In her 2009 paper, Tina Cook suggests that ‘mess’ is probably a common and valuable part of a research cycle but, as it’s not recorded as such (in research papers) researchers who find themselves at a point of ‘mess’ feel deviant and ‘sloppy’, therefore perpetuating this cycle by omitting it from their own research papers.
Characterising ‘a messy turn’ as a stage of ‘methodological ambiguity’ (2009 p.278), Cook describes a sense of flexibility in approach and focus as researchers ‘branch off’ in to different areas, constantly changing and adapting.
Cook argues that by omitting ‘the mess’ research findings do not truly reflect the ‘inter-connectedness and complexities’ of reality and are therefore incomplete.
Cook likens ‘messy’ research to artistic approaches which challenge ways of seeing and thinking by depicting multiple perspectives, ‘the viewer had to work hard to organise the information on offer and as such become engaged in the process of meaning making’ (p.280)
This idea appears to make a lot of sense when we consider the epistemological nature of research (and therefore the educational function of research findings).
Presenting ‘flat’/ non-messy research findings surely falls into the banking system of knowledge transfer, ‘an act of depositing’ (Freire, 1970 p.45). Where as, the ‘mess’ of multiple view points and interpretations presented in a way that empowers the receiver to engage and co-create meaning, surely applies the teachings of Hooks and Freire on education through research modalities.
It strikes me that, embracing the ‘messy turn’ feels even more apt when researching art and design education. As teachers and practitioners we try to practice (and preach) the need for genuine enquiry, that which is organic, challenging and leads to the unexpected. This process of artistic development, involving exploration and creation of new knowledge mirrors Cooks description of messy research.
To spend our time as teachers of art and design encouraging students to interpret, challenge and create individual responses to stimuli and then to present flat representations of our research to be passively received by our peers seems counterintuitive.
I find Cooks argument compelling and will endeavour not to strive for neatness but truth and flexibility in my research.
Cook, T., 2009. The purpose of mess in action research: building rigour though a messy turn. Educational Action Research, 17(2), pp.277-291.
Figure 1, Polaroid of messy research.(Cowell, 2022 )
Freire, P., 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed.
HOOKS, B., 1994. TEACHING TO TRANSGRESS. New York: Routledge.