I thought this a provocative, if self-consciously minor, thought as it passed through my head - so for better or worse!

Introduction to Emotional Triggers in Visual Images (Pair Exercise - class divides into pairs). 1st year Undergraduates (UK) in Psychology of Counselling

• (1) Briefly describe how your artwork and project theme connects to the overall grade curriculum.
• The lesson plan introduces undergraduate counselling psychology learners to the importance of cues and prompts in the visual world through analysis of visual artefacts like this painting. This is part of a core introductory curriculum which looks at the relationship between phenomena in the world that we access through our senses, whether that be sight, hearing, smell and touch. For counselling learners the learning is related also to how people communicate with mutual empathy about the thoughts and feelings created by such stimuli. This first lesson emphasises how we access common structures of feeling and thought linked to the word 'home' and how we both introject and project feelings and thoughts. However, at this point of the curriculum and this lesson, we are concerned only with visual cues. Much of the learning will be based on sensitive listening and attempts to empathise using different modes of expression between the paired learners.
• (2) Describe two activity goals of your assignment and explain how they connect to the work of art. NOTE: The large learning group will after viewing and writing about the Wyeth panting be divided into pair groups. 
• (2a) Each participant will be able to demonstrate that they have responded in writing to the picture in terms of the emotions and thoughts that the picture as a whole and its formal elements create. In pairs they will also demonstrate the ability to communicate their thoughts orally, conveying a sense of what they saw and how they felt and thought about what they saw.
• (2b) In those same pairs, each participant will be able to demonstrate that they can listen to another person's response to the same visual stimulus that they themselves have just seen and reflected upon it in writing. From what they hear from their partner, they will draw a picture (aesthetic considerations will not come into this) which reflects what their partner saw and felt rather than what they saw and felt about the picture. The pairs will discuss together the drawings produced in terms of their responsiveness to what they themselves thought.
• (3) Write clear instructions for how another teacher should lead your activity.
• A class of 10 learners in counselling psychology (who are already known to each other) will be briefly introduced to the activity. It is a 3 hour session. They will all see a picture. This picture may be a very large poster reproduction or a projected slide. For 5 minutes, they will be asked to look at it silently allowing themselves to respond both with thoughts and feelings about painting. They will have been instructed not to talk to each other about the painting at this time.
• A standard open-ended question questionnaire will be handed out. (link opens in new window)
• Each person will fill out the questionnaire for a fixed duration of 25 minutes. They will have been instructed that they will be divided into pair-groups (being counselling learners they are familiar with that) and that the purpose of their answers will be to be communicate what they have written clearly in oral form to their partner in the pair.
• At the end of 25 minutes a comfort break (of 10 minutes) is given but people must leave their completed questionnaires upside down on their writing table. During this time the large reproduction of the painting will be removed.
• On return each person will retrieve their completed questionnaire. At this point a list of pair groups will be produced. The pairings will have been produced by random allocation by the teacher.
• In their designated pairs (named A/B), A will be given 10- minutes to talk about their responses to the painting (no longer on show of course) to B. B will then (for no more than 5 minutes ask A any questions they think will clarify what A saw and felt and thought about what they saw. Then roles will be reversed and the process repeated.
• There will be a 10 minute break. Pairs are asked not to communicate within their pairs during the break.
• On return, each learner will be instructed to make a drawing or sketch (aesthetic considerations will not be important and that is made clear to the learners) that demonstrates the central features of what their partner in their pair saw in the stimulus and how it made their partner  feel and think and why it did this. (They have 20 minutes and can leave the room to find a private space in the adjacent quiet room if they so wish).
• On return again, they give their pair-partner the drawing. Without communication, each pair-partner will reflect on the drawing they have been given for 5 minutes on their own.
• The pairs will reform. Taking each partner in turn (about 15 minutes each), the pairs will discuss how they felt about the picture completed by their partner stressing things they found that reflected their personal visual responses as they saw it best and anything they felt that was either an inaccurate reflection or one that challenged them to rethink how they felt. The pairs will ensure that they retain a good and empathetic relationship during that period.
• There will be a 10- MINUTE BREAK. The painting will be returned to view.
• On return the whole class will discuss the painting (now available again) and how it has changed for them in the course of the session,
• They will be given feedback forms and asked to return them during the next hour to the tutor's pigeonhole. On the feedback forms they will be given instructions on seeking a personal debriefing should they want one.

The Artwork Again

Three words on Museums:

1.     Challenging

2.     Open

3.     Facilitating

When you have posted your three words, consider the following:

• Do they refer to museums as buildings, exhibition spaces, or to museum objects/artefacts? All of these? Something else?

They refer to a wishful notion of the experience a museum might offer but they also carry with them a secondary expectation that, in my own past, museums could be experienced as having quite the opposite effect in every way – as spaces that might be too self-contained, forbidding and closed (mentally & emotionally). In fact, the three words are the obverse of the words that I FIRST thought in response to the exercise. My final words were the result of forcing myself to be more positive.

• Do they best describe your view of museums of the past, museums of today, or the possibilities of museums in the future?

In the light of the above, very much the future. But that future is predicated on interesting and diverse experiences in places like Yorkshire Sculpture Park, the Hepworth Gallery or even the Bishop Auckland Mining Art Gallery.

• Can you identify a time in your life when you may have formed those associations?

As for the positives, only recently and as a result of becoming interested again through positive experiences that have excited me. My thoughts about the worst experience of museums would be in buildings and organisation and exhibition spaces that remain locked in with symbols of exclusion – the key example being the Bowes Musuem (although I see that even here changes are beginning to be made).

Thoughts on ‘Style in Schapiro (1953): A843 Ex. 4.2.7

As part of an exercise in close reading, consider Meyer Schapiro, ‘Style’  (1994 [1953]), and answer the following questions.

What kinds of intellectual work does Schapiro see the concept of style facilitating?

Schapiro conceives of style, I think, as a means of generalising certain abstract ‘qualities’ relating to a group or an individual at a particular historical moment – which in some cases constitutes the whole of some individual’s lives. These ‘qualities may range from defining elements, ‘expression’ and form – but are sometimes (perhaps as a sufficient and necessary condition of ‘style’) reduced to ‘form’ alone. However ‘form’ itself is not uncontested as a term - Wolfflin, for instance, sees form across a range existing between bipolar contrary qualities or elements.

For the duration of a ‘period’ of time, style then denotes certain constancies in form (at least) for a person – think of Picasso’s periods (Blue, analytic cubist, etc.) – or a historically identified group. In both cases those constancies might be attached to certain values implied by qualities – that might be variously ethical, spiritual, social or aesthetic (or ALL or a few of these in combination). To have ‘style’ then, within any period of relatively constant aesthetic forms for a geographical-temporal group can also be a normative statement, implying ranges of that ‘quality – from being without ‘style’ to being ‘stylish. This is what the Duchess of Windsor hints at when she says, ‘As for living, our servants can do this for us.’

I find it interesting that Schapiro limits our perception of such constancies to that which can be helped by common-sense psychology and social theory (my emphasis). Is this limitation a deliberate attempt to exclude factors that are unconscious in the maintenance of constancy or, at the very least, non-intuitive (such as social factors like status or income).

However Schapiro, whilst calling art history’s ‘construction of temporal & spatial distribution of styles’ systematic, both acknowledges that this construction is (perhaps forever) ‘incomplete’ and insists that variability across and within groups in time AND space ‘resist a systematic classification’. We are therefore in a world of contradictions which style discourse tries to harmonise, at least to ‘common-sense’.

Although there are no empirically established rules for identifying style it is justified experientially – not as a result of investigation but as a by-product of engaging in investigation: having ‘arisen from (that) experience.’, It works like a ‘language’, ‘admitting a varied intensity or delicacy of statement.’ Note how it is judged by the social characteristics of an elite, which combines intensity of being with a certain delicate tact in relation to those not fortunate enough to be ‘in’ that elite.

At what ‘levels’ does Schapiro see ‘style’ operating?

Let’s call these ‘levels’ (from low to high):

·        Characteristics of a behaviour or personality trait (noble or weak)

·        Characteristics of a person’s presentation at one point with regard to some activity or product of creativity;

·        Characteristics of a person or their work over a period of time or work

·        Characteristics of the social qualities / mores / actions of a group at one time

·        The same as above over a temporal duration

·        The culture of a group.

I’m sure one could go on. This is always the case with experientially and non-validated and non-orthogonal concepts. They generate boundaries and crossings thereof as of right. This is probably, in fact, a necessity of artistic creation at any of these levels.

How does Schapiro substantively characterise the concept of ‘style’?

He specifies these on p. 3:

1.         Form elements or motifs;

2.         Form relationships; &

3.         Qualities (including ‘expression’ as an all-over quality).

One could be forgiven for seeing these levels as far from independent of each other and far from being other than ‘fuzzy concepts’. Indeed fuzziness is essential to them in the main, since they don’t have ‘distinct’ boundaries. Indeed their boundaries yield to ‘anticipation’, blending, & continuity’ (p.2). Can these then be levels? Or are they nothing more than what ‘rarelky corresponds to a clear and universally accepted characterization of a type.’ (p. 3).

Hence not a ‘type’ at all but an unclear & vague representation thereof.

Examples can, he says, be found anywhere – in children  & ‘psychotics’ (the labelling and grouping tells us a lot about the ‘style’ of art historical thought throughout its history in fact. Indeed in ‘primitives’ of other sorts (p.5) and this helps modernity to see transfers between styles as a wilful adoption and rejection in sequence of different forms of values that were once the expression of a group: Cubism, Abstraction, Expressionism, Surrealism.

As far as I can go.

Steve

Criteria for modernism A843 Block 2 Ex. 4.2.3

In the light of the criteria suggested, make notes on what aspects of these works gave impetus to modernist theorisation.

Criteria

·        ‘flatness’, i.e. shallow pictorial space

·        alignment of forms with the picture plane

·        echoing of the framing edge in internal forms

·        ‘all-overness’, i.e. the elision of the distinction between figure and ground

·        the reduction of ‘tangible’ pictorial space to purely ‘optical’ pictorial space

·        unity of effect.

Artists

·        Paul Cézanne – search particularly for his late landscapes, from late 1880s to his death

·        Georges Braque – search for Cubist still lifes, both painting and collage, from c.1908 through to c.1914

·        Piet Mondrian – search for ‘neo-plastic’ abstract paintings from c.1920–30

·        Mark Rothko – search for examples of his work after c.1948

·        Kenneth Noland – search for his ‘chevrons’ and horizontal ‘stripes’ of the 1960s.

NOTE ON ME ON BLOCK 2: I have become rather jaded by Block 2. It started off well and I liked both sections but am wary of the exercises, since they presume very much the answers revealed in Discussion. Where that was overt I miss them out. The section on Byzantine Art (by concentrating on connoisseurship of a very limited kind) was enough to put me off Byzantine Art or at least the versions of it in Art History, if this is representative. However, having read Anthony Eastmond, I have a feeling it is not and so I’m leaving that section as merely read. Onwards & upwards to here.

This exercise:

Rather than search for a picture that meets the analytic need I decided to choose the first picture for each artist I came across – by accident or unconscious determination – and go with that.

Artists

·        Paul Cézanne – search particularly for his late landscapes, from late 1880s to his death

I have ‘chosen’ View of the Bay of Marseilles with the Village of Saint-Henri’ (c. 1883) because I did not know it.

·        ‘flatness’, i.e. shallow pictorial space

One can see what is meant by those who emphasise this in Cezanne, although there is much here that appears as a classic perspectival picture with receding planes emphasised both by object shapes (the funnel chimneys) where the near (in the village?) takes much space but is perceived as small in comparison with diminished spaces representing huge factory chimneys near the bay shore. Indeed if flat it is so only because of a feel of tectonic planes divided by lateral lines representing natural features. There is not only illusion of distance but depth since the village slopes away from the eminence from which we view.

·        alignment of forms with the picture plane

As above, I do not see this

·        echoing of the framing edge in internal forms

This is certainly so in the representation of man-made objects with much purer verticals, which contrast with dynamic natural forms, even invisible ones like an east wind seen in tree curvature and smoke.

·        ‘all-overness’, i.e. the elision of the distinction between figure and ground

At the level of colour, this may be the case. Green has a flattening harmonising planar feel in the picture that contradicts the perspectival or tectonic recession seen in man-made objects. Similarly with reddish disruptions to the right.

·        the reduction of ‘tangible’ pictorial space to purely ‘optical’ pictorial space

This may be an effect of the contradiction in perception I feel above.

·        unity of effect.

I certainly feel more a pull to fragmentation than unity – partly as an effect of blocks of colour and contrasts of straight and less straight laterals & vertical lines.

·        Georges Braque – search for Cubist still lifes, both painting and collage, from c.1908 through to c.1914

I have chosen ‘The Table (Still Life with Fan)’ (1910)

• ‘flatness’, i.e. shallow pictorial space

My sense of this is far more than of flatness, but rather of recession and projection – the threatening knife like object which may be the perceived shape of the fan bone, which seeks its viewer as victim. Moreover I am prompted to see depth rather than irregular geometry in the table and the effect of the closed table door, promising depth behind it. It isn’t tectonic in the same way as Cezanne is (in part) because there is a sense of angularity in the geometric shapes which take perception on a trip to the sides of the object. I didn’t know it but I love this painting.

• alignment of forms with the picture plane

There is too much balanced recession, which seems to cut into the picture laterally with the upper part of the picture looming forward from that depth so that the top of the picture is impossibly higher and further forward from the picture plane, The geometric shapes on the right may be at the level of the picture plane. They disturb but seeking objectification. I have the same felling of fragmentation.

• echoing of the framing edge in internal forms

There may be an attempt to do that (at a deep tilt) in the table but it is constantly disrupted by intersecting geometric forms.

• ‘all-overness’, i.e. the elision of the distinction between figure and ground

Instead of harmonising the ochre colours are disrupted by what feel like violent yellows. Perhaps the dissolution of the background to the Table (where is floor, where is wall, helps create this partial effect of all-overness where objects begin to dissolve into the plane.

• the reduction of ‘tangible’ pictorial space to purely ‘optical’ pictorial space]

I find this. If anything the tangibility of space is increased and becomes more visible by the disruptions of the prompts to consistent pictorial (or represented) space.

• unity of effect.

I do not find anything that matches this.

·        Piet Mondrian – search for ‘neo-plastic’ abstract paintings from c.1920–30

I have chosen ‘Lozenge Composition with Red, Blue, and Yellow', 1925

• ‘flatness’, i.e. shallow pictorial space

This painting has really challenged me because its use of shape is not like that stereotypical image I had of Mondrian which uses the picture frame as part of its internal structure. The illusion of tilt and depth in the lozenge in relation to the overall marginal and shaping shading of the background in this painting disturbs, so that I have a sense of curved surfaces, depth and projection from within that depth. The shapes seem potentially partial rather than fulfilled ones – that triangle to the right is surely part of another unseen figure, perhaps a square that that lozenge lifts out of an imagined background,

• alignment of forms with the picture plane
• echoing of the framing edge in internal forms

I find it difficult to find any of these, as suggested above.

There may be an attempt to do that (at a deep tilt) in the table but it is constantly disrupted by intersecting geometric forms.

• ‘all-overness’, i.e. the elision of the distinction between figure and ground
• unity of effect.

The effects of colour provide this to some extent, not least how shading effects might mimic proximity of colour band effects – black, white, blue, greys.

·        Mark Rothko – search for examples of his work after c.1948

‘I have chosen ‘Number 18’ (1951)

• ‘flatness’, i.e. shallow pictorial space

This painting has an emotional effect that is far from flat or to do with surfaces, partly because the disruptive lines, with their jagged edges give both a sense of violence and depth – like a cut or wound that seems to bleed or to seep (even worse). There is a liminality to all the framing that exceeds even the actual edges of the picture.

• alignment of forms with the picture plane
• echoing of the framing edge in internal forms

Again I need these together because they are absolutely crucially interconnected. Reductively speaking the frame ‘gives’ all the other ‘edges’ shape, whilst being itself compromised by their liminal effects and hurting depths. The transformation into shading of colours is beautiful, but disturbing & fragmenting to me. Forms are clearly not aligned to one plane for all of those reasons.

·        ‘all-overness’, i.e. the elision of the distinction between figure and ground

·        the reduction of ‘tangible’ pictorial space to purely ‘optical’ pictorial space]

Instead of harmonising the pinks, reds & purples feel like disruptions as well as transitions, especially the pink that traces the picture edge. This partial effect of all-overness where objects begin to dissolve into the plane.

·        unity of effect.

Unity is not the effect, rather liminal and unbounded space (not infinity, just overwhelming larger than itself.

·        Kenneth Noland – search for his ‘chevrons’ and horizontal ‘stripes’ of the 1960s.

I have chosen Red Divide Date 1965

•  ‘flatness’, i.e. shallow pictorial space

The title may influence but I see planar ridges here together with incompleteness in shapes of varying depth. Shallowness may not happen because of what is felt as the incompletion of the red triangle, which feels logically partial but ‘divides’ because it may be forcibly truncated.

• alignment of forms with the picture plane
• echoing of the framing edge in internal forms

Too disrupted by diagonals to reinforce the rectangular frame or to hold shapes at the surface.

• ‘all-overness’, i.e. the elision of the distinction between figure and ground

Well, yes. There is no figure, no background.

• the reduction of ‘tangible’ pictorial space to purely ‘optical’ pictorial space]

I can’t think about this one. L

·        unity of effect.

Unity is not the effect, rather spatial contradiction within an apparent and limitless potential continuity.

 Well that’s me.

Let’s see what I should have said.

 Steve

Highlights from A Few Dangerous Days in the Yorkshire Sculpture Triangle: Day 1.

Tired of the silliness of Turnitin, and dogmatic beliefs about referencing, I’ve taken a break from the bit of academic institutionalism I’m tied to for a little money in my retirement and am back in Yorkshire and tonight sitting in a Leeds hotel. Here are the highlights for today, where we stuck to transitory exhibitions because of a ‘man-flu’ (bad cold) I’m nursing.

Yorkshire Sculpture Park

I thought at first of describing the 3 exhibitions today, but I think it is better to pick out moments. In the Bothy Gallery, 3 new artists (Tom Lovelace, Miriam Austin and Sam Belinfante) explored perception of what we call ‘nature’ and the surprising discoveries within it of artifice and imposed human (and sometimes ‘inhuman’) orders. My attention was called to a 25-minute HD video installation of a rehearsal of a rehearsal – the Mechanicals from A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The aim is to explore the sensory confusions in the language of the mechanicals in a way that takes as more than a joke, but sensory overload was certainly the order of the day – not least in the play with water as theme in all 3 artists, all exploiting the ‘scenes’ from the Sculpture park itself.

However, to the main exhibition: Alfredo Jaar. At the portal of this exhibition us ‘The Garden of Good and Evil’ and we approached it from its non-explicated end, that away from the Gallery entrance and thus had no props to our perception of it in the form of explanatory and context-giving notice boards. Aisles of living trees in pots ordered but taking no notice of their ordering in their invasion of the spaces that separate them, you would encounter large steel & concrete structures in the form of enclosed and semi-enclosed boxes and bars – the most naked being small prison cells but all foreboding of unnatural constriction – or is ‘evil’ an abomination of nature or a function of it. One we ignore at peril.

Jaar’s work, whether looking at Chile or Vietnam disturbs because it tests the level of our tolerance of seeing. Many of his most telling photographs and their multi-modal transformations within large imposing and threatening installations, where images emerge from the ambient darkness are of people looking at horrors and reacting, that we, as viewers, cannot see. And then there is the ‘Sound of Silence’. Approached via a wall of unbearably bright light, you go beyond that wall to find behind the box that bears it the entrance to a totally enclosed ‘cinema’. Here the story of ‘Kevin, Kevin Carter’ is told on slides mainly of one lines, sometimes one word of a story, flashed so that they gain he intensity of a poem and at its centre a photograph of a vulture and a child and at its cruel end the play of ethical issues that mount into torture and implicate all artists as well as commentators about the responsibilities which ‘observation’ puts us under. No spoilers here – they matter.

‘A Hundred Times Nguyen’ has a similar theme – in a huge gallery sets of 4 different frontal shots of a single Vietnamese refugee (the same 4 in each hanging) are toured until at the end we are confronted by the variations of order of the shots in the pictures. But the effect is not in seeing this but in the ease with which we do not see these differences – how Nguyen is obliterated in multiplicity, in refugee status where such is a matter of huge numbers. In films, Jaar talks about what the aesthetic is and what it hides but also how resistance to it may be as morally futile as remembering it is not self-sufficient. To use a cliché – an art for our time.

Then to:

HEPWORTH GALLERY WAKEFIELD

The main exhibition was a retrospective of Alina Szapocznikow’s sculptural work and preparatory drawings. Let’s be honest. I had not heard of this artist but what a rich and fully engaged career is opened up here, full of searing honesty and the necessary obsession that creates art. Szapocznikow’s early death and its expectation became for her a means of deepening her concerns with boundary-crossing between boundaries, of flesh and machine, human-animal, female-male such that she began to explore the buzzword of all art – development – in terms of the pressing living growth of cancerous tumours alongside other developments. Taking casts of her body still, she made that and the relationship to other bodies – notably her beautiful son, Pyotr – her theme and object. Pyotr naked and lieing at an angle, exposed and dead to sight, bears a large phallic growth that resembles a tumour. The exploration of sex and gender then remains painfully close to her concern with the Gothic monster – that thing of horrible parts that insists on wholeness.

And those apparitions are in the early work too. I was pleased to find that Griselda Pollock has a book on this. I purchased it.

So back in Leeds and surprised by how it has changed today’s Leeds Art Gallery visit promises the artists which were so ignored today, Hepworth but especially Henry Moore of the Henry Moore Institute. At last we might be beyond seeing Moore as the old reactionary of art: Szapocznikow’s debt to him was clearly enormous, although her thought and feeling perhaps outgrew him.

By the way, I did take the chance to see Henry Moore’s mining drawings again in the Hepworth. Tom McGuinness is right though. They do not live as pictures in a mine but merely depict it. Food for thought.

All the best

Steve

Aim to write around 500 words on:

Jacqui Gabb, J, and Janet Fink, J. 2015. ‘Telling Moments and Everyday Experience: Multiple Methods Research on Couple Relationships and Personal Lives’. Sociology. Vol 49, Issue 5, pp. 970 - 987

Here are some questions that you might use to structure your writing:

·        What method of analysis was used?

·        How was the chosen method of analysis appropriate to the data?

·        What other kinds of analysis might have been used?

·        How was the analysis designed? Is the design clearly described? What were its strengths and weaknesses?

·        What kind of issues or problems might one identify with the analysis?

·        What are the key findings and conclusions, and how are they justified through the chosen analysis techniques?

_________________________________________________________________

MY ATTEMPT

Reductively speaking the research uses a two-staged method:

1.     An Online Survey using a convenience sample (n=5445) collecting quantitative and qualitative (open-text answers) data, the latter ‘quantified’ using ‘grounded theory’.

2.     Numerous qualitative data collection methods aimed at a sample of ‘couples’ (n=50). Data appears largely to be collected from individuals rather collectively from dyads.

Generically described as Multiple-Methods-Research (MMR), ‘Moments Approach’ is an innovative ‘mixed method’ in which forms of combination, and specific uses of, research paradigms and ‘tools’ ‘constantly (evolve)’ to match the mutating knowledge they generate. Thus, qualitative methodologies are ‘refined’ from conventional norms: avoiding collection alone of ‘logocentric’ and favouring multiple multimodal, datasets. Sequential stages of MMR interact and interpret each other’s meaning(s) and whilst compromising traditional uses of some tools, it adds interpretive richness. For instance, MANOVA data identify statistically significant clusters of themes, which initiate focal categories for use in the qualitative research.

Methodology also matches the goal of describing ‘complex and uncertain objects’, with porous, ‘fuzzy’ boundaries of objective definition. Hence, descriptions of enactment or objects cross categorical boundaries by using ‘vital’ metaphors: ‘dynamic’, ‘flexible’ and ‘fluid’. Aiming for holistic representation of Bourdieu’s psycho-social concept ‘habitus’, data are intended to be read in multi-sensory ways.

The role of the reader in this process is essential but not fully explicated. Data yielded by this research isn’t completely interpreted or ‘multi-sensory’ until processed by its readers. Thus Sumaira’s diary-data is strictly describable only as multimodal (using visual and textual modalities for instance).

It only yields a ‘palpable sense’ of ‘vitality’ when read (using multiple senses that ‘embody’ meaning) by living readers. Yet this process of reconstructing multi-sensory experience (sound, sight, proxemics, and signification) is only partially explicated in a dense final paragraph.

This is a weakness because available paradigms, such as reflexive ethno-methodology, explicate such meanings using ‘thicker’ descriptions of the ‘collaborative’ roles of participant researcher, interpreting researcher (even when these are one person) and ‘readers’ in the research. Other weaknesses include the fact that, whilst critiquing its concentration on ‘couples’, as a source of ‘bias’ from ‘queer perspectives’, it doesn’t address this limitation actively.

Moreover, neither unmediated data from heterosexual males, nor LGBTQ couple data, though collected, get represented richly. Both detailed data examples are from individual women in heterosexual relationships. Methodologically Discourse Analysis was available to explicate ‘account variability’ yielded from using multiple stimuli from multiple group-types (Potter & Wetherell 1987:39). We must question then whether ‘doing couples or relationships’ data are representative of all participants.

Moreover, ‘foci’ determined within and before the qualitative research change as other themes cross-cut, confounding them: their significance expressed only in metaphor: ‘flashes’ in multi-faceted gemstones. The authors’ claim that ‘slower pace’ enriches data-interpretation by finding ambivalent or contradictory, meaning(s) in research ‘foci’. However, this is also a disadvantage because masses of over-complicated data become time-consuming to reduce into comprehensibility. They admit of ‘false starts’ and conceptual obscurity, as contingencies in the process revise the boundaries of ‘objects’ experienced by both participants and researchers.

Nevertheless, they self-evidently discover issues that hide from conscious perception under layers of everyday experience; thought to be of unsystematic relationship to life-experiences that regulate couple-relationships. They establish that ‘moments’ of interactive inter-sensory experience demonstrate complex patterns of interpersonal/ intrapersonal negotiation between couples: Hayley privately weighing up ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of sleep over heterosexual responsiveness. Those methods match this research arena, whose movable boundaries must yield results that are always situated and provisional: thus, though unnecessary in 2014-5 to distinguish LGBTQ marriage from civil-partnership, this cannot be so in up-to-date replications.

588 words (as low as I can get it)

 Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour London, Sage Publications

I chose to look at this Reuters report:

Voter belief in Brexit negotiations fades

A new poll shows British voters are unhappy with the current state of Brexit negotiations, and sceptical whether leaving the EU will improve the country.

ReutersNOVEMBER 8, 20174:31AM

A record majority of Britons disapprove of Prime Minister Theresa May's handling of Brexit talks and are increasingly sceptical that leaving the EU will make the country better off, an opinion poll shows.

ORB International said 66 per cent of people disapproved of the government's conduct of the negotiations, up from 64 per cent last month.

The poll also showed only 27 per cent were confident that May will get the right deal, compared with 47 per cent who were not confident.

Trust in May's handling of Brexit has evaporated since she gambled away her parliamentary majority in an election in June.

With only 17 months left until Britain is due to exit the European Union, the lack of clear progress in the negotiations has raised fears of an abrupt departure with no transition that businesses say they need.

For the first time, more Britons disagreed that Brexit will help the economy than agreed, ORB said.

"There is no sign that the prime minister is beginning to turn things around when it comes to Brexit," ORB said in a statement. "Overall these poll findings provide little encouragement for a prime minister facing multiple battles."

As well as trying to breath life into Brexit talks, May is dealing with a growing sexual harassment scandal in Britain's parliament. Without an overall majority, May cannot afford to lose parliamentary seats.

Businesses have expressed alarm at the progress of Brexit talks.

On Monday, the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply said nearly two-thirds of European businesses planned to cut back orders from British suppliers.

Last month finance minister Philip Hammond said a transition deal needed to be struck by early 2018.

ORB surveyed 2044 people in an online poll between November 3 and November 5.

I think the issues here relating to distortion may be more to do with the discursive shifts in this article than the statistical evidence, however it is clear that the report itself is based on one very simple statistic.

For the first time, more Britons disagreed that Brexit will help the economy than agreed, ORB said.

All we can discern from this is that in an answers to questions whose content is reported only in indirect speech (and therefore makes no truth claims) more people agreed with the basic statement than disagreed. That this was for the 'first time' would depend on a use of this question in a longitudinal study, but this is not a longitudinal study.

It concerns what appears to be an opportunity sample (although we have not enough data to say) recruited over 2 days. We do not know if the same (or even other samples) were asked exactly the same question to justify the claim that the distribution of answers was thus 'for the first time'. Even had other samples produced different results the results would be questionable since not easily comparable given that sample size, internal constitution and means of recruitment may differ considerably. There is no guarantee of random sampling at any point, given that the sample is (compared to the population to which it is generalised) very small.

The problem with this reported survey is that I want it to be correct - it says what I want it to say but that in itself raises the issue of sampling reliability. We need also to see what was happening between 3 - 5 November because opinions may fluctuate at times of increased publicity for an issue. 

In a flat sense, this ONE poll appears to be different from other polls in its descriptive results but we cannot say why nor overly interpret its meaning or the causation of any perceived change - since it is not evidence enough for any change.

All the best

Steve

Vasari’s norms

1.      Rule, then, in architecture, was the process of taking measurements from antiquities and studying the ground-plans of ancient edifices for the construction of modern buildings.

2.      Order was the separating of one style from another, so that each body should receive its proper members, with no more interchanging between Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, and Tuscan.

3.      Proportion was the universal law applying both to architecture and to sculpture, that all bodies should be made correct and true, with the members in proper harmony; and so, also, in painting.

4.      Draughtsmanship was the imitation of the most beautiful parts of nature in all figures, whether in sculpture or in painting; and for this it is necessary to have a hand and a brain able to reproduce with absolute accuracy and precision, on a level surface— whether by drawing on paper, or on panel, or on some other level surface— everything that the eye sees; and the same is true of relief in sculpture.

5.      Manner then attained to the greatest beauty from the practice which arose of constantly copying the most beautiful objects, and joining together these most beautiful things, hands, heads, bodies, and legs, so as to make a figure of the greatest possible beauty. This practice was carried out in every work for all figures, and for that reason it is called the beautiful manner.

Preziosi, Donald. Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology, Oxford University Press, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, .

Created from open on 2017-11-13 23:40:14.

Flemish painting … will appeal to women, especially the very old and the very young, and also to monks and nuns, and to certain nobles who have no sense of true harmony. In Flanders they paint with a view to external exactness such things as may cheer you and of which you cannot speak ill, as for example saints and prophets. They paint stuff and masonry, the green grass of the fields, the shadow of the trees, and rivers and bridges which they call landscapes … All this, though it pleases some persons, is done without reason or art, without symmetry or proportion, without skilful choice of boldness and finally without substance or vigour.

(quoted in Nash, 2008, p. 35)

How does the author characterise Netherlandish painting? In what ways does he imply that it is deficient by Italianate standards?

The intention here is to suggest that the art is of a secondary nature. That judgement is cast in a gender binary – that characterises the best as necessarily masculine in its appeal and design. What then do women lack in this respect? There is an appeal to the Italianate standards outlined by Vasari but we need to see why those standards are thought to be masculine. The clue is in the constant appeal to rigour, long practice and submission to laws of perfected creation – the latter encapsulated in rule, proportion and ‘harmony’. Not surprisingly it is women outside even the capacity to themselves to be perceived by men as ‘beautiful’ that the excess and disharmony of ‘feminine’ practice rules in this judgement.

This is not because the practice in the North is inherently untrue but because its appeal is to mere ‘external’ exactness not to well-trained and God-given harmony that paints the world as it can be seen filtered through the reasoning intellect rather than superficial feelings. In the latter you find, the passage suggests, immature or senile women who like accurate precise decoration – with elements recognisable to life (in landscapes or vignettes of things seen afar (Northern virtuosity in object painting) that are not ruled by reasonable intellect – proportion means accurate perspective and respect for the ‘vanishing point’ – that place where reason asserts that visibility of things in minutiae ends. It lacks the control of variegated ‘stuff and masonry’ that make men into the perfect builder of the world. And the proof for that - our reason is based on evidence from the phallocracy of the buried Ancients

Questions for discussion:

1.   The researchers here conducted secondary analysis of an existing dataset (the UK Household Longitudinal Study https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk . What are some advantages and disadvantages of secondary analysis for exploring this topic? (hint: there are some noted at various points in the paper) 

• ADVANTAGES
• The national survey contains sufficient sample sizes of ethic minority groups, including boost samples, in order to generalise comparisons between multi-ethnic populations.
• It represents national sub populations
• It provides quantitative data to offset bias in past literature to qualitative studies in the UK and possible poor representation of the issues for the UK in non-UK quantitative studies.
• DISADVANTAGES
• It notionally applies only to heterosexually married or cohabiting couples.
• Since participants self-identify ethnicity, this will be of importance, especially where a choice of ‘Mixed’ is made.
• They also self-report housework hours – social desirability biases are therefore possible, although checks on this are in place (8).
• Religious affiliations are assumed to not be sufficiently orthogonal to yield results, yet there is no equality between religious affiliation and ethnicity – a South East Asian origin member could be Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, and so on …

2.   How does the concept of intersectionality allow the researchers to build on previous research in this area?

• Studies have shown (4), the significance of interactions between different important variables such as gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status. The researchers do not assume that either gender or ethnicity, etc. are primary determinants of inequalities and will allow them to test intersections between population distinctions and not treat each variable as orthogonal.

3.   Choose a term you aren’t familiar with from the Analysis Approach section of the article on page 8 and do some reading online to find out more about what it means (for example: cross-sectional analysis;multivariate OLS regressions; interaction effects). Can you learn enough about this to explain it in the discussion forum? (if you are already very familiar with statistical analysis, take an opportunity to comment on some other participants’ definitions).

• Since I have completed a course at MA level on Advanced Statistical Analysis in Psychological Research, this does not apply. However, happy to look at other contributions as they occr (or if they occur).

4.   How do Kan and Laurie go about building a case for the interpretations they are making? How do they compel you, as a reader, to take their findings seriously? Share a specific example of how you think this is done in this article.

• They  compare the descriptions yielded by the data to the expected results or hypotheses, qualifying thise expectations where suggested by data interpretations.
• They describe data graphically, using a range of chart types (10, 12), tables and written verbal descriptions.
• They use multivariate regression analysis to account for interactions and test for significant effects. They do not show interaction effects however from the analysed data (15). To some extent, they leave these for future studies (18).
• They suggest explanations (also supported by descriptive data (14), where possible.
• They summarise findings in relation to their hypotheses (18).

1.  What three (good) research questions could be answered using this approach?.

·       What are the meanings and categories of experience that participants associate with concepts of ‘spaces’ and/or ‘room’ from being invited to make artefacts that reflect comparatively on their online and offline learning environments?

·       How would such socio-psychological phenomena be utilised in innovative digital pedagogies that utilise areness of the learners interacting environments for study?

·       Is it necessary to teach literacy in reading and making multi-modal texts in order to utilise such methods?

2. What assumptions about the nature of knowledge (epistemology) seem to be associated with this approach?

·        That knowledge is structured by in inherited resources in language, images and embodied action that form systems of communication that are complex and difficult to categorise as a single and simple response.

·        That knowledge is related to an interaction between the knowing subject, known discourses embodied in conventions, roles and institutions and the object that is to be known. The contributions of each will differ in different instances – when for instance we compare a material object with one that is entirely constructed by discourse.

·        That being the case, the researcher’s contribution to the act of knowing in collection and analysis of data must be made available as part of the outcome of the product and as reflexive analysis.

·        This approach does not see ‘subjectivity’ or ‘intersubjectivity’ as a bias in knowing the object but an essential part of the act of knowing. It cannot be ‘controlled’ out of existence.

3. What kinds of ethical issues arise?

·        Acts of interpretation of others and self are subject to power relations in different social contexts that can be a cause of significant harm to the participant in a world of unequal power (the ‘real’ world).

·        Hence no interpretation is innocent of judgement at some level in the production and distribution of outcomes related to the meanings of someone’s world or actions in it.

·        Gaining truly informed consent can therefore be difficult.

·        The participants must retain enough rights of co-ownership of the evidence and outcomes to influence the effects of their distribution between different audiences or when an unforeseen aspect of the final audience’s response becomes know.

·        No participant gives or alienates their rights entirely. This should not be seen as a source of bias b ut its existence considered reflexively in the research report.

·        It is possible that this exercise will involve sensitive material and that briefing and debriefing may be complex processes.

4. What would "validity" imply in a project that used this approach?

·       The descriptive and interpretative material is subjected to rigorous control by a theory of interpretation that can be known and communicated to BOTH participants in and readers of the research.

·       The limitations as well as strengths of this approach are considered but that those considerations (within the research) are not seen as final but provisional. It is open to ongoing representations from others that might be negatively or positively critical. This in part represents the integrity of the research process.

·       There is no inappropriate attempt to generalise the knowledge and outcomes acquired in terms of laws or rules of human behaviour, except in fully reflexive reflective discussion. The contextuality of the knowledge, skills and values examined must be reflected.

·       There is some basis of trust in the observations, given by the evidence and how it is handled and manipulated in the research report conclusions.

5. What are some of the practical or ethical issues that would need to be considered?

·       The ability to circumscribe the social events and scenarios that are studied such that they are not distorted in a way that predetermines the analysis but yet is manageably small enough to be fruitfully studied in the limited time, space and other resources available. This must involve the ability to reflexively describe these strategies.

·       Researchers or their theories must be open to query. This can cause difficulties in finding sponsorship or resource funding for a project. It will also have consquences that may affect the reputation and security of the researcher.

·       The method relies on a degree of openness to crossing boundaries that, in certain circumstances, may have unforeseen consequences.

·       Research funders also may not finance overtly open-ended research, requiring from it a usable product that can sometimes (especially in the research of educational institutions) be both monetised and turned to the benefit of a single source, rather than to education as a whole.

·       A high degree of participation in the tasks is required from participants. It should be allied then to meeting genuine learning outcomes of their own in the courses they are studying and this should be reflected in the debriefing that occurs.

6. And finally, find and reference at least two published articles that have used this approach (aside from the examples given in this course). Make some notes about how the approach is described and used in each paper, linking to your reflections above.

• This section includes 2 research articles first.

The aim of this paper is to utilise ‘mutimodality as a research methodology for teacher inquiry (244).’ There is an element of action research involved in that the participants demonstrate assessed predictive levels of ‘growth’ in their understanding of qualitative methodologies in research on their  role as teachers as a result of the use of visual or hybrid multimodal material. However the methods were primarily underpinned by participant observation (244) but were focused on documentary evidence collection and analysis (collecting emails, field notes, 3 assignments per learner), interviews which were coded as typed documents. Analysis used a version of grounded theory from Glaser (1992 & Cresswell (1995) cited 245.

The aim of this paper is to examine ‘multimodal’ accounts’, supported by interviews and underpinned by participant observation that identifies itself as an ethnomethodology hybrid with individual case study’ (298). There is an element of action research involved in that the participants’ accounts form libraries of materials for use in educating youth workers using pre-authorised and ethically checked accounts. It aims to use accounts created by young people with an acquired disability as the data for understanding the means by which this ‘group’ of young people construct their lives when co-constructing them in a relationship of trust. The paper admits to a degree of methodological naivety that is justified by the project’s importance and the salience of silence on issues of subjectivity in this area. The degree of rigour and integrity in this area is a mark of high reflexivity and will stimulate future more precisely formulated research.

One area that is unmissable in this area is that there is a great deal of theory which is not as yet well applied to practical research. However theorisation at a deep level is intrinsic to multimodal practice. As an example, note (the OU does not have access to a copy but only an Abstract) the use of feminist and postmodern theory together with multimodality in:

The study was based on a 3 year long examination of a teacher education course. It used multimodal presentations (graphic novel and role-play) as well as live commentary on the same to see how revisions of the multimodal material illustrated the value of a theoretical grasp of feminist theories of embodiment and the meaning of place and ‘space’.

Another feature of the publications in a new arena like this are reflective analyses of ation research of a semi-formal kind. Herein practitioners reflect reflexively on their introduction of innovations. The following uses multimodal methods from art history to classroom work in the sciences:

https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/viewpost.php?post=198642

https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/viewpost.php?post=198558

Your task is to review the following case study and reflect on the use of the focus group method.

McKenzie, L & Baldassar, L 2017. 'Studying internationalization on campus: lessons from an undergraduate qualitative research project' [online]. SAGE Research Methods Cases. 

Read the case study carefully and write a reflective blog post, addressing the following questions in turn:

1.      How have focus groups been integrated with other methods in this research?

1.1.   The research, although it used authentic participants was also (and perhaps primarily) intended as a means of practicing data collection and analysis using interviews and Focus groups as a qualitative method. Hence the logic of combining the two was prescribed for this purpose and this is, I feel, a weakness in the data collection strategy which was not tied primarily to each research team’s conceptualisation of the main focus of their study nor to characteristics of participants selected.

1.2.   This is particularly evident in the issue of timing: The reason one might choose any research method is related to the ways in which participants are conceptualised – because to a large extent that conceptualisation is a co-creation of the methods of selection and orientation of the group on which we are focusing.

1.3.   The largely novitiate learner research teams then were it appeared guided to view the construction of data collection tools as primarily a technical matter in relation to the time available. They were not asked to understand how those technical matters and how they were implemented might construct (at least in part) the group on which they were focusing.

1.4.   This is revealed in the treatment of questionnaire construction for the focus groups. The teachers in this case note that: “Some students included too many “ice-breaker” questions … designed to put the participants at their ease, but that could easily take-up the bulk of the time” (7). It is clear from this this that it was considered that questions of skill in technical design relative to resources (here time) was the primary concern of feedback to learner researchers. What is not said to be explored is how the inclusion of ‘enquires designed to put the participants at their ease’ might constitute the groups perceived identity internally or externally. The methods are seen as neutral in relation to the participants studied rather than constitutive. This kind of thinking (in the development of tools) is highly salient in quantitative questionnaire design and seems here to miss raising the meta-methodological (or reflexive) awareness required in qualitative work to ensure the integrity and rigour of the findings.

1.5.   The research teachers make a similar point about their learners: the latter were thought to be blinded to the acceptability of methods, such as opportunity samples, created by ‘snowballing’, because in quantitative methods such non-random sampling would be a cause of significant bias. The teacher-authors indicate 9correctly that, reflexively understood, such methods may not compromise the rigour of selection and analysis.

1.6.   However, this is more than a comparison of the differences in assessment of methods used in quantitative and qualitative methodology, which is as far as this paper takes it (p. 11). It is in fact another recognition of the fact that participant selection is always a means of constructing the group definition of a sample (random sampling has its own assumptions – particularly given the fact that it is only conceived as effective in redressing participant selection bias in theory not in practice). Those learners who wanted more ‘ice-breakers’ may have implicitly felt this – but are corrected as impractical researchers. My own feeling is that the students were required to some extent by the framework of this project (using real participants – but mainly as an object in meeting their needs as students within this course as framed by its teachers) to not understand (because of the resource costs involved including time) that a research method in part constitutes its subjects (often as objects to be manipulated).

1.7.   This is also clear in the revelation that snowballing produced very good focus groups. These kinds of group already had a basis of trust on which to constitute a ‘community’ and a pre-mediated relationship to the learner-researcher. Where though is the learner encouraged to reflect on this.

1.8.   Another weakness, as I see it, in the understanding of how focus group methodologies are learned is that the framework of this research prescribes seeing the participant groups as, in part (but I think a big part), tools to a pedagogical end, that is not focused on the participants’ but the learner-researchers’  interests. International students become tools in a learning process to the cost of any interest in their self-articulation, in my view at least. It is interesting, for instance, that this paper does not define ‘discourses’ and ‘folk models’ and hence ask the method to be related to those theoretical tools for understanding how group identity and intersubjectivity might be structured, prior to and within the process. For instance the 3^rd finding of this study (p.6) identifies a ‘bubble effect’; but fails to see this effect as a possible effect of methodological assumptions.

2.      What difficulties did students encounter in the design of focus group questions?

2.1.   I have referred to this in 1.4 above. It is important to notice that these difficulties are in large identified by mentor / teachers and used correctively to teach appropriate method in questionnaire building (as understood by teaching staff). I would argue that the learners’ would learn more about issues vital to qualitative methods had they been empowered to test the differences that emerge between groups that are made comfortable by such enquiries and those whom are not. That introductory conversation could indeed form matter for analysis rather than being seen as introductory to results produced by the ‘proper’ questions. An important word on p. 7 is ‘coded’. Coding is an aspect of hybrid methods (between qualitative and quantitative). Coding is preferred to analysis because it yields results that can be quantified.

2.2.   This emerges in a contradiction (p. 6) wherein the teachers lament lack of prior training in ‘qualitative interviews or focus training rather than in ‘participant observation’. Indeed I would argue that the latter (and other ethnographic epistemologies) are constructed as a contaminant to good interview and focus group preparation.

2.3.   This need not be the case but has been pre-constructed as a paradigm of the focus group work that learners are herein inducted. I find that problematic.

2.4.   Another aspect of this is the paradigmatic schedule of research (pp4f), in which ‘feedback’ opportunities appear always to refer to feedback from tutors to learners, rather than the reverse, or (in my view) essential ethical and methodological process in line with ethnographic methodologies, feedback to and from participants to assist in the interpretative analysis of the results. Participants’ ‘speech acts’ remain objects for coding analysis.

3.      What kind of insights did the focus group generate, and how were these different from those derived from other methods used?

3.1.   This is not as clearly indicated as it might be. However, it is made clear that the kind of questions (see 2 above of which this is a continuation in part) can be used to pre-construct participant answers in a focus group as either encouraging ‘individual responses, rather than collective discussion’? I find this obviously open to asserting that students are taught to see how processes in methodology (such as question-building) can constitute the subject they address. However, it is not thus used. It is instead used to see the difference between the question0-based tools used in either focus groups or interviews. Again the focus is predominantly technical rather than on how methodologies enabled knowledge creation that is aware that the participants are necessarily responsive and constructed by the whole tenor of a research method.

3.2.   The answers from focus groups are related however to the theory of ‘folk models’ (p. 8) as devised by Agar and Macdonald (1995 cited p.8). Defined here solely as ‘shared perceptions of a particular topic’, this fails to see that the kind of ‘folk’ typologies that a group might represent, dependent on selection and socialisation, could be multiple rather than single. The idea of ‘folk’ is hence reified. I believe that this is an effect of the teaching agenda in this project.

4.      What are identified as some of the key findings from focus group questions?

4.1.   These are on pp 5f. They are rather mixed and that, in part because they are, in my view, under-theorised. We need to know the balance of focus group, as compared to interview, results that were coded as these themes, for one thing.

4.1.1.Isolation

4.1.2.Awareness of conflict between institutional constructions of the potentials for international learners and the real ones

4.1.3.The ‘bubble effect’ in which, from the point of view of the ‘domestic students’’, international student experience is separated from domestic student experience

4.2.   These themes are presented in sequence as if their production as knowledge was based on similar epistemological and methodological assumptions – but in fact they are not. Some a product of transactional analysis between researcher and participant experience (4.1.3). Even the presence in coding of primarily student identity issues (4.1.2) may be an effect of the researchers and participants co-constructing themselves as primarily learners in one institution, rather than any other subject position. They find difference then, only within that subject position.

5.      What kind of issues did the students face with recruiting focus group participants?

5.1.   These are touched upon in 1.7 above. The learners are said (p. 9) to make assumptions on recruitment inherited from their experience of research methods controlled by the issues motivating hegemonic quantitative methodologies.

5.2.   Those who succeeded in forming a usable sample (by snowballing) were those with longer experience and greater networks within the institution. Most however (p. 10) ‘underestimated the challenges of recruitment’. This is explained (I may stretch the description somewhat) as an interaction of being unaware that social approaches are mediated by awareness of how these approaches are motivated by one’s own needs (as a community member) and concomitant disregard that their needs – to recruit suitable people – was not matched by the needs that would motivate those in the ideal ‘sample’ Indeed the ‘bubble effect’ is more a factor in the constitution of the researchers rather than participants, yet the learners are never facilitated towards this necessary perception in qualitative work.

5.3.   I find it funny (when I don’t find it ‘self-serving’ that the writer-teachers conclude that student difficulties are in fact a reflex of under-resources of teaching staff (p.10)). How easily does the needs of that community of interest find its way into these reports?

5.4.   In fact this interpretation rather confounds the error in teaching qualitative method, which should stress rather a reflexive attitude in fully qualitative analysis. The base perception required is that analysis must not pretend that the ‘object of study’, including conception of the participant group that articulate that ‘object’, is co-created and that a force in that creation is the political, institutional and ‘practical’ research paradigm that from the first identified. Reflexivity is a political act. It must over-ride the ‘economism’ (Althusser’s Lenin and Philosophy) of the approach that leads this paper but by self-respectfully recognising it for what it is.

ALL FOR NOW

Steve Bamlett