Akademik Bilgiyi Yazılı Akademik Metnin Ötesine Aktarmak: Demokrasinin Aynalı Sarayı Enstalasyon Deneyinin Otoetnografik Bir Analizi

Öz

Makale, öncelikle akademik metnin hegemonyasını aşmayı, tamamlamayı ya da tersine çevirmeyi amaçlayan beş yaklaşımı tartışmaktadır. Bu beş yaklaşım; (1) bilim iletişimi, bilimin popülerleştirilmesi ve bilgi yayılımı kümesi; (2) bilgi değişimi ve katılımcı, dönüştürücü ve müdahaleci (eylem) araştırma kümesi; (3) çok modlu akademik iletişim; (4) görsel antropoloji ve görsel sosyoloji kümesi ve (5) sanat-temelli araştırmadır. Her bir yaklaşım yazılı akademik metnin hegemonyasını farklı şekilde ele aldığı (aştığı) için, makalenin ilk bölümü bu yaklaşımları detaylandırmaktadır. İkinci bölümde, akademik bilgi iletişimi alanında varlığını devam ettiren yazılı akademik metnin ötesine geçmeyi açıkça amaçlamış Demokrasinin Sırça Köşkü enstalasyon deneyi otoetnagrafik olarak analiz edilmektedir. Deney, akademik iletişimin bütünleşik ve tekrarlayan doğası, hibrit akademik-sanatsal kimlik ve kamuların çeşitliliği üzerine düşünmeyi sağlamaktadır. Hem beş yaklaşımı içeren teorik tartışma hem de Demokrasinin Sırça Köşkü enstalasyonu, çok modlu ve/veya sanat-temelli akademik iletişimle ilgili daha fazla deneye ve teorileştirmeye yönelik bir çağrının parçasıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• akademik iletişim
• çok modlu çalışma
• sanat-temelli araştırma
• enstalasyon sanatı
• demokrasi
• temsil
• katılım
• olumsallık

Communicating Academic Knowledge Beyond the Written Academic Text: An Autoethnographic Analysis of the Mirror Palace of Democracy Installation Experiment

Öz

The article first discusses five approaches that aim to transcend, complement, or overturn the hegemony of the written academic text. These five approaches are (1) the cluster of science communication, science popularization, and knowledge dissemination; (2) the cluster of knowledge exchange, and participatory, transformative, and interventionist (action) research; (3) multimodal academic communication; (4) the cluster of visual anthropology and visual sociology; and (5) arts-based research. As each approach deals with (overcoming) the hegemony of the written academic text differently, the first part of the article details these approaches. In the second part, the Mirror Palace of Democracy installation experiment, which had the explicit objective of moving beyond the written academic text while still remaining in the realm of academic knowledge communication, is autoethnographically analyzed. The experiment allowed reflection on the integrated and iterative nature of academic communication, on the hybrid academic–artistic identity, and on the diversification of publics. Both the theoretical discussion on the five approaches and the Mirror Palace of Democracy installation are part of a call for more experimentation with, and theorization of, multimodal and/or arts-based academic communication.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• academic communication
• multimodal scholarship
• arts-based research
• installation art
• democracy
• representation
• participation
• contingency

Kaynakça

1. Alter, N. (2018). Introduction. In N. Alter (Ed.), The essay film after fact and fiction (ss. 1–29). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
2. Aspers, P., ve Corte, U. (2019). What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 42(2), 139–160.
3. Barone, T. (2008). Creative nonfiction and social research. J. G. Knowles ve A. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research (ss. 105–115) içinde. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
4. Barthes, R. (1974). S/Z. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
5. Bateson, G., ve Mead, M. (1942). Balinese character: A photographic analysis. New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.
6. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
7. Bennett, W. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39.
8. Bishop, C. (2005). Installation art: A critical history. London, UK: Tate Publishing.

9. Blundell, T. (2017). Protein crystallography and drug discovery: Recollections of knowledge exchange between academia and industry. IUCrJ, 4, 308–321.
10. Bryant, C. (2003). Does Australia need a more effective policy of science communication? International Journal of Parasitology, 33, 357–361.
11. Burns, T., O’Connor, D. J., ve Stocklmayer, S. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183–202.
12. Capous-Desyllas, M., ve Morgaine, K. (2018). Preface. In M. Capous-Desyllas ve K. Morgaine (Eds.), Creating social change through creativity: Anti-oppressive arts-based research methodologies (ss. vii–xix). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
13. Carpentier, N. (2017). The discursive-material knot: Cyprus in conflict and community media participation. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
14. Carpentier, N. (Ed.). (2019). Respublika! Experiments in the performance of participation and democracy. Limassol, Cyprus: NeMe.
15. Chaplin, E. (1994). Sociology and visual representation. London, UK: Routledge.
16. Chapman, O., ve Sawchuk, K. (2015). Creation-as-research: Critical making in complex environments. RACAR: Revue d’art Canadienne/Canadian Art Review, 40(1), 49–52.
17. Collins, S., Durington, M., ve Gill, H. (2017). Multimodality: An invitation. American Anthropologist, 119(1), 142–153.
18. Cooperman, H. (2018). Listening through performance: Identity, embodiment, and arts-based research. M. Capous-Desyllas ve K. Morgaine (Eds.), Creating social change through creativity: Antioppressive arts-based research methodologies (ss. 19–35) içinde. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Cope, B., ve Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 1–30.
20. DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. London, UK: Continuum.
21. Eisner, E. (2008). Art and knowledge. J. G. Knowles ve A. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research (ss. 3–12) içinde. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
22. Elkins, J. (Ed.). (2007). Visual practices across the university. Munich, Germany: Wilhelm Fink.
23. Ellis, C., Adams, T., ve Bochner, A. (2010). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1). Erişim adresi: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095
24. Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275–296.
25. Fals-Borda, O., ve Rahman, M. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participative action research. New York, NY: Intermediate Technology/Apex.
26. Finley, S. (2008). Arts-based research. J. G. Knowles ve A. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research (ss. 71–81) içinde. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
27. Ford, B. (1992). Images of science: A history of scientific illustration. London, UK: British Library.
28. Freeman, M. (2016). Approaching knowledge exchange. M. Freeman (Ed.), Industrial approaches to media: A methodological gateway to industry studies (ss. 153–174) içinde. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
29. Gibbs, A. (2003). Writing and the flesh of others. Australian Feminist Studies, 18(42), 309–319.
30. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
31. Grady, J. (1996). The scope of visual sociology. Visual Sociology, 11(2), 10–24.
32. Guattari, F. (1993). Machinic heterogenesis. V. Conley (Ed.), Rethinking technologies (ss. 13–27) içinde. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
33. Gutberlet, J., Jayme de Oliveira, B., ve Tremblay, C. (2017). Arts-based and participatory action research with recycling cooperatives. L. Rowell, C. Bruce, J. Shosh, ve M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of action research (ss. 699–715) içinde. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
34. Haas, G. (2017). Fictocritical strategies: Subverting textual practices of meaning, other, and selfformation. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag.
35. Henderson, L., Hogan, M., Christian, A., ve Erni, J. (2018). A dossier on making and doing. A. Shaw ve D. T. Scott (Eds.), Interventions: Communication research and practice (ss. 273–284) içinde. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
36. Hockings, P. (Ed.). (1995). Principles of visual anthropology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: de Gruyter.
37. Holm, G. (2008). Visual research methods: Where are we and where are we going? S. Nagy Hesse-Biber ve P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (ss. 325–342) içinde. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
38. Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
39. Jagodzinski, J., ve Wallin, J. (2013). Arts-based research: A critique and a proposal. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
40. Janesick, V. (2001). Intuition and creativity: A pas de deux for qualitative researchers. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(5), 531–540.
41. Jarldorn, M. (2019). Photovoice handbook for social workers: Method, practicalities and possibilities for social change. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
42. Kara, H. (2015). Creative research methods in the social sciences: A practical guide. Bristol, UK: Polity Press.
43. Khadka, S., ve Lee, J. (Eds.). (2019). Bridging the multimodal gap: From theory to practice. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
44. Klein, J. (2017, April 23). What is artistic research? Journal for Artistic Research. Erişim adresi: https://www.jar-online.net/what-artistic-research
45. Kress, G., ve Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London, UK: Arnold.
46. Laclau, E., ve Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London, UK: Verso.
47. Lapum, J. (2018). Installation art: The voyage never ends. P. Leavy (Ed.), Handbook of arts-based research (ss. 377–395) içinde. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
48. Leavy, P. (2011). Low-fat love. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
49. Leavy, P. (2015). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice (2nd ed.). London, UK: Guilford Press.
50. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. J. Martin ve R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (ss. 87–113) içinde. London, UK: Routledge.
51. Lewis, J. (2008). Cultural studies: The basics (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
52. Literat, I., Conover, A., Herbert-Wasson, E., Page, K., Riina-Ferrie, J., Stephens, R., . . . Vasudevan, L. (2018). Toward multimodal inquiry: Opportunities, challenges and implications of multimodality for research and scholarship. Higher Education Research ve Development, 37(3), 565–578.
53. Loveless, N. (2015). Towards a manifesto on research-creation. RACAR: Revue d’art Canadienne/Canadian Art Review, 40(1), 52–54.
54. Lutkewitte, C. (2013). Multimodal composition: A critical sourcebook. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
55. Matschke, C., Moskaliuk, J., ve Cress, U. (2012). Knowledge exchange using Web 2.0 technologies in NGOs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 159–176.
56. McPherson, T. (2009). Introduction: Media studies and the digital humanities. Cinema Journal, 48(2), 119–123.
57. Mead, M. (1995). Visual anthropology in a discipline of words. P. Hockings (Ed.), Principles of visual anthropology (2. ed., ss. 3–10) içinde. New York, NY: de Gruyter.
58. Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32(1), 118–127.
59. Mitchell, H. (2006). Knowledge sharing: The value of story telling. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9(5), 632–641.
60. Mitchell, W. (1994). Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
61. Moncaster, A., Hinds, D., Cruickshank, H., Guthrie, P., Crishna, N., Baker, K., . . . Jowitt, P. (2010). Knowledge exchange between academia and industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Engineering Sustainability, 163(3), 167–174.
62. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London, UK: Routledge.
63. Müllerleile, A. (2014). European studies and public engagement: A conceptual toolbox. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 10(4), 505–517.
64. Murdock, A., Shariff, R., ve Wilding, K. (2013). Knowledge exchange between academia and the third sector. Evidence ve Policy, 9(3), 419–430.
65. Murray, J. (2009). Non-discursive rhetoric: Image and affect in multimodal composition. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
66. Norman, D. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
67. Pink, S. (2004). Introduction: Situating visual research. S. Pink, L. Kürti, ve A. Afonso (Eds.), Working images: Visual research and representation in ethnography (ss. 1–10) içinde. London, UK: Routledge.
68. Reason, P., ve Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
69. Reid, G., Snead, R., Pettiway, K., ve Simoneaux, B. (2016). Multimodal communication in the university: Surveying faculty across disciplines. Across the Disciplines: A Journal of Language, Learning and Academic Writing. Erişim adresi: https://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/reidetal2016.cfm
70. Routledge, P. (1996). The third space as critical engagement. Antipode, 28(4), 399–419.
71. Saldaña, J. (Ed.). (2005). Ethnodrama: An anthology of reality theatre. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
72. Saldaña, J. (2011). Ethnotheatre: Research from page to stage. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
73. Selfe, C. (Ed.). (2007). Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
74. Shipka, J. (2011). Toward a composition made whole. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
75. Sinner, A. (2014). Flight of the “artademics”: Scholarly gentrification and conceptual+art discourses. Visual Arts Research, 40(1), 124–126.
76. Takayoshi, P., ve Selfe, C. (2007). Thinking about multimodality. C. Selfe (Ed.), Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers (ss. 1–12) içinde. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
77. Thorndike-Breeze, R., Block, A., ve Brown, K. (2019). Entering the multiverse: Using comics to experiment with multimodality, multigenres and multiliteracies. In S. Khadka ve J. Lee (Eds.), Bridging the multimodal gap: From theory to practice (ss. 159–181) içinde. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
78. Trench, B., ve Bucchi, M. (2010). Science communication: An emerging discipline. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3). Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.09030303
79. Tyler, S. (1986). Post-modern ethnography: From document of the occult to occult document. J. Clifford ve G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (ss. 122– 140) içinde. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
80. UNICEF. (2015). Knowledge exchange toolbox: Group methods for sharing, discovery and co-creation. New York, NY: Author.
81. Veneti, A., Jackson, D., ve Lilleker, D. (Eds.). (2019). Visual political communication. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
82. Wysocki, R., Udelson, J., Ray, C., Newman, J., Matravers, L., Kumari, A., . . . DeVoss, D. (2019). On multimodality: A manifesto. S. Khadka ve J. Lee (Eds.), Bridging the multimodal gap: From theory to practice (ss. 17–29) içinde. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.