Building on Barthes’ ideas (see ARP Blog 2), I tested out various participatory, experimental non-methods within the Year meetings that drew on over 20 years of practice as an artist educator. Alongside this I used convergent (and at times divergent) mixed methods including quantitative, qualitative and arts-based, gathered in parallel, to try to gain an integrated understanding of the impact of these experiments.
Quantitative and Qualitative Methods
Questionnaires
I decided to conduct 2 anonymous questionnaires, one at the beginning and one at end of the process, sent over email to the whole cohort. The initial questionnaire was designed as a benchmark, to create some baseline understanding to compare with the outcomes from the questionnaire at the end. In line with this, the first question was the same in both questionnaires. Each questionnaire was designed with a mix of open, ended questions with those seeking more quantitative data.
Appendix: https://kbealespgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2026/01/15/arp-questionnaires/
Focus Groups
Hess (1968) noted that the focus groups offer researchers distinct advantages over the individual interview, identifying 5 elements: synergism, snowballing, stimulation, security and spontaneity[1] that are more present in the focus group context. Focus Groups also offered a time-efficient way of listening to students, which due to the pressures of my workload was an important consideration. I conducted 2 Focus Groups, one at the beginning which generated some co-design outcomes and one at the end of the process which was more evaluative. The 5 participants volunteered from the Student Course reps so there was a pre-existing representative function.
Appendix: https://kbealespgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2026/01/15/arp-focus-groups/
More experimental takes:
Rivers of Experience methodology
I decided to drawing a River of Experience [after Iantaffi (2011) Denicolo (2016) and Howard (2024)] as a way of analysing and understanding my own experience of the Action Research Project. This was important for me as it gave space for my own art practice which often involves thinking-through-drawing and the affective dimension of both teaching and researching; as well as capturing some of the complexity at play.
Appendix: https://kbealespgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2026/01/15/arp-river-of-experience-drawing/
Observation
I rewatched the recordings of the Year meetings. Inspired by Rosi Briadotti’s ethics of joy I decided to use clapping, laughing and whooping as metrics of engagement, alongside more ‘solid’ data like the number of students who spoke from the front or contributed via mentimeter etc.
Appendix: https://kbealespgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2026/01/15/arp-observations-from-year-meeting/
Participatory, experimental non-methods tested in Year meetings
Over 4 Year meetings in the Lecture Theatre (3, 10, 17, 25 Nov) I experimented with the following in mixed-combinations. Some of these were initiatives I was already interested in trialling out such (e.g. Live Transcription) and others (e.g. Student Videos) came out of the initial Questionnaire and subsequent Focus Group discussions.
- Live Captioning
- Starting the meeting with movement / games
- Regular slot for sharing student work including student videos
- Developing a strong visual identity
- Inviting guests representing different facets of Chelsea e.g. library staff
- Making time for questions
- Option to do plasticene modelling for those of us who think with our hands
- Using digital interactive tools e.g. Mentimeter so lots of students can input
- Karaoke
- Using movement or games to increasing student interactions
Live Captioning responded to a Deaf student’s access requirements but I was interested to see whether this made meetings more accessible for students with English as a second language.
526 words
References:
Braidotti, R An Ethics of Joy p221-224 in Braidotti, R.and Hlavajova, M. eds (2019). Posthuman glossary. London ; New York ; Oxford ; New Delhi ; Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic.
Denicolo, P., Long, T., & Bradley-Cole, K. (2016). Cases using different designs. In Constructivist Approaches and Research Methods: A Practical Guide to Exploring Personal Meanings (pp. 157-186). SAGE Publications Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402660.n11
Iantaffi, A. (2011) Travelling along ‘rivers of experience’: Personal construct psychology and visual metaphors in research. In P. Reavey (ed.), Visual Methods in Psychology. Hove: Psychology Press.
Howard, J. (2024) ‘Rivers of Life’, Participatory Methods website [Accessed 10 Jan. 2026].
Reed, S ‘Method’ in ‘Principles — Practising Ethics’ (2020) [online] Available at: https://www.practisingethics.org/principles#method [Accessed 10 Jan. 2026].
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., & Sinagub, J. (1996). In Why use focus group interviews in educational and psychological research? (pp. 12-21). Sage Research Methods, SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243641.n2
[1] Hess’ 5 elements:
1. synergism (when a wider bank of data emerges through the group interaction),
2. snowballing (when the statements of one respondent initiate a chain reaction of additional comments),
3. stimulation (when the group discussion generates excitement about a topic),
4. security (when the group provides a comfort and encourages candid responses), and
5. spontaneity (because participants are not required to answer every question, their responses are more spontaneous and genuine).
[Hess (1968) summarised in Vaughn (1996) p.13]