researCh and the seLfthe self in the researchit is easy to see some ways in which the selves of the researchers in the examples
above have influenced and been influenced by their research. gemmell writes about
his identity as an art and design teacher educator and as an artist, explaining how
that complex identity influences the direction of the research. scriven, Rumney and
Kuksa talk of the themes, characters, issues and imagery being developed in sustained
relationships with particular groups of children, and that these combine with ‘our own
perceptions as artists’. giddens and Jones describe their whole project as revolving
round an exploration of their selves and identities. But it is not just that the researchers
acknowledge the role of the self. We, their readers, can see something of the way that
their relationships with others (student teachers, child audiences, friends, family) have
influenced those selves in ways that make a difference to their research processes. We
are aware of their embodied selves through their specific visual and visceral responses.
We can see something of how their selves have become what they were not and, as
the research develops further, will become what they are not yet. The selves of the
different researchers disclose themselves (to use arendt’s terminology) in how they
give accounts of their research.
The model given in this chapter proposed six elements of self. each of the elements
of the researchers’ selves can be seen in their different research projects. The model
of research proposed that there are different analytical stages in a research process,
though one of them, ‘data collection’ may be missing in some cases. While some of
the more obvious connections between the selves and the research are easily visible, it
would be impossible in the space of a short chapter to show how far each element of the
self is implicated in all the various stages of research for each of the examples. instead
a few indicative connections are drawn from each example. i begin by looking at the
connections from the point of view of the elements of the self.
‘each self is unique and its response to circumstance is not determined.’ The different
selves of the researchers can be seen in the actions described in each of the examples,
and in the explanations given for them. This unique selfhood is very obvious in the
case of giddens and Jones, who share the same set of circumstances, but who have very
distinct voices and different responses, each one contributing to the development of
the performances. The uniqueness of selfhood is least obvious in the piece by scriven,
Rumney and Kuksa, probably because it was written in a joint voice in the academic
genre. This genre tends to obscure individuality, especially in joint writing, where what
is said necessarily expresses only those parts of their academic selves which overlap and
agree.
‘We are always in a state of becoming, always unfinished.’ gemmell and giddens
specifically refer to this. gemmell comments that there is no obvious endpoint to the
research as both he and his context change. as he puts it, ‘We are all stardust’. giddens
reports that she began the project ‘somewhat fearful of working with technology’. By
the final stages of the project, she talks in very confident tones about using technology
in the video, The Triptych: Who by Fire: ‘it became a space- time for a gathering of
memories of my own and others. it felt like we were finally dancing in time.’
‘We make ourselves in relation to others.’ all three accounts are full of references to
others. sometimes the relationships are more personal than structural. The relationship