The first workshop session in the Theories Policies and Practices unit, was interesting to me as a teaching practitioner. Firstly, it was interesting to observe the groups’ responses to the readings that we had been allocated. It was comforting and funny, to hear that many in the group felt as I did, that the texts, at times, were hard to access.
The article that I was allocated was titled An a/r/tographic metissage: Storying the self as pedagogic practice. According to the article, educational discourse for artists, researchers and teachers would be broadened through considering “the self-in-relation to theory and practice”(Osler, T, Guillard, I, Garcia-Fialdini, A and Cóte, 2019, p. 109). This at first seemed like a perfect article for the unit, as it appeared to be aligned with the inner reflective process of considering one’s values and processes as (art) practitioners and aligning them with a teaching practice. I immediately felt, as both an art practitioner and teaching practitioner, that I could relate to this.
However, on reading the four case studies in the article, I found there to be several issues with the texts that I found quite frustrating. I don’t want to single out any one text, but I found there to be a combination of inaccessible ‘academic’ language, that quickly became alienating. While there was a presumption in the text that the reader would/should know what the term ‘a/r/tography’ was, without any contextual explanation or unpacking. I was also disappointed that the writing in the articles at times felt highly cliched and romanticised approach to art practice, bordering on Victorian romanticism. As a practitioner, both artist and teacher, I realised that I actively try to reduce my use of overly emotive language. I try to speak in plain English. I value this, as I think it is important in teaching spaces to keep language accessible to all, particularly when teaching on a very large cohort, with many international students, and with many students who do not come from privileged backgrounds.
When faced with an article such as the one we were given, I found the result of this was one that can result in an undermining of my confidence, with academia, and writing in general. However, on reflection, and in a form of new confidence gained from the shared experience of how the group responded to the article that we read, I understood that perhaps I am not ‘bad’ at academic writing, I just don’t like badly written academic writing.
On this point, I am drawn to the writing of bell hooks, whose work, according to Watkins “intentionally appears far from intellectual elitism, and much closer to the modes of expression typical for lower social classes”. For hooks, the intention was to “look at other forms of speech, linguistic practice and rhetoric than exclusively characteristic for the academic discourse.” (Watkins 2019, p. 10) In doing so, she disrupted and critiqued the hierarchy of academia, from a position of feminist theory.
References:
Osler, T, Guillard, I, Garcia-Fialdini, A and Cóte, S. (2019) Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, Volume 12, numbers 1 & 2. Concordia University.
Watkins, G J. (2019) Teaching to Transgress: Subjective Educational Experience in the Model of Engaged Pedagogy of Bell Hooks. CULTURE – SOCIETY – EDUCATION NO. 1 (15) POZNAN.