Keywords

This chapter offers a summary of the book, as well as a critical discussion about the strengths and limitations of iconographic research poetry and the implications of employing various media to represent one’s research findings. I generate directions for future research, citing digital concrete poetic forms (e.g., Caselli, 2009) and installation art and poetry (e.g., Lapum, 2018; Lapum et al., 2014) as inspiration for future experiments in iconographic research poetry. I begin a self-reflexive discussion about how this exercise in poetic inquiry—the process of writing a book about iconographic research poetry—has changed me. As I continue this discussion in the postscript, I review literature about poetic inquiry ((Leggo, 2008; Prendergast 2009; Sameshima et al., 2018;) and identity (Clarke, 2014; Sjollema & Yuen, 2018) to explore how the practice of poetic inquiry can be a constant source of discovery and renewal for teacher-scholars. Toward this end, I encourage readers to nurture the spirit of curiosity and playfulness that is inherent in us all by developing a regular writing practice, engaging in creative writing exercises, experimenting with poetic inquiry and iconographic research poetry in their scholarship, and integrating poetry-centered exercises in their teaching. This chapter concludes with a list of additional resources, including videos, digital archives, museum websites, and children’s books that readers can consult to learn more about concrete and digital poetry, as well as poetic inquiry.

5.1 Summary

The central goal of this book was to introduce readers to the craft of writing iconographic research poetry. In Chap. 1, I proposed iconographic research poetry as a novel form of poetic inquiry that bridges the art-science divide by melding aspects of concrete poetry, iconographic poetry, poetic inquiry, and research poetry. I began by defining and offering examples of key concepts such as concrete poetry, iconographic poetry, poetic inquiry, research poetry, and iconographic research poetry. By tracing the historical foundations of concrete poetry, iconographic poetry, poetic inquiry, and research poetry, four central areas of inquiry that have inspired the notion of iconographic research poetry, I offered readers an appreciation for the intellectual roots that inform this unique methodological approach. In the process, I invited two previously unrelated areas of inquiry into dialogue with one another. Finally, I considered the advantages of iconographic research poetry as a methodological innovation that bridges the humanities and the social sciences.

In Chap. 2, I offered a detailed description of the methods that can be used to create and design iconographic research poetry. I began by situating iconographic research poetry on the qualitative continuum (Ellingson, 2009). Next, I offered an overview of iterative thematic analysis (Tracy, 2013, 2020) and metaphor analysis (Tracy et al., 2006), two qualitative analytic methods. Drawing from the extant literature in research poetry and poetic inquiry (e.g., Ellingson, 2011; Faulkner, 2009, 2020; Glesne, 1997; Prendergast, 2012), concrete, iconographic, and visual poetry (e.g., Bohn, 2011; Kostelanetz, 1970; Solt, 1968; Swenson, 1970), and concrete and iconographic research poetry (Meyer, 2017; Miller, 2019; Schoone, 2018), I explicated the processes by which data can be represented in the form of iconographic research poetry. Next, I provided a step-by-step description of strategies that researchers can use to create iconographic research poetry from qualitative data. I described my methods of creating iconographic research poems with word processing software and graphic design programs using typed text, clip art or icons, and layered text and images. I discussed the importance of soliciting member reflections from participants and artist-poets. At the end of the chapter, I offered writing exercises designed to help aspiring iconographic research poets exercise their poetic imagination. Specifically, I asked readers to re-analyze an existing qualitative data set with the methods I previously described. By conducting a metaphor analysis, selecting a visual image to represent the metaphor, and creating an iconographic research poem with word processing software, I invited qualitative researchers to make their first foray into iconographic research poetry.

Chapter 3 provided a review of concrete and iconographic research poetry. I traced the development of concrete and iconographic research poetry in recent journal articles, book chapters, and books (e.g., Lahman & DeOliveira, 2021; Lahman et al., 2019; Meyer, 2017; Miller, 2019; Penwarden & Schoone, 2021; Schoone, 2018, 2019, 2020). In addition to describing and interpreting recently published exemplars, I shared some previously unpublished iconographic ekphrastic research poetry (e.g., “Grounds for a Miracle Backstory”) that has promising implications for collaborative arts-based inquiry. Following my review, I engaged in a reflexive examination of ethical tensions that I experienced as a non-Native scholar writing about Native artists and their works of art. At the end of the chapter, I offered exercises designed to help writers develop their poetic inquiry practice. Specifically, I elaborated on techniques suggested by creative writing coaches (e.g., Cameron, 1992; Davis, 2008) and meditation teachers (e.g., Smith, n.d.), who instruct writers to enhance their creativity by writing morning pages, going on artist dates, practicing yoga poetry, and engaging in walking meditation.

Chapter 4 explored techniques for integrating iconographic research poetry in the classroom. I began by providing an overview of arts-based research pedagogy (Barone & Eisner, 2006; Bresler, 2018; Dixon & Senior, 2009). Next, I described pedagogical innovations that embrace research poetry (e.g., Benton & Russell, 2016; Guyas & Keys, 2009; Jacob & Kincaid, 2018; Lahman & DeOliveira, 2021; Lapum & Hume, 2015; Meyer & Helmer, in press; Romero, 2020). Finally, I offered readers a toolkit that they can use to incorporate iconographic research poetry into their qualitative research courses. In the toolkit, I adapted techniques developed by writers who teach (e.g., Addonizio, 2009; Cohen, 2009; Padgett, 2000) in an effort to generate poetry-centered exercises for the classroom. I suggested that qualitative research instructors could cultivate creativity in the research methods classroom by prompting students to create a broadside (a poem incorporating an image), a shape poem with line breaks, or a found poem shaped like a calligram. By encouraging students to begin thinking about concepts like crystallization and alternative representation of findings (Ellingson, 2009; Richardson, 2000) during exercise debriefing, instructors can link creative analytic practices with core qualitative research concepts.

5.2 Strengths and Limitations

In Chap. 1, I argued that there are a number of benefits to using iconographic poetic structures in research poetry. First, iconographic research poems provide greater insight than traditional qualitative analysis because they transform data into art. Second, iconographic poetry is a powerful device for representing metaphors because word-images convey metaphoric structure through visual cues. Third, iconographic poetry may be more easily understood than traditional research findings and conventional forms of poetry because it enlists visual images to help shape the reader’s interpretation. This characteristic can enable scholars to translate their research into a more accessible format that can be appreciated by both academics and community members. As a form of poetic inquiry, it can also be a catalyst for inviting creativity into teacher-scholar-students’ daily lives. For these reasons, I believe iconographic research poetry is a promising methodological innovation for arts-based researchers who are interested in issues such as crystallization, metaphor, representation, and disseminating their findings to the public.

In response to my enthusiastic endorsement of iconographic research poetry, some social scientists may argue that iconographic research poetry does not significantly improve upon either traditional qualitative research reports or existing forms of research poetry. In addition, some literary scholars may critique iconographic research poetry because it is not as elegantly crafted as the existing corpus of found, concrete, or iconographic poetry. Moreover, some artists may have disdain for iconographic research poetry because it is not as aesthetically pleasing as images created by visual artists. Finally, there may be digital technology whizzes who object to the use of static, two-dimensional Microsoft clip art- and icon-enabled images as forms of representation. Indeed, this is the classic double-bind that arts-based researchers face: Artists do not find ABR to be artistic enough and scientists do not find ABR to be scientific enough.

In Chap. 1, I acknowledged the ongoing conversation about criteria for evaluating research poetry (Faulkner, 2007, 2009, 2020; Lahman & Richard, 2014; Lahman et al., 2011; Percer, 2002; Richardson, 2000). This conversation is part of a broader discussion about evaluation criteria in arts-based research (Barone & Eisner, 2006; Chilton & Leavy, 2014; Leavy, 2009, 2015, 2020; Norris, 2011). I appreciate Norris’s (2011) Great Wheel, which identified pedagogy, poiesis, politics, and public positioning as compass points that each artist-scholar can use to situate and assess a project based on its intended purpose, because it invites the artist-scholar to think explicitly about what the goal of their project is and where it falls on the art-research spectrum. Similarly, I applaud Faulkner’s (2009, 2020) Venn diagram that offered a visual representation of the overlap between criteria derived from science and art because it implies that it might be appropriate to evaluate some projects with more scientific criteria and others with more artistic criteria. If, for example, one views poetic inquiry in its broadest sense as “a way to be and become in the world” (Leggo, as cited in Sameshima et al., 2018, p. 16), then it stands to reason that it should merit different evaluation criteria than a research poem that was designed to represent research findings. However, when Faulkner expanded her focus from research poetry in 2009 to poetic inquiry in 2020, she did not address this issue explicitly or adapt her existing evaluation criteria. I suggest that Norris’s (2011) criterion of pedagogy, which refers to the intellectual or emotional growth an artist experiences when they “come to understand the world differently as a result of blending the content to the unique artistic form” (p. 3) might be an alternative criterion that could be used to evaluate poetic inquiry.

Cognizant of the double-bind that arts-based researchers face, as well as the fact that evaluation criteria for poetic inquiry should be contextual, rather than universal, I would locate this iconographic research poetry project at the intersection of science, art, and pedagogy. Because my formal training is that of a social scientist and this book is intended to be a methods book, I am rooted more firmly in science than in art: I create research informed by art, rather than art informed by research. However, because I conduct poetic inquiry, as well as research poetry, and apply my method in the educational context, my branches are growing toward the pedagogical sector. As readers assess the strengths and limitations of this book, I urge them to weight scientific, poetic, artistic (Faulkner, 2020), and pedagogical (Norris (2011) evaluation criteria accordingly.

5.3 Directions for Future Research

In Chap. 1, I discussed digital poetry and installation art as relatively recent developments in the fields of concrete poetry and research poetry. The diverse, constantly evolving forms of digital poetry have exciting implications for future concrete and iconographic research poetry projects. As Spinelli (2007) observed, “poetry is—or at least is inseparable from—the means by which it is produced and distributed or transmitted” (p. 100). If “user-friendly” word processor art inhibits creativity (Farrar, 2016), then the use of new media should enable research poets to generate innovative forms of representation that are likely to capture the attention of twenty-first century readers. For example, kinetic, multimedia video poetry (e.g., Caselli, 2009) is a promising vehicle for research poets who seek to represent their subject in a unique way. The ability to juxtapose text, images and sound would allow scholars to communicate research findings in a manner that would engage viewers’ eyes and ears. Alternatively, interactive poetry-art installations can create experiential encounters that evoke embodied emotions, challenge taken-for-granted assumptions, prompt critical reflection, and invite dialogue between researchers and audience members (Lapum, 2018; Lapum et al., 2014). Because of their immersive and interactive nature, poetry-art installations would be particularly powerful methods for engaging community members in public scholarship.

As I reflect on the myriad directions for future research that would be made possible by marrying research poetry with new media and installation art, I realize that the end of this book is also a beginning. Iconographic research poetry is an emergent arts-based research method that has the potential to spark conversations between social scientists, poets, artists, filmmakers, and digital media scholars. I hope that readers who experiment with the techniques described in this book will use their expertise to improve my proposed methodology and continue to expand the boundaries of what we know to be research poetry and poetic inquiry. I invite you to contact me if you would like to share your thoughts and feelings about this book. I look forward to the possibility of engaging in dialogue with you in order to further the advancement of iconographic research poetry as an arts-based research method.

5.4 Poetic Inquiry as a Transformational Practice

In the preface, I described how I made the journey from a newly minted PhD student trained in the positivist tradition to an associate professor who reinvented herself as a creative qualitative scholar and research poet. My latest foray into poetic inquiry—the process of writing this book—has given me an opportunity to share a new form of research poetry, iconographic research poetry, with others who are interested in alternative forms of representation. I believe that this process has made me a better teacher, scholar, and writer. In addition, as I will explain in the postscript, poetic inquiry has enabled me to understand what it means to live poetically in community.

As I immersed myself in the literature about concrete poetry, iconographic research poetry, research poetry, qualitative analysis, and poetic inquiry, I began to appreciate iconographic research poetry as a creative form of inquiry that bridges the humanities, social science, and arts-based research. This transdisciplinary context allowed me to understand and explicate my approach to creating iconographic research poetry in a new way—not only as a creative process that I had employed in my own research, but also as a scientific and arts-based research method that I could teach to others. In sharing my passion for poetry with others, I initiated a dialogue in my local and global communities about the power of concrete and iconographic research poetry—and also the empowering aspect of transforming ourselves by reinventing what we do and how we do it. I vowed never again to lock my creativity away in a time capsule.

I hope that you will consider iconographic research poetry as a starting point for the next leg of your lifelong journey as a teacher-scholar-student. My experience leads me to believe that iconographic research poetry can be a powerful catalyst for reinventing who you are, what you do, and how you do it. After having read this book, I hope that you will feel motivated to produce your own creative work, as well as to share what you have learned with others. I envision that you or one of your students will adapt the methods in this book, thereby advancing iconographic research poetry as an arts-based research and pedagogical method.

5.5 Additional Resources

In addition to the scholarly sources cited in the writing exercises at the end of each chapter, I encourage you to consult the following scholarly books, journal articles, videos, websites, and children’s books to learn more about concrete and digital poetry, as well as poetic inquiry:

American Educational Research Association. (n.d.) Arts-Based Ed Research (ABER) Special Interest Group. https://abersigaera.weebly.com/

Getty Museum. (2013, April 10). How to make a visual poem. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWpMB6gmBYA

Getty Research Institute. (n.d.) Concrete poetry: Words and sounds in graphic space. Retrieved on 7 February 2019 from https://www.getty.edu/research/exhibitions_events/exhibitions/concrete_poetry/

Getty Research Institute. (May 25, 2017). “Paper pear paper”: Charting the course of concrete poetry. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncduah3RNXg

International Congress on Qualitative Inquiry (n.d.). SIG in Arts-Based Research. https://icqi.org/sig-in-arts-based-research/

International Symposium on Poetic Inquiry (n.d.) https://www.poeticinquiry.ca/

Janeczko, P., & Raschka, C. (2005). A poke in the I : A selection of concrete poems. Candlewick Press.

Kapell, D., & Steenland, S. (1998). Kids’ magnetic poetry book and creativity kit. Workman Publishing.

McGill University. (n.d.) Artful Inquiry Research Group (AIRG). https://www.mcgill.ca/artful-inquiry/airg

Moving Poems (n.d.) The best poetry videos on the web. https://movingpoems.com/

Poem Generator. (n.d.) Create a concrete poem. Retrieved on 7 February 2019 from https://www.poem-generator.org.uk/concrete/

Sackner Archive of Concrete and Visual Poetry. (n.d.) The Sackner archive of concrete and visual poetry. Retrieved on 7 February 2019 from http://ww3.rediscov.com/sacknerarchives/Welcome.aspx

Sark (1993). Sark’s journal and play!book: A place to dream while awake. Celestial Arts.

TED-Ed. (n.d.) There’s a poem for that. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJicmE8fK0Egxi0hgy5Tw-NFyLcpJ4bzJ

Ubuweb. (n.d.). UbuWeb: All avant-garde. http://www.ubu.com/

University of Pennsylvania. (n.d.). Electronic Poetry Center. https://writing.upenn.edu/epc/

University of Pittsburg. (2019). Latin American concrete poetry and artists’ books: Additional resources. https://pitt.libguides.com/latinamericanconcretepoetry/additionalresources

Vispo. (n.d.) Vispo~Langu(im)age: Experimental visual poetry, literary programming, and essays on new media by Jim Andrews. https://vispo.com/index2.html

As the children’s books and Sark’s journal illustrate, concrete poetry is an inherently playful practice. At the same time that you integrate concrete and iconographic research poetry into your life as a teacher-scholar-student, make sure that you also cultivate your sense of playfulness: Remember that “play is fun, first of all, a concept that often gets lost as we work in academia” (Ellingson, 2009, p. 81). Toward that end, remain open-minded and open-hearted. Don’t take yourself too seriously. Give yourself permission to play. Be creative!