The way in which phenomenographic categories have been expanded in this study is slightly different to other studies combining phenomenography and activity theory (Åberg-Bengtsson 1998, Coupland & Crawford 2002, Gordon & Nicholas 2002, Berglund 2004). All these studies vary in their use of activity theory as a framework to analyse data generated through a phenomenographic analysis. Some take a closer look at actions within the activity system (Coupland & Crawford 2002, Berglund 2004) and Åberg-Bengtsson uses the idea of tools in an educational setting and their
influence in the way that conceptions of a phenomenon are constructed by learners. There are also different constructions of the activity system itself.
I have employed a case study approach based on the phenomenographic categories of variation (rather than the course as the case study in Berglund) with activity theory used as a heuristic to examine in more detail how the individual practitioner tutor experiences the interaction within and between different aspects of their practice and teaching their practice in an educational organisation. The use of individual case studies representing the different phenomenographic categories of experience allows a greater understanding of the contextual factors involved in experiencing a complex phenomenon and is a broader examination of the influence of context than the
examination of single ‘nodes’ or aspects of the activity system as in Åberg-Bengtsson for example. The wider contextual framework examined is necessitated by the
research questions in this case, focussing on the relationship between different working contexts, but does suggest that an examination of relations through a phenomenographic analysis extended by case studies of the categories can reveal aspects of relations in more comprehensive ways than a statistical comparison.
The use of case studies enables a more detailed examination of relations between the individual and the world, the premise on which phenomenography is based, but the paradox which traditional phenomenographic methodologies present. By using case studies and activity theory together a more emotional, individualised,
personalised narrative begins to populate the structure of experience with human exchanges and interactions with wider social contexts. These allow empathy and understanding to be brought to bear on aspects of experiencing in complex social situations and enables issues of agency and the wider socio-political aspects of experience to be considered as they impact on the individual and their actions.
Activity theory, as it is largely practiced in the West currently, tends to focus on collective actions, rather than examine individuals operating within collectively
generated and determined activities. Kaptelinin (2005) points out that an emphasis on the individual in activity theory was a feature of Leont’ev’s original work on activity systems as opposed to the emphasis on collective action that characterises the work of Engeström (e.g. Engeström 1990, Engeström et al. 1999, Engeström & Rückriem 2005). Recognising that the individual is bound up in multiple activities and that these are not separate, but also relational through being centred on the individual adds to our knowledge of relations within and between different activity systems and the influences this has on individual work practices. Individuals also contribute to complex objects of activity within a collective activity system such as education.
Through focusing on the variation in the way that relations between two aspects of work, ostensibly a straightforward relationship: practice and teaching your practice, it is possible to glimpse the complexity inherent in this relationship. There are also complexities within and between two work contexts and these influence reported actions undertaken in the teaching environment. Seeing relationships between the individual and both their working contexts is possible though using activity theory as a heuristic.
Dreier’s (1999) idea of personal trajectories recognises that identities are bound up with working in multiple social practices across time and space. This study shows how such individual selves and identities are acted out in and across two activity systems. It provides a detailed investigation of the interrelationships, the tensions, individual histories and organisational contexts that are a part of one person’s interaction within and between two systems. It also indicates that the individual both conforms to aspects of the system and also shapes aspects of the activities that form the system, but feels constrained by the perceived amount of power they have to change aspects of the activity system. Stetsenko (2005) argues theoretically that activity theory resolves the dualism between individuals and social behaviour through dialogic relations between activity, being object-related, having a material practice and involving individual subjectivities. My research shows empirically how these relationships are acted out between particular work settings.
In examining teaching and teachers’ multiple engagement with different aspects of their working lives it may be profitable to consider further research which focuses on a qualitative examination of the relationship itself, whether this is ‘the teaching research nexus’, how conceptions of the subject are related to teaching,
administrative and organisational aspects of roles in education, or relations between other teaching roles in other places for part time tutors. All such relations and multiple
aspects of working life must have an impact on each other and on the individual’s identity and sense of self in relation to work practices and more particularly to students’ learning.
The two strategies which are only associated with the phenomenographic category where there is an asymmetrical relationship between practice and teaching, with teaching more to the fore, also suggests that a study of full time academics in practice based subjects would be worth examining. If contemporary practice is seen as central to knowledge in the disciplines of art and design (Logan 2006) then how do those in full time education experience the relationship between practice and
teaching?
The indications in this study that experiencing practice and teaching as integrated may also be associated with particular discourses, or narratives of identity, such as the artist educator, would also merit more research. There may be significant differences between the sub-disciplines of art and design, or it may be more related to the way that the subject or ‘professional entity’ (Reid & Petocz 2005) is
experienced, or the way that the purposes of education are understood by individuals within the discipline. There are certainly many more questions arising from this study that would contribute to a relatively under-researched disciplinary area.
This study has shown that a systematic, small-scale study in one discipline area can provide illuminating information about how teachers enable students to learn and how variation in the experience of practice/ teaching relations is central to the ontology of learning to practice. Transition between practice and teaching is a complex matter and assuming that practitioners make the best teachers over simplifies the relationship and ignores the potential impact on students learning to become practitioners in art and design.