I established in Chapter 2 that an interweaving of feminist, participatory and indigenous peoples’ worldviews acknowledges the breadth and variety existing among people and the connectedness between humans and the world around them. Accordingly, the principles of diversity and connectedness are also important in my approach to adult education. Much of the literature concerning adult education has come out of Europe and North America and generally reflects dominant western cultural perspectives. However, feminist writers and writers of non-western, non-white and non-dominant cultures have contributed a wider view. As a result, internationally and in countries such as Aotearoa New Zealand, there is a growing body of literature that highlights social and cultural rather than simply individual reasons for engaging in adult education.
While adulthood can be described as a social construction (Pogson & Tennant, 1995), there are important differences between children’s and adults’ educational aims and environments. Differences arise because, whereas education for children is compulsory in many countries, including Aotearoa New Zealand, adult education is generally seen as voluntary (Foley, 1995; Knowles, 1990; Rogers, 1989; Ryan, 2001). Compulsory education for children is usually subject-centred (Knowles, 1990; Rogers, 1989). While adults may also seek subject-centred education for the purposes of gaining qualifications (Knowles, 1990; Rogers, 1983), these qualifications can be for individual and/or socio-cultural reasons in terms of employment and promotion (Knowles, 1990; Rogers, 1983) or directly linked with a learner’s cultural or social grouping and aimed at political and social action and/or enrichment of that cultural or social grouping (Belenky, 1996; Freire, 1976; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Zeichner, 2001). Whatever their reasons, adults are likely to choose areas of study that are life-centred — relevant to their own lives — rather than subject-centred learning (Knowles, 1990) and that focus on practical skills and participation with others (Ryan, 2001).
As well as engaging in education for various reasons, adults also bring particular personal attributes to their learning of which the adult educator needs to be aware. One key personal attribute is self-concept or self-esteem. Most adults have a self-concept of being responsible for their own decisions; they, therefore, need to be treated by their teachers/facilitators as being capable of self-direction and self-agency and may resent or resist educational leadership that does not treat them as adults (Knowles, 1990; Ryan, 2001). Adults with positive self-esteem and positive memories of past education are generally willing to engage in self-directed study, able to take initiative in their learning and share experiences and resources with others (Ryan, 2001). While adults may be independent and self-directed in their learning (Knowles, 1990; Rogers, 1989), they also may prefer to learn in groups or communities of learners where their learning may take place in conversation with others (Belenky, 1996; Leach, 2003; Leach & Knight, 2003; Tarule, 1996). This latter preference is highlighted further in the writings of adult educators drawing on feminist perspectives and indigenous, non-western, non-white and non-dominant cultures (Belenky, 1996; Harding, 1996, 2007; Goldberger, 1996; Gordon, 2001; hooks, 1989, 2004; Hurtado, 1996; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Pyrch & Castillo,
2001; Schweikart, 1996; Smith, 1999; Te Awekotuku, 1991). According to such writers, women, indigenous peoples and peoples of non-western, non-white and non-dominant cultures are often more concerned with their community
connections and responsibilities than with individual advancement in
employment and/or socio-economic standing. Such concerns are influenced by values, attitudes and experiences arising out of socio-economic status, culture and gender of individual adult learners (Brosnan, Scheeres & Slade, 1995; Knights, 1995; McDaniel & Flowers, 1995; Newman, 1995; Rogers, 1989). Thus, the concerns of adult learners may include issues such as personal empowerment30, injustice, marginalisation, colonisation and decolonisation (Belenky, 1996; Goldberger, 1996; Gordon, 2001; Harding, 1996, 2007; hooks, 1989, 2004; Hurtado, 1996; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Pyrch & Castillo, 2001; Schweikart, 1996; Smith, 1999; Te Awekotuku, 1991). However, these issues are often interwoven with other physical, social, cultural, political, spiritual, ecological and geographical issues and have been expressed in research in terms of feminist, participatory and/or indigenous peoples’ worldviews.
Suffice it to say, from the above detail concerning adult learning, it can be surmised that an effective facilitator of reflective practice among adults must respect their individuality, self-agency and connectedness with others (Leach, 2003; Leach & Knight, 2003; Stanton, 1996; Taylor et al., 2000). In addition, the adult educator needs to approach the role of facilitator of reflective practice in a way that encourages personal empowerment and enrichment for the learners (Borland, 2007; Brosnan et al., 1995; Du Plessis et al., 1992; Irwin, 1992; Irwin & Ramsden, 1995; Knights, 1995; McDaniel & Flowers, 1995; Newman, 1995; Te Awekotuku, 1991; Yates-Smith, 1998). The facilitator may demonstrate such respect through attitudes of openness towards the preferences of the adult learner but also through being informed and overt about the focus of the study (Leach, 2003; Leach & Knight, 2003; Rogers, 1989; Stanton, 1996; Taylor, Marienau & Fiddler, 2000; Wicks, 1996).
Rather than being issues for discussion and critique, the above principles are congruent with a feminist participatory approach to research and with my own convictions and experience concerning facilitation of adult
30
Myth, metaphor, story and symbol may also have an important role in personal empowerment in adult education in general and in art-making in particular (Taylor et al., 2000; Yates-Smith, 1998).
education in general and adult reflective practice in particular. In my experience as an adult educator, I have met hundreds of adult learners and identified a range of reasons why these learners attended adult education courses; reasons include being required by employers, seeking a change of career into teaching,
exploring teaching as a potential career change, taking a first step into education since distant and very negative school experiences or taking a first step into adult education and the paid work force after raising families and being care- givers for aging parents. Similarly, the participants in the study on which this thesis is based brought a range of past experiences and current areas of paid and unpaid work; however, all were voluntary learners and willing to undertake reflective practice in art-making. In addition, since they were solo art-makers, I could assume that they were self-motivated, articulate and independent,
expressing, in various ways, awareness of their constant connectedness to others and with the environment31. Finally, facilitated reflective practice, articulated through collaborative knowing32 by means of one-to-one conversations, could potentially enhance learning. Thus, a study of reflective practice in art-making among adult female art-makers of various ethnicities and art-making areas is informed by the literature of reflective practice and adult learning.
The key areas of this thesis are reflective practice and art-making. However, reflective practice is the wider area and adult education a specific subset of reflective practice; therefore, I introduced reflective practice first in the above sections. Similarly, creativity, spirituality and embodied knowing are relevant to more than art-making. Thus, in the following sections, I outline these three wider areas before discussing art-making. Then, having introduced art-making in general, I discuss art-making in relation to creativity, spirituality and embodied knowing. Finally, I bring together the two key areas: reflective practice and art-making.
Creativity
In general, western researchers emphasise rational/cognitive, product-based and problem-solving approaches to creativity (Boden, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Gardner, 1993, 2004, 2006; Kaufman & Baer, 2005; Sternberg, 1999). While
31
Specific characteristics of the participants will be discussed further in Chapter 4 and findings chapters 5-8.
32
elements of the non-rational are evident in western writing, particularly in the creative and performing arts (Kaufman & Baer, 2005; Steinberg, 1999), in non- western cultures, creativity per se appears to be predominantly related to non- rational elements including spirituality, intuition and a state of personal
fulfillment (Lubart, 1999; Morris, 2005; Zimmerman, 2005). In addition, western concepts of creativity have most often focused on individual creativity, whereas in many non-western cultures, identification with and affirmation of the culture are generally more prevalent. Therefore, in this section, I outline key elements of creativity as presented by western researchers and juxtapose these with views from a variety of non-western cultures. Because of the topic of this thesis, I restrict the following discussion to creativity as discussed by western educators and psychologists, giving examples from the creative and performing arts but not from other fields such as business, teaching, science, engineering, computer science or the clinical practice of psychology. Finally, I briefly introduce the concept of flow, an important element for creative people but particularly for art- makers.
I begin the discussion on creativity by presenting views of
indigenous and non-western writers and refer back to these perceptions during my discussion on western understandings of creativity; indigenous and non- western understandings provide affirmation or a counterpoint to the discussion on western research. Since the area of creativity has been researched
predominantly as a cognitive skill by means of cognitive research methods in western educational contexts, the understandings of indigenous and non-western writers enlighten, inform and bring a wider perspective.
Māori academic Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) addresses the question of creating and creativity from an indigenous perspective:
…creating is about transcending the basic survival mode through using a resource or capability which every indigenous community has retained throughout colonization – the ability to create and be creative. …creating is not just about the artistic endeavours of individuals but about the spirit of creating which indigenous communities have exercised over thousands of years. Imagination enables people to rise above their own circumstances, to dream new visions and to hold onto old ones. It fosters inventions and
uplifts our spirits. Creating is not the exclusive domain of the rich nor of the technologically superior, but of the imaginative. Creating is about channeling collective creativity in order to produce solutions to indigenous problems. Every indigenous community has
considered and come up with various innovative solutions to problems. That was before colonialism. Throughout the period of colonization indigenous peoples survived because of their
imaginative spirit, their ability to adapt and think around a problem. (p. 158)
Smith’s description of creativity embraces several aspects important to indigenous, non-western and marginalised peoples and, in a number of ways, contradicts the ideas of dominant western understandings. Western theorists such as Boden (1996), Csikszentmihalyi (1996), Gardner (1993, 2004, 2006), Kaufman and Baer (2005) and Sternberg (1999) focus on individuality, identification of a small number of people viewed as creative, institutional training, innovation and rationality. However, an indigenous approach focusses on access which has traditionally been available without western-style
institutional training, affirmation of existing and future cultural vision and identity, the importance of others within the community/culture, community problem-solving and collective expressions of creativity (Puketapu-Hetet, 1989; Smith, 1999). While an indigenous understanding of creativity often emphasises replication and affirmation of existing art forms and designs, individual
innovation is also encouraged (Lubart, 1999; Puketapu-Hetet, 1989). However, rather than the individual rationality of a western approach, indigenous and non- western writers emphasise the psychic and spiritual and the need to transcend basic human survival by lifting the spirits of others33 (Lubart, 1999; Puketapu- Hetet, 1989; Smith, 1999). Finally, while meditationand/or ritual are seldom mentioned in western writing on creativity, it is noted that these spiritual activities often precede and/or accompany creative activities in indigenous and non-western cultures (Lubart, 1999; Morris, 2005; Pendergrast, 1987, 1997; Pere, 1982; Puketapu-Hetet, 1999; Te Kanawa, 1992; Tomaselli, Dyll & Francis; 2008; Zimmerman, 2005). Because indigenous and non-western views of creativity have centred on the non-rational and spiritual, cognitive questions
33
Lifting the spirits implies that a sense of positivity is encouraged spiritually, emotionally, psychologically, in the perception of belongingness and other areas.
of western research34 do not appear to have been considered relevant (Balkin, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Gardner, 1993, 2004; 2006; Janesick, 2001; 2004; Kaufman & Baer, 2005). However, legitimate questions have been asked concerning cultural domination by writers from and on behalf of indigenous and non-western cultures (Lubart, 1999; Smith, 1999; Tomaselli, Dyll & Francis, 2008).
Nevertheless, in more recent western writing, earlier understandings of creativity have been challenged. For example, by emphasising that all people have some ability to be creative and that the quality of creativity will differ from person to person and culture to culture, Enid Zimmerman (2005) challenges Csikszentmihalyi’s (1996) view that only the small number of people who make significant changes to their culture can be considered creative3536. Similarly, western educator Howard Gardner (2006) challenges the focus on individuality, emphasising the importance and relevance of small and large group creativity; Gardner gives examples from science, computing and business innovation. However, Gardner, like numerous other western writers, emphasises the need for an end product as measurable evidence of creativity (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Zimmermann, 2005). Hence, in western understandings, creativity is often seen as tangible in terms of products — whether the product is a physical item, a solution to a problem or the personality of the creator (Balkin, 1990). While the need for a creative product may be questioned, western society often only recognises and rewards tangible products (Balkin, 1990)37. However, theatre educator R. Keith Sawyer (2005) provides an example of creativity that is not solely dependent on a product: “In product creativity, the creative process ends when the creative product is complete and fixed, whereas in acting, the creative process continues through performance and constitutes the creative product—it has no existence apart from the creative
34
Questions addressed by western writers include what is creativity, how is the term creativity understood, where is creativity, who can be deemed as creative and how is creativity learned and expressed?
35
It must also be noted that Csikszentmihaly’s (1996) examples of creative individuals are almost solely drawn from western culture. Such an approach indicates that colonisation, oppression and marginalisation are at work in this context. Gardner’s (1993) inclusion of Gandhi as culture- changing individual stands out as one of the few non-western individuals mentioned in such a context. However, it must be noted that Gardner’s (1993) work concerns his (at that time) seven intelligences rather than creativity per se.
36
A similar understanding of inclusivity can be found in dance where perception of creativity in dance can vary across cultures and social contexts and there may be both similarities and differences from one culture to another (Morris, 2005).
37
The role of society in deciding what is creative could be compared with Csikszentmihalyi’s (1996) approaches to domain and field but this is beyond the scope of this thesis.
process of performance” (p. 47). Thus, there are arguments relating to the centrality of a creative product as evidence of creativity in western research. In contrast to western views, in indigenous and non-western cultures, creativity is often associated with psychic and spiritual realms and with personal fulfillment, rather than with specific products (Lubart, 1999).
In western writing, there is much discussion about the nature of creativity and its products. Among some theorists, there is debate concerning the key elements of creativity; for example, domain, field and individual person (Csikszentmihalyi, 1966) or person, process and product (Balkin, 1990). However, others maintain that creativity involves a complexity of interactive relationships between people, process, products and social and cultural contexts, including a community of experts who judge the value of a creative product (Feldman, 1999; Gruber, 1989; Sternberg, 1999; Zimmermann, 2005). On the other hand, feminist qualitative research writer and dance educator Valerie Janesick (2001) believes that creativity is ineffective without the use of intuition, since “intuition is the seed…of the creative act” (p. 539). Indigenous and non-western writers may agree that creativity involves complexity of interactive relationships and the presence of the intuitive while placing less emphasis on the final product and its value.
Although western-based discussion concerning creativity has embraced both the nature of creativity and characteristics of creative people, current researchers often view the more important debate as relating to generalised versus domain creativity (Kaufman & Baer, 2005). This debate concerns whether creativity is domain-specific and even “microdomain- specific” or whether there are generalisable characteristics of creativity (Kaufman & Baer, 2005b, p. 326; also Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Plucker, 2005; Sternberg, 2005). This debate has resulted in a very short set of skills and traits that can be viewed abstractly as generalised but observable only as they are evident within specific domains; this is termed an “overlapping skills model” (Baer & Kaufman, 2005). In the overlapping skills model, Baer and Kaufman (2005) maintain that “(s)ome skills or traits may be important in many domains”, “(o)ther skills or traits are shared by a limited set of domains” and “some personality attributes and skills are quite domain specific” (p. 314). In summarising the generalisable skills and traits, these writers propose an
identified. Firstly, creative people require a basic level of intelligence, both intellectual and emotional (often measured through various intelligence tests38), although high levels of either area of intelligence do not guarantee or equate with creativity (Averill, 2005; Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Balkin, 1990;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Gardner, 2005; Zimmerman, 2005). Secondly, creative people need motivation or desire to do “something” which may then be
transferred into motivation to do a specific thing; it is also necessary that what they are motivated to do is possible or permissible within the environment and/or culture in which they live (Baer & Kaufman, 2005, p. 323; italics in original). Thirdly, knowledge of a specific domain is needed, that is, the skills required to create within that domain. Fourthly, certain personality traits may be useful for particular domains; for example, “openness to experience” is
“essential for artists” (Kaufman & Baer, 2005b, p. 325, italics in original). Finally, while Csikszentmihalyi (1996) sees creativity as being inseparable from the domain in which it is required, he and Balkin (1990) have, nevertheless, identified a number of characteristics seen in varying degrees but viewed as common to all creative people. Csikszentmihalyi’s (1996) set of skills is summarised by Zimmerman (2005):
Traits that Csikszentmihalyi and his colleagues found associated with creativity were often dichotomous and included displaying a great amount of physical energy and a need for quiet times, being wise and childish, being playful and disciplined, using imagination rooted in reality, being extroverted and introverted, being humble and proud, displaying a tendency towards androgynous, being traditional and rebellious, being passionate yet objective about work, and displaying the ability to suffer and enjoy creation for its own sake. (p. 68)
It is possible that this area of debate in western-based research has also been discussed in non-western and/or indigenous literature, but access to English translations of such work is limited.
38
While it may be true that a general level of intelligence is needed for creativity to flourish, the term intelligence and its measures are somewhat problematic. Numerous writers suggest the use of IQ tests and emotional intelligence tests as ways of measuring intelligence; however, many have questioned such tests. As a feminist participatory researcher, I similarly question, since these tests were developed by western, generally male, researchers and, as a result, disadvantage all those who are not western men and, primarily, those whose first language and culture are not the same as the languages and cultural settings of the tests.
Next, numerous researchers in western education have included “problem finding, problem solving, divergent and convergent thinking, self- expression, and adaptability to new situations” as being commonly associated with creativity (Zimmerman, 2005, p. 71). While the relatedness of problem- solving to creativity is debated among western researchers, indigenous writers such as Smith (1999) view creative problem-solving as vital to the survival and future flourishing of colonised peoples, as seen in the quotation early in this section. According to Smith (1999), creative problem-solving is viewed as