Understanding the polyvocality of autism discourse : a critical autoethnographic approach

Currently, much of the autism literature supports the notion that Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) is a deviation from what is considered "normal" and, accordingly, that it is in need of early remediation. This thesis explored alternative constructions of autism and pathology by drawing on theorists from other disciplines, such as cultural studies (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, 1965, 1972, 1975,1980, 2003), critical psychology (Parker, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2007), disability studies (Danforth,1997, 1999, 2000; Skrtic, 1995, 1996) and anti-psychiatry (Basaglia, 1987). In an attempt to show how our accounts of the world encompass constructions rooted in language and our own histories of thinking about topics that interest us, this research took an autoethnographic approach to understanding autism discourse. Instead of denying the researcher's existence and personal investment in the research, the author attempted to implicate "the self in the research by acknowledging her own assumptions, biases and ideologies about autism discourse and practice. Thus, tensions between the self and other, personal and political become woven into the fabric, creating a personal, subjective, and partial account of the phenomenon. This research was intended to explicate and interrogate some of the taken-for-granted Truths which guide our practices with people with autism. This alternative critical framework focused on understanding autism as a discourse and explored the way these dominant autism constructions function in society. Furthermore, positioning "the self in the research was meant to illustrate the fundamental need for self-reflective practice in the social sciences.

The voices of the exegesis

In a recent journal article, Luke Jaaniste and I identified an emergent model of exegesis. From a content analysis of submitted exegeses within a local archive, we identified an approach that is quite different from the traditional thesis, but is also distinct from previously identified forms of exegesis, which Milech and Schilo have described as a ‘context model’ (which assumes the voice of academic objectivity and provides an historical or theoretical context for the creative practice) and a ‘commentary’ model’ (which takes the form of a first person reflection on the challenges, insights and achievements of the practice). The model we identified combines these dichotomous forms and assumes a dual orientation–looking outwards to the established field of research, exemplars and theories, and inwards to the methodologies, processes and outcomes of the practice. We went on to argue that this ‘connective’ exegesis offers clear benefits to the researcher in connecting the practice to an established field while allowing the researcher to demonstrate how the methods have led to outcomes that advance the field in some way. And, while it helps the candidate to articulate objective claims for research innovation, it enables them to retain a voiced, personal relationship with their practice. However, it also poses considerable complexities and challenges in the writing. It requires a reconciliation of multi-perspectival subject positions: the disinterested perspective and academic objectivity of an observer/ethnographer/analyst/theorist at times and the invested perspective of the practitioner/ producer at others. The author must also contend with a range of writing styles, speech genres and voices: from the formal, polemical voice of the theorist to the personal, questioning and sometimes emotive voice of reflexivity. Moreover, the connective exegesis requires the researcher to synthesize various perspectives, subject positions, writing styles, and voices into a unified and coherent text. In this paper I consider strategies for writing a hybrid, connective exegesis. I first ground the discussion on polyvocality and alternate textual structures through reference to recent discussions in philosophy and critical theory, and point to examples of emergent approaches to texts and practices in related fields. I then return to the collection of archived exegeses to investigate the strategies that postgraduate candidates have adopted to resolve the problems that arise from a polyvocal, connective exegesis.

The voices of the exegesis : Composing the speech genres of the practitioner-researcher into a connective thesis

Postgraduate candidates in the creative arts encounter unique challenges when writing an exegesis (the written document that accompanies creative work as a thesis). As a practitioner-researcher, they must adopt a dual perspective–looking out towards an established field of research, exemplars and theories, as well as inwards towards their experiential creative processes and practice. This dual orientation provides clear benefits, for it enables them to situate the research within its field and make objective claims for the research methodologies and outcomes while maintaining an intimate, voiced relationship with the practice. However, a dual orientation introduces considerable complexities in the writing. It requires a reconciliation of multi-perspectival subject positions: the disinterested academic posture of the observer/ethnographer/analyst/theorist at times; and the invested, subjective stance the practitioner/producer at others. It requires the author to negotiate a range of writing styles and speech genres–from the formal, polemical style of the theorist to the personal, questioning and emotive voice of reflexivity. Moreover, these multi-variant orientations, subject positions, styles and voices must be integrated into a unified and coherent text. In this chapter I offer a conceptual framework and strategies for approaching this relatively new genre of thesis. I begin by summarizing the characteristics of what has begun to emerge as the predominant model of exegesis (the dual-oriented ‘Connective’ exegesis). Framing it against theoretical and philosophical understandings of polyvocality and matrixicality, I go on to point to recent textual models that provide precedents for connecting differently oriented perspectives, subjectivities and voices. I then turn to emergent archives of practice-led research to explain how the challenge of writing a ‘Connective’ exegesis has so far been resolved by higher degree research (HDR) candidates. Exemplars illustrate a range of strategies they have used to compose a multi-perspectival text, reconcile the divergent subject positions of the practitioner researcher, and harmonize the speech genres of a ployvocal text.

Speaking of supervision: A dialogic approach to building higher degree research supervision capacity in the creative arts

In the emergent field of creative practice higher degrees by research, first generation supervisors have developed new models of supervision for an unprecedented form of research that combines creative practice and written thesis. In a national research project, entitled 'Effective supervision of creative practice higher research degrees', we set out to capture and share early supervisors' insights, strategies and approaches to supporting their creative practice PhD students. From the insights we gained during the early interview process, we expanded our research methods in line with a distributed leadership model and developed a dialogic framework. This led us to unanticipated conclusions and unexpected recommendations. In this study, we primarily draw on philosopher and literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin's dialogics to explain how giving precedence to the voices of supervisors not only facilitated the articulation of dispersed tacit knowledge, but also led to other 20 discoveries. These include the nature of supervisors' resistance to prescribed models, policies and central academic development programmes; the importance of polyvocality and responsive dialogue in enabling continued innovation in the field; the benefits to supervisors of reflecting, discussing and sharing practices with colleagues; and the value of distributed leadership and dialogue to academic development and supervision capacity building in research education.