire performance and in the individual playlets. The mini-company of author-performers-technicians, (Note 3) orchestrated by three sets of inquirers, had exchanged many ideas along with the narrator-discussant-jester about involving the audience. We had searched for the overlapping themes and the unique features of the playlets in order to plan a whole performance with resonating parts. We were very pleased to learn that our playlet, "Rehearsal as performance," had worked for our respondents both on its own and as part of the larger whole:
Your playlet was a good fit.We agree with this last respondent that our playlet, like any "two-hander," was limited in its dynamics and at best played as a "dramatic dialogue." We welcomed the comment that the overall performance still offered "a good study in contrasts."
The third part of our question asked: "What do you think about how we chose to 'stage' our performance as a café script between collaborating and equal authors who are formerly a supervisor and a doctoral candidate?" The respondents' specific comments suggested that we had helped establish strong connections for them:
It reminded me of my own relationship with my advisor!More general comments were evident in such statements as the following:
The conversation, the search, is the artist's experience.
Finally, another set of comments acknowledged that the café scene was a rehearsal and that it depended on audience interaction (we had cast the participants as "patrons" in the restaurant scene):
It's a work-in-progress; the dialogic is refreshing.On the evaluation form, we focused on audience participation. We asked participants to describe how they had interacted with or responded to our playlet. A number of thought-provoking responses that were elicited raised issues of process and creativity. Participants had even become aware of witnessing themselves as part of the process in such roles as participant, observer, participant observer, and, of course, as restaurant patron!:
I like the notion of invited participation as the spirit moves. I believe this form of interaction inspires creative and growing spaces.One participant had approached us at our imaginary café table to comment on the blandness of her meal (traditional research). She asked to borrow our pepper (arts-based inquiry) to enliven it. On her self-identifying evaluation sheet she wrote: "I really loved the sharing. Thanks for inviting our contributions."
The participants were also asked to provide overall comments in relation to what they liked about our playlet and what they thought needed improvement. In terms of strengths, they commented on ideas ranging from risk (e.g., "I appreciate the riskthe courage taken"), through the multi/meta-text (e.g., "I liked the meta-textual experience; the music, visuals, and sharing of thoughts were captivating; the flyer with graphics and words was a really good idea") to the setting ("I liked the café idea and the informality of the piece"). Once again, the idea of process was emphasized in such comments as: "I am attracte d to the idea of process in the performance itself," and "Your willingness to let your play include audience participation was very appealing." As supervisors of dissertations, we appreciated the comments made by the self-identifying graduate students. Some had felt encouraged, indicating that our playlet had helped them to consider new ways to play with form in their dissertations:
I am presently doing doctoral research in the area of narrative inquiry and I am playing with form for some of the writing to enable me to figure out what I am doing. This kind of session helps me to think.On the feedback sheets we also probed in this direction. We asked: "Did anything alter how you see research, teaching, writing, curriculum, or your own work or researcher self?" An asterisk had appeared beside this question. We wanted to see if the participants had found anything for their own use, which would in turn have highlighted the potential impact of the piece and possibly of artistic approaches to research more generally. Respondents offered comments that included discovering ideas for research, gaining self-confidence, and confirming the "validity" of their work. Importantly, ideas were expressed about the value of showing others the unfolding process of one's work and thinking:
It gave me some ideas for presenting research.Suggestions were also elicited for improvement of the dramatic performance that offered a range of perspectives:
Introduce yourselves because I don't know you and it took time for me to figure out who is who.
It's a bit disconcerting to have readers' theater with little interpretation in the words. Should we think about our performance of our words in these performances? I have gradually become much more aware of my spoken performance in the classroom.
Make it more engaging, the artistic presentation, with more emotions.
The last comment confirms our suspicion (as shared in the playlet) that "a play about research will always seem more like a text to be read than a script to be performed."
Two very different types of comments on the value of the script itself intrigued us. While one respondent wrote, "A copy of the script for us to follow would have helped," another insisted, "Do not use a script at all next time." Such creative tension is productive and enlivening. In the first instance, ideas of "script" as an improvisation and rehearsal for a performance seem mutually exclusive. But the script had ceased to be something that we could allow ourselves to follow. We felt that our literal script became increasingly less helpful and even cumbersome during the session. We referred to the script less and less; we even parodied our over-reliance on it at several points; and we had also dared each other and the audience to interact freely with our then unscripted interplay. The very notion of a prefabricated and closed script is problematic, especially in the context of arts-based performance. Any text that is so premeditated must seem too "well written," distracting and distancing from the experiences of the audience.
Several respondents failed to suggest any improvements. Instead, in keeping with the conceptual demands of the piece (or with those of courtesy), four individuals had not felt ready to evaluate the playlet because they were still immersed in thinking about it:
Don't know yet, enjoyed the moment, the interchange, and I am still digesting.
Time will tell. I'm thinking about my creative, growing spaces and how they are also places of interactionyou've got me going on a new thought.
I need to think about the playlet and let it wash over me for awhile.
Keep doing it! This is wonderfulyou're opening new doors for us! I'm going to get back to you about what more I am thinking. I need time.
Our Reflective Responses as Writer-PerformersWe have now been able to reflect on and write about what happened that final Friday afternoon of AERA 2000. We accept that the aesthetic drives and helps us to express our inquiry and development. Just as there is no single, simple definition of the concept of "artistic" (Eisner, 1981), so too there is no single, simple definition of arts- based inquiry and development. In their synoptic treatment, Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, and Taubman (1996) identified seven approaches to dealing aesthetically with educational issues. In taking our research to the "edge of the exploratory," we merged at least three of these approaches into a multi-form inquiry: we crafted a postmodern notion of inquiry and development as aesthetic (dramatic) text; we used the arts (literary sources and forms such as allusion, allegory, metaphor and dialogue) as conceptual tools for understanding inquiry and development; and we also explored the connections among theater, inquiry, and development.
We scripted a play that relied heavily on the dual Frankenstein figure (creator-creature) both as a story and metaphor to represent arts-based inquiry and teacher educator researcher development. We sought to exemplify the postmodern preoccupation of a work of art that deals primarily with itself and its own self-interrogation. This exploration circled back to incorporate the difficulties of presenting research findings when using literary forms. We believe that what we have inquired into is a raft of significant aesthetic issues and that presenting them in dramatic and written form has promise of holding both "the wondering gaze" of the audience and our own "passionate commitment" (Moustakas, 1990) to them.
One of our graduate students had noted that the playlet, like our previous work, reveals that the motive behind our research is personal, expressing our shared need for self- development and internal change. We write our accounts, like this one, by representing an experience, by interpreting our individual and shared voices, and by learning from the voices of other writers, artists, participants, and students. The reflexive method is crucial, we found, for providing an insider's view of a culture (Bogdan & Taylor, 1994) (in our case, that of the academy where arts-based inquiries continue to be crafted/performed) and for eliciting the responses of others.
In our Gothic "take" on arts-based productions, "imagination and emotional effects exceed reason. Passion, excitement and sensation transgress [traditional research] proprieties and laws. Ambivalence and uncertainty obscure single meaning" (adapted from Botting, 1996, p. 3). Drawing upon Gothic fiction and postmodern biography allowed us to treat the abstract concepts of arts-based inquiry and development in sensory ways. The ideas could then be experienced as feelings. We remade our emotional experience by sewing together its isolated and often ill-fitting shreds into an alternative body of knowledge about events.
We then tried like Baron Frankenstein to galvanize this mass/mess of fragments into life by using not electricity but the arts-based modes of imagination, that is, our playlet and multi-form paper. We further dramatized these compositions by adding the literary allusions of the Victor Frankenstein and his creature, of Edmund Morris and his Ronald Regan, and of Patricia Highsmilth and her Tom Ripley. Our aim was/is to illustrate how the humanities, art, and literature help further inquiry, particularly into complex matters that are often difficult to represent, such as teacher educator research and development.
Reformulation: Letting Go of the Original PaperPerhaps Eisner (e.g., 1981, 1991) and Barone (2000) have produced the "best-known formulation of the significance of the arts and aesthetic knowing for curriculum and teaching" (Pinar et al., 1995, p. 581). We draw on and seek to reformulate these positions by considering teacher educator researcher inquiry and development as arts-based in several ways: as forms of artistic expression with aesthetic qualities; as requiring imaginative and creative responses because of their spontaneous nature; as defying rules because of their unpredictable qualities; and as emerging in process and through improvisation. Inquiry and development are incorrigibly artistic activities. Finding ways to articulate and represent them and to provoke new interpretations is a daunting but inescapable aesthetic challenge.
To address and to promote playful engagement with this issue of inquiry and development conceptualized and pursued as artistic activities, we have explored the impact of our artful inquiry and reflections. We studied our encounters with the work both with ourselves as authors and with the audience as participants. The encouraging comments of the audience as performer-critics produced different insights from our initial reactions to the script and our performance of it. Their comments helped us to reformulate our inquiry and to share it publicly here.
But then we needed to let go of our then carefully written paper, our albatross, as we explored "a [more improvised] form that illuminates, interprets, and appraises the qualities that [we had] experienced" (Eisner, 1991, p. 86) and that could have meaning for others. A fourth allegory. Just as killing the albatross had sentenced the Ancient Mariner to roaming the earth interminably, we had felt compelled to produce version after version of both the script and the paper about its performance. We empathized with Coleridge who was criticized for a style that "is not succinct, but encumbered with a train of words and images that have no practical and only a possible relation to one anotherthat add to its stateliness, but impede its march." [We felt that our sentences like Coleridge's ancient mariner] "wound their 'forlorn way obscure' over the page" (Hazlitt, cited in Edmundsun, 1994, p. 171).
Coleridge's poem was one of the most important sources that Shelley (1818/1994) cobbled together into her own novel. We first chose a dramatic form (the script) using the Frankenstein source as an allegory of our inquiry so that we could express the artistic qualities of our work in progress. We next chose an intertextual essay form of paper still using Shelley's Gothic tale but adding devices appropriated from Edmund Morris's literary biography of Ronald Reagan (the creature of his former political masters). For nerve, we tried to borrow from Patricia Highsmith's Tom Ripley. There was never any doubt that Tom was always his own master. Yet we seldom felt that we were.
We did not introduce these literary twists into our dramatic and postmodern turn for their own sake nor to provoke total confusion. For us, the stories and appropriated sources are useful because, as a sustained set of metaphors, they helped us to project inference patterns from the literary sources (of the Frankenstein creator-creature, the famous but shadowy President, Tom Ripley, the likeable killer, and the wandering ancient mariner) to the less well known target that is arts-based inquiry and development. As well as showing inquiry and development as shaping, making, replacing, and rebirthing, the unlikely combination of Frankenstein, Reagan, Ripley, and the ancient mariner prepares us for the rough and unpredictable processes and appearance of aesthetic inquiry and development. The four creatures also signify the hazardous nature and the potentially dangerous consequences of using aesthetic approaches to remake dead bodies of fading research and developmental modes (lifeless fragments, yesterday's frontmen, outdated hero-detectives, and the homeless) into any new whole. "The materials at present within [our] command hardly [ever] appear adequate to so arduous an undertaking" (Shelley, 1818/1994, p. 52).
We are encouraged by Pillow's (2000) account to "forefront the necessity of continuing to do our work even while making visible the many ways such work is (un)graspable, (im)possible, (un)intelligible, (un)knowable, and provisional" (p. 22). This is not a failure but is the very work of arts-based inquirers. In this, our present work, we overlay a dramatic/paper fiasco/rupture with literary allusions to provide examples of arts-based inquiry and teacher educator researcher development in process and as reflecting on itself. We recognize that such a reflexive subject, the artful inquiry that is "infatuated with the possibility of its own use" (Barone, 2000, p. 148), can never be as engaging as any literary or real-life figure. Accordingly, we used the four literary figures (Frankenstein, Reagan, Ripley, and the ancient mariner) to animate the mystery of promoting arts- based inquiry and development. The dramatic form aroused meaningful reflection at our AERA 2000 experimental session and subsequently within and between us as authors. We hope that with this article will help us to push our inquiry "to the edge of the exploratory" with other artist-educators.
Arts-based inquiry has helped us to perceive and report the dynamics of situations (writing-performing-writing aesthetically) and to suggest how to read and revise them. Like Sullivan (2000), we have looked at details within our contexts, perceived relationships among the parts, and between the parts and the whole. We are still looking for coalescences within the disorder, for organic unity beneath the superficial disruption, and for disruptive forces beneath the superficial unity. Such work is less about attempting to contain aesthetic experience and more about showing what piecemeal, working examples of it may look like. The text of our playlet appears as an appendix so that you, the reader, can enter the exchange and freely recreate it, using whatever form or voice you choose.
NotesWe wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful and thoughtful comments on our manuscript.
Audi, R. (1999). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barone, T. (2000). Aesthetics, politics, and educational inquiry. New York: Peter Lang.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1994). The social meaning of mental retardation: Two life stories. New York: Teachers College Press.
Botting, F. (1996). Gothic. New York: Routledge.
Diamond, C. T. P., & Mullen, C. A. (1997). Alternative perspectives on mentoring in higher education: Duography as collaborative relationship and inquiry. Journal of Applied Social Behaviour, 3(2), 4964.
Edmundson, M. (1994). Coleridge, S. T. In M. Groden & M. Kreiswirth (Eds.). The Johns Hopkins guide to literary theory and criticism (pp. 170174). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Eisner, E. W. (1981). On the differences between scientific and artistic approaches to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 10(4), 59.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
Highsmith, P. (1949/2000). Strangers on a train. New York: Penguin.
Highsmith, P. (1992). Ripley under ground. New York: Vintage.
Mallon, T. (1999, November). Doubting Thomas: Double Dutch. GQ: Gentlemen's Quarterly, 265274.
Morris, E. (1999). Dutch: A memoir of Ronald Reagan. New York: Random House.
Moustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic research, design, methodology, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mullen, C. A., & Diamond, C. T. P. (1999). Stories of breakout: Academic gatekeepers, prisoners, and outlaws (pp. 253280). In C. T. P. Diamond & C. A. Mullen (Eds.), The postmodern educator: Arts-based inquiries and teacher development. New York: Peter Lang.
Mullen, C. A. = Kochan, F. K. (in press). Issues of collaborative authorship in higher education. The Educational Forum.
Pillow, W. S. (2000). Deciphering attempts to decipher postmodern educational research. Educational Researcher, 29(5), 2124.
Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York: Peter Lang.
Shelley, M. (1818/1994). Frankenstein or the modern Prometheus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spivak, G. C. (1994). Response to Jean-Luc Nancy. In J. F. MacCannell & L. Zakarin (Eds.), Thinking bodies (pp. 3251). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sullivan, A. M. (2000). Notes from a marine biologist's daughter: On the art and science of attention. Harvard Educational Review, 70(2), 211227.
Summers, C. (Ed.) (1995). The gay and lesbian literary heritage: A reader's companion. New York: Henry Holt.
Yukman, L. (1997). Feminism and a discontent. In L. Heywood & J. Drake (Eds.), Third wave agenda (pp. 168177). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
About the Authors
C. T. Patrick Diamond, Professor
Center for Teacher Development (Suite 10-146)
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
University of Toronto
252 Bloor Street West
Toronto, ON M5S 1V6 Canada
Office Phone: (416) 923-6641, x2629
Office Fax: (416) 926-4754
C. T. Patrick Diamond is Professor at the Center for Teacher
Development, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6. He specializes in literary forms of
arts-based narrative inquiry, qualitative research
methodology, and collaborative approaches to teacher-
educator-researcher development. Dr. Diamond is an associate
editor for Curriculum Inquiry. He has published over
160 works, including numerous articles and the books
Teacher Education as Transformation (1991, Open
University Press) and The Postmodern Educator (with
C. A. Mullen, 1999, Peter Lang). E-mail:
Carol A. Mullen is Assistant Professor at the
Leadership Development Department, University of South
Florida, College of Education, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, EDU
162, Tampa, Florida 33620-5650 USA. She specializes in
innovative approaches to leadership development, arts-based
methods, and collaborative forms of qualitative research.
Dr. Mullen has published seven guest- edited issues of
journals, including the Journal of Curriculum
Theorizing (with C. T. P. Diamond). She has also
published many articles and four books, including New
Directions in Mentoring (1999, Falmer) and The
Postmodern Educator (with C. T. P. Diamond, 1999, Peter
Lang). E-mail: email@example.com.