Data Collection

3 unstructured but planned conversation were had with colleagues from UAL. Two lecturers and a technician. Though I had contacted a fourth, time restrictions meant that it was not able to go ahead. I had given the option to my participants to choose their preferred location for the conversation which meant that two of them happened online and one happened in LCC.

Upon reflection, though these conversations happened with people I know, because of the location in which they took place, they did end up taking on more of an interview format. In the future meeting in a more casual setting, over some food, tea, coffee or on a walk could help remedy this.

The conversations were all about 30 minutes long, and though it was important to me that they be built organically, there were three questions that I intentionally weaved in to help me gather the data I needed. The first was a description (literal or metaphorical) of UAL as an institution, and the second was a description of a moment or interaction that they had had or facilitated within the institution which they felt was positive and conductive to socially just learning. The third was their thoughts in regards to the new LCC building. Through the conversations, topics that were also discussed related to personal experience and touched on the role and limits of educational spaces, specific advantages and disadvantages of higher education and visions for the future.

Another important aspect of my data collection was exploring the language of UAL itself. The reason behind this research was partly linked to the dissonance I had identified between the experience of the people that exist within the UAL space and the way UAL presents itself. It was therefore important to me that I immerse myself inside the world of UAL as well as the world of the participants. I therefore decided to firstly converse with the LCC Building itself (both current and new). To mimic the informal conversation style, I used the navigation technique of dérive. This technique was first developed by Guy Debord who was a member of the Situationist movement and who descried it as: ‘a mode of experimental behaviour linked to the conditions of urban society: a technique of rapid passage through varied ambiances.’(Debord 1958). It generally takes the form of an unplanned journey in which the participant navigates their surrounding based on instinct and spontaneous, emotional reactions to the physical space. I documented these walks by taking pictures of any note-worthy language. I also recorded sounds of various locations. The second part of this navigation took place online where I let myself go on a deep dive of the LCC and UAL website, recording anything of note. Again, to mimic my interviews, I also searched intentionally for information about UAL as an institution, the type of learning that they offer and information about the new LCC building.

Data Analysis

The first step of my data analysis took the form of transcribing all three conversations. After multiple readings, I started to identify different overlaps between each conversation. I also started to make links with screenshots and images I had gathered from my ‘conversation’ with UAL. The way that I constructed this was by considering how quotes from each participant might create a sense of dialogue with the university. You can see the process of this on this miro, though I later switched to Word as a more fluid and easily editable platform. Sadly, because the process required for me to be hyper focused I was less diligent in documenting each step, however, you will find some iterations attached bellow. Each participant has a different colour to help identify where the data comes from. It was important to me not to tamper with the data too much, so I tried to keep a sense of linearity when quoting each participant. At the same time, in the same way a conversation might form, I experimented with grouping various themes or topics of discussion.

World-building being one of the methodologies that grounded my research, I also began to identify any instances where worlds were being described (Escobar, 2018). These worlds ranged from macro: the institution, to micro: specific spaces or objects within the university in which, or through which, events took place.  

Forming the Narrative

Resulting from the method of analysis described above, all the interviewed participants in the fictional conversation were layered into one ‘composite’ character (Gutkind & Fletcher 2008). The idea behind this was to combine the data into a single entity without compromising the diversity of voices, but also without revealing the identity of the participants. This character does not have a singular, homogenous voice. Though said voice comes from one place it expresses a diversity and multiplicity of ideas, desires, responses, and experiences. Additionally, it isn’t smooth and doesn’t flow seamlessly but rather reflects the plurality of the character as well as my editorial influence. Indeed, because I am using an autoethnographic methodology, it is important for my voice to exist within the work transparently (Ellis 2006). Therefore, I plan to create a third character: the narrator. This character will help frame the conversation to the audience and explicitly reveal my perspective.

The development of the narrative was the result of multiple edits and reworks. One crucial element that had to be considered was the timing of the presentation. Because the presentation is performed rather than read, I discovered that 10 minutes of spoken word was a short amount of time to include all the layers I would have liked. Further edits and removal of elements that weren’t as necessary helped to shorten the final conversation. It also became apparent that an introduction would be essential to explaining the performance to my audience, reducing the amount of time I was able to give to the development of my narrative.

As mentioned above, world-building was crucial to the development of my enquiry and something that I felt was important to reflect in the narrative. The idea is that if all the worlds described could be shared and inhabited collectively, then maybe there would be hope in creating a universe that could push back against the limitations of the institution. I therefore decided to use the different scales of worlds identified in my analysis as a guide for constructing the narrative: from big to small / outside to inside. I therefore imagined my story to begin outdoors, looking at the institution from the outside and then entering the building and into the worlds describe by the composite character.

I used this technique to develop a first draft that I want to present during my final tutorial in order to get feedback. A few things I am nervous about:

• Does the story make sense?
• Is it engaging?
• Is the purpose of my research understandable to someone who didn’t previously know about it?

Bibliography

Debord. G, (1958). Situationist Internationale, Translated from French by Ken Knabb, Available online at: https://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/definitions.html (accessedd 19.12.23)

Ellis C. S. (2006) ‘Analyzing Analytic Autoethnography’ in Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Volume 35 (number 4, August 2006, 429-449)

Escobar, A. (2018) Designs for the Pluriverse, Oxford: Blackwell’s

 Gutkind. L & Fletcher. (2008). Keep It Real: Everything You Need to Know About Researching and Writing Creative Nonfiction, New York: W.W. Norton. p. 39.