Researching elephants

If we see technologies as the orchestration of phenomena to some use, and some of that orchestration is done by people (which is what makes technologies soft) then it is not enough that the technologies should work well. We should also be able to use them skillfully, creatively, passionately, with artistry. A machine can be programmed to play an instrument 'perfectly' or to draw a 'perfect' picture, but that's not really what we seek. Similarly, a great musician can make beautiful music with limited technique and poor instruments, and great artists can get by with limited skill and limited tools. Teaching is a craft that requires artistry. Technologies, including pedagogies, can make a difference and they are relatively easy to research. But it is possible to teach very well indeed with bad technologies, including pedagogies, and it is possible to teach badly with good technologies, including pedagogies.

This gives us a problem. The vast majority of educational research, at least that which concerns interventions we have made, is about technologies: the repeatable methods, techniques, patterns and tools that we report on and compare with others. However, if the argument above is reasonable, then this means that the things which lead to success or failure may have little to do with those tools at all. This is the elephant in the room that we tend to ignore in most research into education and learning technologies. 

So, how do we find a way to make the identification of artistry a part of our research agenda? Even if we can show it, how can we learn from it? How can we include such factors when we are reporting on the success or failure of interventions we have made, technologies we have created, designs we have used? Should our research be a variation on critiques of art, writing, music, dance and theatre? Is architecture a better analogy, or product design, or engineering? What should be the outcomes of our research, how should it inform practice?

What I'm asking you to do

This is one for discussion. You could respond here, using the comments below, or add a URL to your response. Or feel free to conduct the discussion elsewhere, and maybe link to it (or maybe better still a summary of it) here if it gets interesting. Above all, please share it, ideally in form that can be aggregated by grssHopper.