Parallaxical Thinking

I am questioning my analysis practice in light of the transcript of the first interview, the notes from that interview, the digital artifact shared by the participant, the transcription of that artifact, and the notes made from that artifact. I have collected multiple data points from one interview, each requiring deeper analysis and crystallization. Juxtapositions are now possible. I have returned to several sources of guidance to reread and reflect before examining each facet of this data and how it may reflect or connect to deeper themes. Before I begin that process, I also need to examine my biases in this work, since these will shape and colour what I see or don’t see in the data collected, as suggested by . I also need to emphasize that this is one moment in time and that I will come back to review this data at another point later in the research process.

I have reread portions of the writing by Pauline Sameshima – Parallel Praxis: Multimodal Interdisciplinary Pedagogical Research Design (2019). This work continues to draw me back since there is something that resonates with my thinking. Sameshima’s notion of parallaxis calls to my new-found researcher sensibilities.

“Parallasséin, the Greek word for parallax, means to change, to cause to alternate, to vary (dictionary.com, 2018). The noun refers to “the apparent displacement of an observed object due to a change in the position of the observer.” …. “The concept of parallax encourages researchers and teachers to acknowledge and value their own and their readers’ and students’ shifting subjectivities and situatedness which directly influence the construct of perception, interpretation, and learning” (Sameshima, 2007a, p. 2) in Sameshima, 2019, p. 4).

Initially, it was her 2006 piece Household at the shore that caught my attention. Here she explores the use of Marshall McLuhan’s media tetrad to examine the use of metaphor. Sameshima writes “metaphors both presented by the user and interpreted by the reader always present ambiguity and thus provide openings for learning” (2006, p. 51). Since the use of metaphors is one writing technique I continue to use (e.g. Letting the light shine in: A tapestry of digital literacies in Canadian faculties of education [preprint]). This piece speaks to me about the symbiosis of ideas, as they emerge through a dance of unique movements and characteristics. Sameshima (2006) illuminates this when explaining the use of the “tetrad graphic, which displays four elements as points of change on a continuum, as a metaphor for understanding how the body, head, heart, and spirit are inter-relational, resonating, and complementary” (p. 52).

McLuhan and Powers explain:

The tetrad illuminates the borderline between acoustic and visual space as an arena of spiralling repetition and replay, both of input and feedback, interlace and interface in the area of imploded circle of rebirth and metamorphosis. (McLuhan & Powers (1989) p. 9 in Sameshima (2006) p. 56).

“The concept of the tetrad as a theoretical model for assessing, analyzing and predicting the social effects of technology on society was proposed by Marshall McLuhan and Bruce Powers (1989). Tetradic logic as a cognitive model is used to refine, focus, and discover unknown and unobserved entities in cultures and technologies (McLuhan & Powell, 1989, p. 128).” (Sameshima, 2006, p. 57).

Now the collection written in 2019 on Parallaxis Praxis is pulling me in for a closer look. I am examining the catechesis in Chapter 3 through a new lens – that of researcher. How can these questions and concepts support my research analysis? Sameshima (2019) suggests three organizational phases in the parallaxis framework: data, analyses and renderings. The making of artifacts, by both the participant and the researcher can fractal the boundaries (Sameshima, 2019) and create new understandings.

“… when there are several types of artefacts, the juxtaposition and correlation of ideas between and across artefacts and the modes of creation extend the semantic and imaginative fields for further reflective analysis. This dialogic area is where the colliding chronotopes (time-space) of discourse and modality generate new forms, frames, assumptions, categories, and patterns. Bakhtin (1981) explains the chronotope as “the place where knots of narrative are tied and untied” (p. 250).” (Sameshima, 2019, p. 6)

Sameshima (2019) proposes a “very specific process of dialogue called the Catechization Process” (p. 6) that uses questions to move discourse forward and formalizes a systematic method for discussion. These include:

Mimesis (relational) – “refers to a reproduction or a mirroring. In looking at the artworks, how are ideas or authors’ works re-created or mirrored? In what ways are the artefacts mirrors/echoes of your thinking? What do you see in the various works that echo themes in your project or across the larger project?”

Poesis (realization in time) – “refers to a moment in time, where the mimetic work rises up into a realization through interpretation, dialogue, bearing witness, and reflection. … What do we take from the work that was created? What do we notice about the artefacts here, now, in relation?”

Palimpsest (depth) – “refers to trace—that over time, whatever is below sometimes seeps through. There is a trace of what was below (an example is a painting that has been painted over). Palimpsest provides depth and layering” ,,, “What traces are coming through from the artefacts in your lives as teachers, researchers, learners and creatives? What are the under layers that are more complex beyond the surface of what has been made? How does the particular material/ modality/medium speak to you? In what way does your artefact echo or trace the data?”

Intertextuality (breadth) – “is the relationships between texts. In this case, we might consider ideas across the artworks/artefact, or between the researchers here. How do the artefacts work in combination with each other? What commonalities do they have? How do the artefacts work in combination to teach us something anew?”

Antiphona (harmonies) – “expands on intertextuality. The Greek term antiphōna refers to “‘harmonies.” We might ask in this research, now that we have named some commonalities, how do they work together to teach us something new? What can we learn from these commonalities? In what ways do the materials, the model, or our discussions teach us?”

Sorites (cumulative) – “refers to the marking of a threshold” … “discuss how we frame or value particular aspects of the phenomenon that create thresholds for significance. What themes appear to be significant? Why? What specific quotes or ideas from the data do you see expressed in the artefacts?”

Aporia (conditions) – “refers to “an impasse or puzzlement” and philosophically is a “puzzle or a seemingly insoluble impasse in an inquiry, often arising as a result of equally plausible yet inconsistent premises . . . the state of being perplexed or at a loss” ,,, “what puzzles us, or challenges us when thinking about the artefacts created? How do the artefacts play with or against one another?”

Evanagnostos (readability) – “refers to the Greek word for something being legible and easy to read” … “When artful works are congruent in readability with the audience, capacity for transactional dialogue and understanding are enabled and the impetus for rippling effects initiated. Questions to ask may be: What is it in the artwork that speaks to you? What do you notice in the artefact that speaks a truth about a particular experience?” (Sameshima, 2019, p. 14-17

As a result of these prompts and provocations for thought, I know that crystallizing the data will take time and deep reflection. Allowing the words, images, and colours to wash over and through my mind will require revisiting the texts, videos, and artifacts over time.

As a result of this reflection, I’ve returned to reread my research proposal and discovered just what I needed to proceed:

“This involves continual attention to moments where connection/disconnection are evident, where normality is assumed, where bottom lines are discovered, and where shock or insights emerge (Valentine, 2018). Research data are iteratively analyzed through wholistic, selective and detailed readings (van Manen, 2014) that can shape and crystallize the facets found within whole, parts, meanings, particularities, and unique assemblages. It is in these crystallizing moments that P-IP research reflexivity is open to the potentialities of turning to wonder (Rocha, 2015; Vagle, 2018). Researchers are open to moments when the lived experiences being researched create feelings of awe, perplexity, and surprise. In this way, the research and the writing of phenomenological research benefits from multi-modal expressions of visual, auditory, language, images, art, video, or music (Vagle, 2018; van Manen, 2014).”

References

McLuhan, M., & Powers, B. (1989). The global village: Transformations in world life in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sameshima, P. S., Maarhuis, P., & Wiebe, S. (2019). Parallaxic praxis: multimodal interdisciplinary pedagogical research design. Vernon Press.

Sameshima, P, White, B., & Sinner, A. (Eds.). (2019). Ma: Materiality in teaching and learning (Vol. 528). Peter Lang.

Sameshima, Pauline. (2006). Household at the shore: A Marshall McLuhan metaphor. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 4(1), 51–58.

Sameshima, Pauline. (2007). Seeing red: A pedagogy of parallax: an epistolary bildungsroman on artful scholarly inquiry. Cambria Press.

Sameshima, Pauline, & Wiebe, S. (2018). Faith, hope & love: Postscript on interprofessional processes for innovating generation. Canadian Review of Art Education, 45(1), 129–152.