Reflective Analysis of Project Proposal (979 words)
Introduction
In the short essay that follows I will critically assess Help!, my proposal for an open learning project at the Pipe Factory in Glasgow. In the text I will offer my own personal reflections and insights from peer discussions, as well as a consideration of the theoretical context of the project. The Help! proposal is available to read in full in the appendix to this document.
Personal Reflection
The design of the Help! project was inspired by our site visit to the Pipe Factory earlier in the course. The name and backstory of the Pipe Factory building and its location at the edge of the Barras market is indicative of the site’s history of trade and community, and the building itself was a hive of activity on the day we visited, full of people working together to prepare for an upcoming exhibition. It is the Pipe Factory’s strong associations with trade, community and collaboration that have most informed my proposal.
As well as being inspired by the site itself, my proposal has also been heavily influenced by the work I have done toward the Inhabiting Practice: Contemporary Art and Open Learning fair, which was held at Edinburgh Sculpture Workshop toward the end of the course. The “tool/kit” I presented at the fair facilitated a form of knowledge sharing based on an exchange of “keywords” which were contributed by participants and were each intended to represent a starting point for researching some kind of interesting concept, object or thing; something to take away and “look in to” later, should you so wish. Reflecting on the work now, I feel that my main issue with the project was that because of the tool/kit’s design (described in full here), the information shared on the day was necessarily random, opaque and without direction; thus while knowledge was indeed exchanged, it was impossible to say whether or not the right knowledge had found its way into the right hands.
In my design for the Help! project, I have faced this issue head-on by asking participants to state from the outset what exactly it is they need or want, and what exactly it is they have to offer others; this allows the right resources to find the right recipient (and vice-versa), while the direct nature of the dialogue allows any potential miscommunications to be corrected promptly. I feel that the format of the project represents “open learning” in more ways than one: not only is the content or knowledge to be shared freely accessible – indeed, offered – to anyone who needs it, but also in order for the project to work, each participant is required to be “open” about their own needs, and also about what they might have to offer others.
Peer Discussion
During our site visit to the Pipe Factory, both myself and my peers were excited by the size of the building, as well as its location on the edge of the historic Barras market. We were also impressed by the Pipe Factory’s emphasis on community engagement; of particular interest were past and current projects that foster engagement with young people – particularly those at an educational, social or economical disadvantage, or with physical or mental health issues that act as a barrier to participation in the cultural sphere.
The consensus among my peers seemed to be that the Pipe Factory building is an incredible resource which could be used in innumerable ways. I would agree with this, though with some additional thoughts; from our site visit to the Barras / Calton, I was impressed by the number of art galleries and related sites in the area, and when we moved into Glasgow city centre, the sheer number of cultural venues could rival that of any major city. With this in mind, is it necessary for another run-of-the-mill “art gallery” to become established in Glasgow? Would the time, resources and space normally used for gallery-like “art venues” be better spent catering for and empowering local residents of the areas in which they reside – with a particular emphasis on those residents who are disadvantaged or for one reason or another excluded from the arts?
Contextual Analysis
The opinions above are echoed in the broader theory and practice of peeragogy / paragogy and open learning; in the online handbook Peeragogy 3.0, the authors allude to the practice of a skills trade in an online context, suggesting that skilled would-be peeragogs “contribute back to one of the other organisations or projects that helped you on this peeragogical journey” while imploring peeragogs to “think about what you have to offer”. The passage concludes with the suggestion to “make it something special,and people will remember you and thank you for it”. I believe that these sentiments accurately reflect the intentions of my proposed Help! project.
While the Peeragogy Handbook tends to center on online learning, there are other examples of peeragogy / paragogy which bridge the gap between the online and offline worlds. Art and learning collective BFAMFAPhD have devised a number of different open learning projects, though of particular relevance here is their project Asset Mapping, which requires that participants in a group setting list both what they want from the group, and what they have to offer the group; the two lists from each party are then combined and participants’ contact details exchanged; the result is – presumably – a sharing of skills and / or knowledge comparable to that outlined in my Help! project proposal.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the Pipe Factory building is the ideal site in which to enact my proposed Help! open learning event. This is because Help! not only encourages participants to ask for what they need; it also expects them to offer what they have. The connections and community bonds that might result from pairing those groups cannot, in my opinion, be underestimated.
