To find a form that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now.
Beckett, 1965.
There’s a strange sense of discomfort that I am feeling as I engage with the ARP unit. At its core, this discomfort stems from a significant shift: moving from structured, directive learning to a space of increased autonomy and self-direction.
This transition has left me feeling unsettled. The familiar scaffolding of clear instructions (what to read, what to submit, when to submit it) has been switched out to a more open landscape of possibilities. It’s not just me; conversations with peers reveal a shared experience. We find ourselves yearning for the comfort of clear directives, even as we step into this space of greater academic freedom.
What’s particularly interesting is how this mirrors my research into psychological safety in learning spaces. The tension between desiring structure while navigating autonomy reflects a deeper question about how, as learners, we adapt to different levels of academic freedom.
This reflection prompts important questions about the delicate balance between providing supportive frameworks and fostering independent thinking in higher education. How much structure is enough? When does scaffolding become limiting? These questions seem particularly relevant as I continue my investigation into creating safe learning spaces.
In an attempt to combat my own feelings of disorganisation, I stuck the A3 poster of the action research cycle that was shared with us in the first workshop on my wall.
I find myself staring at it almost daily, trying to make sense of the different segments and how my project might ‘map’ onto it. No matter how I try, my project seems to resist this structuring. It follows part of the spiral but then something needs to be tweaked to make it flow neatly into the next part. Instead of seeing this as a failure of my action research project, I’ve begun to reframe it as a feature of the process itself. This resistance, as Cook suggests, helps me recognise “the interconnections and complexities involved in [the] enquiry, despite being unable to isolate clear lines of progression” (Cook, 2009).
Embracing mess
Research often demands order: structured steps, clear outcomes, and a researcher who occupies a position of knowledge and power. This kind of structure, in theory, appeals to me. It feels settled and reassuring. I know this isn’t the right approach for the ARP unit. Action research, especially a participatory approach, thrives in the messiness. It requires us to sit with uncertainty, to question the rules we use to frame our understanding of the world. Cook goes one step further, arguing that “making the mess visible is also an act of generosity towards future researchers, helping them understand how outcomes were achieved and how they might build on those outcomes” (Cook, 2009). In this context, mess becomes “a forum for exchange—a place where perceptions, beliefs, and knowledge are unearthed, co-constructed, and critiqued” (Cook, 2009). Cook goes one step further to state that:
Making the mess visible is also an action of generosity towards ‘future researchers to understand how outcomes were achieved and how they might build on those outcomes’
Tina Cook, 2009.
Vulnerability and psychological safety
If I want to explore the concept of psychological safety and asking students to be vulnerable in sharing their creative work in this action research project, I too need to open myself up to vulnerability and potentially failure. It wouldn’t make sense to explore such a topic without taking the ‘messy turns’ that are implicit in it. As Lenette suggests, “vulnerability as an ethical research practice refers to academic researchers being open to and welcoming the impact that others, including co-researchers, can have on their sense of self” (Lenette, 2020).
Why does mess matter?
Grappling with what Ahmed deems the ‘sweaty concepts’ (I can confirm all of this is making me very sweaty) is part of this process. Research is embodied practice. I cannot remove myself from this action research project, as much as I might want to. I need to embrace it and let it uncover what needs to be uncovered and keep concealed that which isn’t ready to be made explicit.
Participatory action research thrives on messiness. It demands a balance between diverse voices and the researcher’s own intentions, often disrupting initial plans. But this disruption is where meaningful (and decolonial) co-learning and change occur. As Lenette notes, it is in these messy spaces where methodological learning is possible, where issues of power, partnerships, and ethics are interrogated (Lenette, 2020.).
In many ways, researchers, like artists, are tasked with finding structures that can hold the diverse, sometimes chaotic, elements within a community. Beckett’s observation reminds us that the goal isn’t to eliminate the mess but to create forms that allow it to exist, embracing its complexity while making space for co-construction and transformation.
The need for mess
Marie Kondo’s philosophy of tidying up revolves around the idea of decluttering your space by keeping only the items that “spark joy.” Her method encourages an almost ritualistic approach to eliminating excess and creating a sense of calm through order. It’s a process that aligns beautifully with my want for clarity and control.
I don’t think this process is about getting comfortable with mess or even learning to embrace it. It’s also not about Marie Kondo-ing it, getting rid of everything that doesn’t “spark joy.” Instead, it’s about finding forms that can hold the mess, allowing it to exist as it is, with all its complexity. The goal isn’t to tidy it up, but to create structures that can accommodate the mess and let it serve its purpose. Maybe the mess is what helps us make sense of our realities. In doing so, we are able to ‘contribute through the development of practical knowledge to the increased well being of human persons and communities in economic, political, psychological, spiritual senses, and to a more equitable and sustainable relationship with the wider ecology of the planet” (Reason and Bradbury, 2008).
See you on the other side!
References
Beckett, S. (1965) Proust: And three dialogues with Georges Duthuit. London: Calder.
Cook, T. (2009) ‘The purpose of mess in action research: building rigour through a messy turn’, Educational Action Research, 17(2), pp. 277–291. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790902914241.
Lenette, C. (2022) Participatory action research: ethics and decolonization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008) The Sage handbook of action research : participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Citations
KonMari (n.d.) [Photo of Marie Kondo]. Available at: https://konmari.com [Accessed: 15 October 2024].