Research in Visual Arts Education - The National Society for ...

MEDIATED ACTION AND AESTHETIC LEARNING
Winner’s and Cooper’s (2000) experience is not unique; it is likely to be
repeated by anyone who consults the literature on visual arts education to
get empirically grounded advice in policy matters. In 2004, The J. Paul Getty
Trust, a long-time supporter of research in visual arts education, invited a
team of experts – including the present author – to a symposium on priorities
for future research. In the proceedings (Robinson, 2005), John Steers,
General Secretary, National Society for Education in Art & Design (UK),
exemplified the state-of-the-art concerning research methods by describing
a systematic review of empirical research, in the UK, entitled Evidence Based
Practice and Policy Initiative, EPPI (http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms). The EPPI
includes two reviews of research in the visual arts.
An initial trawl by Rachel Mason, John Steers, et al. (2005; Mason, 2008)
through databases, journals, books, and bibliographies, identified 2,945
papers on visual arts education written in English in the last twenty-five years.
When the exclusion/inclusion criteria were applied, the number of studies
being relevant for answering their research question was reduced to 243.
After having looked beyond abstracts to the research itself, the reviewers
ended up with 10 studies that appeared to draw on empirical evidence. The
review raised serious questions about methodologies and about the ways in
which data had been used and interpreted in studies of visual arts education.
The findings were consistent with the reviewers’ perception of “a field
preoccupied with visual rather than verbal modes of communication and
favouring theorizing over empirical research” (Mason, 2008, p. 44).
Based mainly on Swedish experiences, Jan Thavenius (2002) concludes
that the field of aesthetic learning is characterized by a vigorous production
of beliefs and hopes, rather than by the advancement of knowledge that is
theoretically plausible and empirically well-founded:
It is my opinion that the field [of aesthetic subjects and “culture in school”] is characterized
by a vigorous production of beliefs and hopes. Reference is more often made to what
is believed and hoped for than to knowledge that is theoretically or empirically based.
There is nothing wrong with beliefs and hopes. They are needed so that we can have
the energy to become involved. But we must also be prepared to confront our belief and
our hope with the critical scrutiny represented by, research. We must also be open to the
alternatives and hidden opportunities which, if all goes well, research can point out to us.
It therefore obstructs the development of the field that both theoretical and empirical
research are in short supply. Another obstacle is that the research that does exist finds it
hard to reach out and be put into practice. (pp. 65-66)
In John Steers’ view, the EPPI review above (Mason, Steers et al., 2005)
demonstrated “a depressive reflection of the state of research in visual
arts education” (Robinson, 2005, p. 34). The review suggested that much of
68 NORDIC VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION IN TRANSITION