Research and Creative Practice

Linda Candy

Research and Practice

Research, as an integral part of creative practice, is the centre ground of this chapter. It is explored

through the experience of practitioners in the interactive arts. The practitioners are artists,

musicians, designers and curators as well as teachers, museum organizers and software developers,

often combining these roles in their professional life. Within creative practice, the role of research

is first to enhance personal effectiveness through conscious individual reflection and second, to

provide a more systematic understanding of how people interact with artworks. Whether the

research is carried out formally through an academic programme or not, the part played by the

creation and evaluation of an artefact is a critical element in interactive arts research where

audience participation is fundamental to the full realisation of the work.

The term ‘creative practice’ combines the act of creating something novel with the necessary

processes and techniques belonging to a given field of endeavour, whether art, music, design,

engineering or science. In the life of an individual person, it involves conceiving ideas and realise

them in some form as artefacts, installations, compositions designs or performances. It can be an

everyday or intermittent activity and a life’s work, during which there are many transformations in

thought and works. Practice that is creative is not only characterised by a focus on creating

something new, but also by the way that the making process itself leads to a transformation in the

ideas, which in turn leads to new works. This form of practice does not necessarily require repeated

effort to make perfect, in that sense of the word, although to achieve anything truly novel usually

requires considerable effort over many years.

Research differs from creative practice: we do research when seek to augment our knowledge. The

word is frequently used to denote both a process and a product: the process of seeking out new

knowledge and the outcomes of that, the knowledge itself. For something to be perceived as

genuine research, as distinct from simply gathering information of personal value, we expect it to

produce something insightful, useful or indeed, ground breaking: in other words, the main focus is

to add knowledge where it did not exist before. Research of this kind offers the prospect of

achieving something new in the world and both its outcomes and methodology are expected to be

available to anyone wishing to scrutinise or even challenge it.

Deciding what is genuinely new usually falls to the gatekeepers of our knowledge culture.

Traditionally, when people challenge existing theories and propose new ways of thinking, the

relevant scholarly communities assess the worth of the claims and due course, they are either

rejected or accepted into the canon of knowledge. The contribution of artists to culture is generally

recognised to centre on the creation of novel works. That artists might contribute to knowledge per

se is a less familiar notion, and the idea that creating such works is an integral part of generating

new knowledge might appear to be fanciful to some. However, as we will see, there is an emerging

form of research founded in creative practice that is making claims of novelty, not only to culture,

but also to knowledge.

This chapter explores some of the ways in which research and practice is being undertaken in the

emerging field of the interactive arts. The chapter begins by providing a frame of reference for

practice-based research including variations in scope on the basis of the role of the artefact. This

kind of distinction, whilst useful, is not, however, central to the discussion that follows about

research into how audiences respond to the interactive experience and the rising popularity of PhD

programmes in advancing research and practice in this field. The second half of the chapter is

concerned with the development of methodologies for reflective and evidence based approaches in

practitioner research and the necessity for adaptation to this context. A model of the relationship

between these practitioners’ theory, practice and evaluation is then proposed based on a study of

practitioner researchers. Finally, the question as to whether research in creative practice can

contribute to knowledge is addressed in relation to the artefacts and textual outcomes generated by

the practitioners in this book.

Practice-based Research: A Frame of Reference

Research undertaken in tandem with practice is usually referred to as ‘practice-based research’. I will

begin by briefly characterising practice-based research and then move on to differentiate between

two types on the basis of the role of the ‘work’ or artefact in research. Practice-based research has

played a formative role in the interactive art that is the subject of the chapters by practitioner

researchers in this book.

In 2008, ten practitioner researchers undertaking PhDs agreed to be interviewed as part of a study

into practice-based research in the interactive arts (Candy, 2009). It is interesting to observe what

the term ‘practice-based research’ implied to them.

Practice-based research has allowed me to:

“ … ask questions that would not have surfaced any other way. It has enabled me to connect to audience experience of the work; my own experience of the work (in a systematic way)

“..create artworks, come up with conclusions that have practical relevance to the creation of interactive artworks.”

“ … follow a methodology closely related to the professional practice as an artist I have been following over many years.”

“ …address my research questions through practice and to create new knowledge through practice.”

“ … be more creative and address issues that were of relevance to creative practitioners.”

“ … expand upon all my skills and expertise in the design concept and build of a new artefact.”

“ … investigate the broader implications of (this) earlier work: why that research was of interest to my arts practice.

Practice-based research as perceived by these practitioners embraces practice as its central focus. Not

only is the practice itself embedded in the research process but the research questions arise from

practice and the outcomes are directed towards enlightening and enhancing practice in whatever

form it takes. As the quotations above indicate, the attraction of this form of research is that by

connecting closely to existing practice, it provides a means of exploration that extends that work in a

personal sense, as well as contributing to the larger picture. This form of research is usually set in a

specific context and yet it must also reach out if it is to be perceived as contributing to knowledge in

any way. That contribution is fundamental to the value placed on practitioner research by the wider

community whether academic, public or private. An emphasis on the contribution of research

outcomes to improving practice distinguishes practitioner research from pure or basic research

where the aim is to increase our understanding of fundamental principles without regard for utility

or application to solving a particular problem.

Variants of the term: practice-led research, practice as research, research as practice, have different

shades of meaning in different contexts. There are a number of perspectives and interpretations

available to the reader wishing to explore the subject in more depth and which are listed in the

general bibliographyI. A differentiation on the basis of the degree of focus on making artefacts is

discussed in the next section.

Practice-based and Practice-led Research and the Artefact

In practitioner research in universities, the terms ‘practice-based’ and ‘practice-led’ are often used

interchangeably. Differentiating between the terms practice-based and practice–led can be useful

especially where the creation of artefacts materially affects the way the process is carried out and

the kinds of outcomes that emerge. If the research process is primarily based around making an

artefact, the research could be said to be practice-based. If the research leads primarily to new

understandings about practice, it is practice-led (Candy, 2006).

In the context of interactive art, the term ‘artefact’ is used to denote an object, installation,

exhibition or performance, in any given creative field, that is made by the practitioner during the

research. The role of the artefact in the research process may differ according to the practitioner’s

primary focus of attention. For practice-based researchers, making an artefact is pivotal and the

insights from making, reflecting and evaluating may be fed back directly into the artefact itself. For

practice-led researchers, whilst artefacts play a role, the understandings from the research are

directed primarily towards the evolution of new practices in a given field or organisation.

In practice-based research, any claims of originality and contribution to knowledge may be

demonstrated through artefacts created during the research process such as artworks, musical

compositions, performances and interactive new media installations. A full understanding of the

significance of the research can only be obtained with direct reference to the artefacts in whatever

form they take. In other words, the textual description is not enough in itself to convey the true

import of what has been achieved. In this form of practitioner research, the artefact becomes a

basis for exploring ideas through making. Thus, the research is dependent upon the creation of an

artefact and it is also difficult, if not impossible, to understand its significance without direct

experience of the artefact itself. From this process, both new artefacts and new understandings

emerge. Brigid Costello, Andrew Johnston, Jen Seevinck, Ian Gwilt and Sarah Moss, whose work is

presented in the chapters to follow, exemplify the central role that making artefacts has in practice-

based research.

Practice-led research, on the other hand, does not depend upon the creation of an artefact by

practitioner researchers but is, nevertheless, founded in their practice. It can refer to a situation

where a teacher researcher, seeking to understand how to develop better teaching techniques, first

carries out studies into the nature of her classroom practice which produce results that indicate the

relative effectiveness of her existing methods from which she generates a new set. In this case, the

practice leads the direction of the research and the outcome is something the practitioner can use

and also hand on to others by making it generally available. The outcomes may be communicated

to other practitioners in the form of case reports, principles and guidelines, or curriculum designs.

This kind of research characterises the approach of Lizzie Muller who, in ‘Learning from

Experience - Reflective Curatorial Practice’, describes how she used practice-based research to

transforming her personal curatorial practice in the interactive arts. In ‘Prototyping Places: the

Museum’, Deborah Turnbull and Matthew Connell also describe the role of practice-led curatorial

research but from a perspective that advances organisational, as distinct from individual, practice.

Whilst these curatorial practitioners did not themselves make artworks, their role in the

development of the exhibition and evaluation of such works was a pivotal aspect of their practice.

The artefacts that practitioners create are an integral part of their practice, whether or not there is

a formal research process, as for example, described in the chapters ‘Visual Explorations’ by Chris

Bowman and ‘Art, Interaction and Engagement’ by Ernest Edmonds. These artists show how their

creative practice is inherently one of experimentation, driven by personal frameworks that are

continually being renewed, transformed and even abandoned as a result of their experiences with

new works. The making process provides opportunities for reflection and evaluation but,

interestingly, in a departure from traditional forms of research where research questions are

established in advance, new questions arise during the process of making works. A distinctive

aspect of practice-based research is the interplay between making and reflecting and generating

questions that are addressed, in turn, by further making, reflecting and evaluating, including

systematic studies.

Practitioner research is primarily directed towards understanding and improving an individual’s

practice and its outcomes. What is learnt is not necessarily intended for wider applicability in the

sense of confirming or challenging existing theories or principles. In that sense, practitioner

research differs from what might be termed ‘professional’ research. This term is not ideal but is

used here in order to differentiate research that is carried out from a disinterested (in the sense of

impartial or neutral) standpoint. The professional researcher typically adopts an external or

independent position in relation to the domain of concern and carries out investigations designed

to contribute to the general corpus of knowledge. Within certain domains, a professional

researcher who seeks a closer involvement with the subjects may adopt a participatory or

embedded stance.

Researchers can, of course, wear the different hats of practitioner or professional research,

according to the needs of the situation. In ‘Designing for Audience Engagement’, Zafer Bilda

carried out studies across a range of interactive art projects, a field outside his own, by inhabiting

the space in which the work was taking place in order to understand it better. The outcomes from

his research have given rise to a new model of creative engagement that can be applied to studies of

interactive works more widely (Bilda et al, 2008). At the same time, he also shows how the same

research can yield principles for design that have value for his personal practice as a designer of

interactive systems. In his case, professional and practitioner research have been combined

successfully to meet the different requirements of generally applicable knowledge and personal

practice.

Yun Zhang is also a ‘professional’ researcher whose interest centres on the way that people from

different disciplines collaborate in the making of interactive art. In ‘Collaboration in Art and

Technology’, she shows how she went about seeking evidence from conversations and events that

provided the basis for understanding interdisciplinary collaboration. She drew upon techniques

developed in the Social Sciences (Richards, 2010) in order to develop a coding scheme for

analysing collaborative dialogues. Whilst her research stance was neutral, over time she became a

part of the creative team and they came to value her presence in providing an independent

viewpoint, as Chris Bowman observes in his chapter, ‘Visual Explorations’.

Bilda and Zhang had different goals to the artist researchers for whom making, evaluating and

exhibiting artworks was integral to their research. At the same time, all the practitioners were

engaged in the business of ‘research’. Research is the defining activity here but the word can have

quite different interpretations depending on the context in which it takes place, in this case, the

emerging area of interactive art.

Research and Interactive Art Practice

Since the late 1960s, artists have been creating new forms of art that exploit the power of digital

technologies and have the potential to engage audiences in exciting and unexpected ways. Audience

engagement depends upon the nature of the interaction between people and the artwork, or ‘art

system’, as defined in Chapter 1. To succeed, the art works must be designed and constructed in

such a way as to meet the demands of serious artistic intentions. Artists venturing in this direction

often find themselves in previously unchartered waters where the mysteries of the technology can

present formidable barriers to realizing their visions. Wishing to be able to enhance the full power

of the digital has drawn many into seeking new paths to knowledge, knowledge that often requires

deep levels of understanding that can only be achieved through systematic and prolonged research.

In the interactive arts, practice-based research by creative practitioners is similar to other forms of

research but with some distinguishing features. Different needs are brought about by the nature of

the digital medium and the interactive nature of the form itself. The particular research need in

interactive art falls into two interrelated areas: first, research required about how to design and

implement the technologies involved, where often no existing method or tool exists; and second,

research about understanding how audiences respond to the interactive experience. The second

type of research may lead to insights that require new tools and techniques in the technology. It is

this second type of research that is the main focus of the work referred to this chapter: but first, a

few words about digital technology and interactive art research.

Interactive Art is an emerging art form that increasingly depends on digital technology. Creative

practitioners who seek to exploit the potential of that technology for their art are often faced with

considerable obstacles that have to be overcome. Many go down the route of collaboration with

experts in computer technology whilst others become expert themselves. Whichever route is

chosen, practitioners face the problem of knowing which of the many options they should chose, or

whether or not there is anything readily available that meets the task they have set themselves.

Indeed, do they have to design and build it themselves in order to achieve the desired effect?

The status of digital technology is continually evolving as new software and devices appear on the

market. Nevertheless, the software and hardware available rarely does exactly what the creative

practitioner requires. Emerging forms of art are breaking new ground on a number of fronts and,

making something new technologically, is often as much a part of the creativity as the concepts and

visions that drive the creative process in the first place. In interactive art research, innovation in

the art and the technology are intertwined. The search for new interactive art forms drives

innovation in the technology and, conversely, new technologies facilitate the creation of novel art

forms.

The second research need in interactive art arises from the very nature of the form itself. We have

previously discussed how the essence of such art lies in its interactivity with the audience (Main

introduction page $$). Building interactivity into art inevitably raises uncertainties for the artist as

to whether or not the work enables the envisaged experience. The degree of audience engagement

with an interactive ‘art system’II is a significant issue for those who are intent on involving people

in the realisation of the artwork. The art system is designed to create a framework for interactive

possibilities by many different people; their interactions generate images, sounds and other

realisations of the art systems’ responses that are unique to that situation. In effect, the interactive

experience itself becomes a ‘work’. This means that audience engagement is not judged merely by

how long people look at a work, but, more importantly, how well they develop a sustained

interaction with it and going even further, a ‘relationship’ with it that brings them back time and

time again. Direct observation of an art system in action with people is the only way to understand

what actually takes place and whether or not it is ‘successful’ from the artist’s point of view. For this

reason, artists are incorporating systematic observation of some kind into creative practice. This is

where research becomes important.

Research within creative practice is inextricably bound up with creating works and investigating

the implications of them. How to find out what matters in terms of the way an art system functions

often requires more than intermittent, casual observation. The artist may be searching for deeper

insights into the nature of audience experience that can only be achieved by studying the

interactive experiences at length. This might require learning new methods for gathering

information and analysing its significance. Where this work is taking place in formal research such

as a PhD, it is also necessary to make the new knowledge available to the community at large.

For the practitioner researcher, creating a work and then reflecting on the process and outcome, is

a pathway to understanding some of the underlying questions and assumptions (we might call

them ‘working hypotheses’ or ‘theories in use') that have not been articulated beforehand. The

process of making something can facilitate a form of 'thinking-in-action' that is needed in order to

move towards a clearer understanding. The role of ‘reflection-in-action’, first proposed by Donald

Schön (Schön, 1983), has proven to be effective in supporting this personal process and is

described in more depth later in this chapter.

Separately, and for some practitioners equally important, is how the artefact can play a role in

empirical studies. The interactive scenario provides an opportunity to observe and record events

over time with many people. However, it is important to note that for most artists doing research,

the artefact is not purely 'instrumental' in the process, i.e. a convenient device for gathering

information and thereby secondary to the goal of deriving evidence. Seen this way would be to

diminish its essential ambiguity. An artwork has multiple meanings and although it is possible to

deploy it in the search for understanding through empirical means, this does not suggest that it

embodies a particular kind of knowledge (Scrivener, 2002a). The artwork stands for itself and

there is no single recipe for interpreting or responding to it. On the other hand, for the practitioner

researcher, being able to explore how people respond and behave when interacting with the work

can be an invaluable way of moving the development of the work forward.

Bringing creative practice and research together has reciprocal effects and usually implies changes

in perception about both. In the interactive arts, research is proving essential for artists to be able

to meet the challenges of a complex and difficult form. At the same time, the research itself is likely

to demand new knowledge and skills either on the part of the individual concerned or by way of

collaboration with experts. Art practice that depends upon research for its innovative outcomes is

in itself changed by that research. In the interactive arts research that underpins this book, the

place of formal research through doctoral programmes has been critical to the development of

research methodologies that drawn upon evidence-based approaches.

Creative Practitioners and the PhD

A practice-based PhD is an original investigation undertaken by means of practice and the

outcomes of that practice. Contributions to knowledge may be demonstrated through outcomes or

artefacts in the form of physical designs, musical compositions, installations and performances.

Where university rules permitIII, artefacts may form part of the PhD submission, and (with rare

exceptionsIV), they must be accompanied by a written thesis that describes the significance and/or

context of the claims. Where the artefact plays a role in the development of the thinking,

experiments and investigations surrounding the making of the work, it is expected that a full

understanding of the candidates’ claims for an award can only be obtained with direct reference to

the artefacts. That implies that the PhD submission must include the means to observe, hear and

experience the artefact in whatever form it takes. Access to the full experience of an interactive

work is of course, especially problematic where it is intended to be a sensory or immersive

experience. Audio and video recordings and printed material are poor substitutes for the real thing

and can only achieve a limited sense of the work. It can, therefore, be all the more important to

have contextual material and empirical evidence to support the viewers’ understanding.

The outcomes of doctoral level practice based research constitute claims for originality and novelty

and ideally, these claims are underpinned by a clear methodological position that includes methods

and techniques for revealing and substantiating those claimsV. All of the normal quality standards

of research in the humanities, mathematics and science, apply to practice-based research for the

PhD. It is important to understand that including the role of making and evaluating artefacts

contributes to a broadening of the definition of research, not narrowing the definition of practice.

The decision to undertake a PhD is not for all creative practitioners but increasingly it is becoming

a path of choice for many. The emergence of practice-based doctoral programmes in universities in

the UK, Australia, Scandinavia and in the USA, has come about partly as a result of organisational

restructuring which has driven changes in the way the arts are assessed through research

performance. However, the rise in numbers is also demand led. In the interactive arts, practice-

based PhD research has grown partly because it can be a means of obtaining resources but more

importantly, because it provides access to a community of like-minded people with relevant

expertise.

Many of the contributors to this book have undertaken PhD research and thereby have brought a

systematic approach into their practiceVI. Practice-based methodologies, developed within research

programmes, often become an integral part of practice and continue to develop during a

practitioner’s creative life. These methodologies also contribute to the ongoing research by

practitioner researchers in the interactive arts.

Methodologies for Practitioner Research

Practitioner research in the creative arts is still emerging as a discipline and hence, the question of

which methodology to adopt can be an issue. It means that practitioner researchers, especially

those submitting for a post-graduate award, have to explain their methodology and the legacy of

concepts and ideas that have informed their approach. This is not to say that other research

disciplines do not debate methods and, certainly in the sciences, for example, whether or not a

particular experiment has been executed properly can often be a matter of considerable debate. In

research areas, such as those associated with the natural and life sciences: chemistry, physics,

biology, pharmacology, psychology etc., experimental research design and the techniques needed

to generate reliable results have been established according to tried and tested formulae. These are

shared within the research community, scrutinised along with the results of any experiments, but

are not necessarily explained in detail in research reports. Nevertheless, the validity of claims may

be disputed on the grounds of the misapplication of methods and when researchers find their

results challenged, they usually have to justify whether or not they have applied them correctly.

Outside the Art and Design traditions, in disciplines such as Human-Computer Interaction, having

to establish a new methodological framework is familiar ground. Because the interactive arts are

fundamentally inter-disciplinary and practitioners are continually exposed to alternative

perspectives, there is a tendency to look more widely for inspiration in other disciplines. This leads

to a more flexible attitude to drawing upon the rich store of existing methodologies in other fields.

As Beryl Graham and Sarah Cook point out, because doing new media art demands crossing

"boundaries between technical and behavioural knowledge", its practitioners are capable of

"translating across these barriers" (Graham and Cook, 2010:p. 184). However, the translation

process requires more than a passing acquaintance with the methodologies of both fields. Whilst

art making for audience experience using high-end technological capability means that interactive

artists are well placed to explore and develop new knowledge on the behavioural and technical

front, this does not happen without considerable effort to identify and learn methodologies that

will work for a particular practitioner context.

The methodologies which have shaped the interactive art research described in this book, are

indebted to a number of approaches that have been active in field research for many years.

Disciplines such as management science, marketing research, design science, educational and

health action research, anthropology and recent manifestations of the ethnographic research in

HCI research (Crabtree, 2003) have provided a rich source of inspiration and practical ways

forward. There are two distinct pathways in the research process which inform the methods

employed: first the practitioner’s own reflections upon the creative process and the artefact

outcomes, and second, the search for understanding about the nature of audience experience with

the artworks. In most cases, practitioners combined the approaches and often customised existing

methods or created new ones in response to the demands of the situation.

Reflective Practice and Research

Whilst it is generally acknowledged that Donald Schön’s first introduced the term ‘reflection in

action’ and proposed a relationship between this and the development of practitioner knowledge

(Schön, 1983), the underlying concepts go back much further to John Dewey and his exploration of

reflection and thinking through experience (Dewey, 1933). The period leading up to World War II

and afterwards was a time when new theories of learning and experience were emerging, driven in

part by a desire for change in society and education (or training as it was referred to then), and

also, by a growing awareness of the limitations of knowledge generated by traditional forms of

research, for taking action and improving practice.

Kurt Lewin, known for his development of ‘field theory’VII, coined the term ‘action research’ to

describe a process where the research uses:

“a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about

the result of the action” (Lewin, 1946:)VIII.

This process relies on taking action in order to understand how to change a given situation from

which the insights derived may be used to make improvements. The initial impetus for the new

thinking about the nature of research came principally from education and social psychology and

was later extended to organisational learning and professional practice by Donald Schön and Chris

Argyris (Schön and Argyris, 1978).

Action research has been successfully used to underpin a stream of research dedicated to

improving practice (Elliott, 1991IX) and has, in combination with Schön’s concepts of reflective

practice (Schön’s, 1983), become an invaluable feature of practitioner research.

The basic concepts of action research and reflective practice bring an action-based form of research

together with a focus on practitioner knowledge. These ideas have endured into the 21st century

and continue to be explored and extended further in a range of disciplines from Health and

Management to Architectural Design and Information Technology. Moreover, they have proven to

be critical in the development of practice-based research methodologies.

The concept of ‘reflective practice’ has had a significant influence on the methodological

foundations of practice-based research. Reflective practice involves a process of reflecting on one’s

actions and learning how to act differently as a result. The starting point of reflective practice is the

lived-experience of a practitioner. Donald Schön’s ideas on reflective practice have been influential

because he located research enquiry within practice itself and asserted the value of practitioner

knowledge as having distinctive contributions to make to professional capabilities. He recognised

that what he referred to as ‘technical rationality’ was inadequate for improving professional

development and thereby challenged the existing orthodoxies in research traditions. His concept

of ‘reflection-in-action’ provides a plausible explanation for how the practitioner makes explicit

some of the tacit knowledge (Polyani, 1966) embedded in action and, thereby, learns how to act

differently. The notion that practitioners themselves are capable of bringing tacit understandings

to solving problems in hand, which can then be used to produce well-founded insights, rather than

drawing upon the lessons from external sources of knowledge, was a radical idea at the time.

Graeme Sullivan points out that reflective practice viewed as a form of problem solving that

involves a cyclical process of learning from actions, may in fact lead to an awareness of the

limitations of existing approaches to providing solutions. (Sullivan, 2010:67). Stephen Scrivener

argues from a research supervisor’s position, that to impose a problem solving and solution finding

approach on practitioner researchers in the visual arts and design, is to risk damaging both the

artists’ practice as artists and the culture to which their works and understandings contribute. He

goes on to describe how the norms of a “creative production research project” developed in order to

differentiate between the visual arts and technology have been reframed as questions to be asked of

the material submitted for PhD examination. Does the material “show the candidate to be a self

conscious, systematic and reflective practitioner?” is one of these questions (Scrivener, 2006:173).

Our previous research on practitioner strategies for conducting research has revealed that the

problem-solving paradigm is indeed an inappropriate representation of the creative practitioner

research process (Edmonds and Candy, 2010). In the context of interactive arts research, a central

feature is that of the reflective practitioner’s role in the identification of the questions, issues and

frameworks that emerge from the process of making artworks. A key feature of the patterns we

identified was the almost universal need to create an individual framework that could be used to

structure reflections and actions. Making artefacts whilst adopting a consciously reflective mode of

research, leads to the emergence of questions and issues almost ‘naturally’ from the practice and it

is often a relatively small step to articulate the context and methods associated with practice.

The impact of reflective practice on creative practitioners doing practice-based research, is turning

out to be an important contribution to the methodological grounding of the field. It has been a key

pillar in the research of Dave Burraston, Jen Seevinck, Andrew Johnston, Brigid Costello, Mike

Leggett and Lizzie Muller, all of whom created personal conceptual frameworks that informed the

making and evaluation of the outcomes of their practice-based research. Lizzie Muller explores the

contribution that Donald Schön and Stephen Scrivener have made to her research as a practising

curator in interactive art. Faced with the question as to how curatorial practice might produce new

knowledge, she turned to Schön’s ideas about knowledge developed through action. She observes

that he was not proposing a formal research methodology but aiming to throw light on the way

professional practitioners generated knowledge in their daily work. Her methodology combines

Schön’s thinking with Scrivener’s on the documentation of creative processes. She anticipates that

other curators and artists might value the insights she gained from developing a structural

framework based on conscious reflective practice and the way this continues to inform and shape

her professional practice (see Muller’s chapter ‘Learning from Experience-A Reflective Curatorial

Practice’). Equally, Dave Burraston found Schön’s ideas pivotal in guiding him towards an effective

way of moving his thinking forward because, in adopting conscious reflective practice, his enquiry

could remain open to the discovery of new phenomena, rather than be constrained too heavily by

the initial questions and problems he had identified (see the chapter ‘Creativity, Complexity and

Reflective Practice’).

Reflective practice, as a strategy for challenging existing practice and at the same time generating

new understandings, is a pathway of choice being followed by practitioner researchers in the

creative interactive arts today. One of the most appealing aspects is that it validates their intuitive

instincts within a framework of reflective enquiry. Moreover, it also provides an opportunity to

document the process of reflecting in action as it takes place. Documentation can then be returned

to later for further reflection. How to document reflective practice and use it effectively is a skill

that has to be learnt and practical advice is needed (Candy, 2006). The introduction of structured

documentation using diaries, weblogs and other recording methods is an invaluable innovation

that makes the process more transparent and, at the same time, sharable in those cases where

collaboration is involved.

Reflective Practice and Creativity

There are notable differences to the way ‘reflection-in-action’ has been incorporated into creative

practice compared to professional practice more generally. This is because a major part of the

creative process involves taking actions towards creating an entity that stands separate from the

insights gained from the reflections themselves. This entity or artefact has its own integrity and

value quite apart from the insights. The development of an artefact may draw upon, even embody,

the insights gleaned from the reflections but it is, nevertheless, part of an externalized reality that

invites a different kind of response.

Schön describes the design process in terms of ‘seeing->drawing->seeing’. The act of drawing

enables the designer to recognise or appreciate the meaning of what he or she ‘sees’, and through

the identification of patterns, constructs a meaning beyond the patterns themselves. Thus, by

creating something it becomes possible to design “as a reflective conversation with the materials of

the situation” (Schön, 1992:5). In a similar sense, when an artist creates something and reflects

upon it, the process is a form of ‘seeing’ again. Reflective practice in creativity involves multiple

iterations, which can be summed up as: ‘creating -> reflecting-> creating again-> reflecting again’.

There is, moreover, an important extra dimension to reflective creative practice when the

practitioner researcher chooses to take an empirical route to new understandings. By adding a

principled enquiry stream to reflective practice, based on gathering and analyzing observations of

interactive works live with participating audiences, the process becomes one of ‘creating-

>reflecting->creating again-> investigating->creating again …’.

There are of course, likely to be a number of iterations throughout the development of a complex

interactive art experiences. This iterative process takes practitioner researchers into perspectives

beyond those derived from individual self-reflection. Many of the practitioner researchers

represented here have taken the empirical route in addition, and sometimes in parallel, to the

reflective path. Practitioners who take steps to consciously reflect on their practice and learn from

what they have done, and then go on to act on those new understandings in the form of making art

works, are engaged in ‘reflective creative practice’. For the most part, reflection-in-action

contributes directly to enhancing an individual practitioner’s understanding and working method.

A different stream of practice-based research is that which relies on obtaining evidence from

empirical studies: here, the focus is on audiences and the impact of interactive art on their

experiences. Whilst enhancing one’s practice through reflection-in-action is an inward focus,

carrying out systematic studies turns the lens outwards towards the value of what other people can

reveal.

Evidence-based Research

We seek ‘evidence’ when we wish to provide more substantial grounds for believing something

rather than simply relying on individual opinions or anecdotes. There are, of course, many degrees

of evidence and if we wish to base our actions upon reliable information, we need to carry out

research into what others have found out or, if that is not available, do it ourselves. When a

research area is new, there may be very little existing evidence to draw upon. In the area of

audience experience with interactive art, this is largely the case at this point in time.

Methodologies that represent counterviews to standard scientific experimental method have

proven to be a rich source for researchers investigating complex human behaviour (e.g. Argyris et

al, 1985). In Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), which was, at first, dominated by experimental

methods inherited from Psychology and Cognitive Science (e.g. Card et al, 1983), ethnographic and

qualitative approaches were adopted in order to explore what became known as ‘situated action’

(Suchman, 1987) in research into human uses of technology (Preece et al, 2002).

Investigating audience experience in interactive art requires a research process that draws upon

actual events or what we might call ‘in vivo’ situations, as distinct from 'in vitro' or laboratory based

scenarios. Audio and video data is gathered in such a manner as to provide as accurate a picture of

events as can be obtained. The data analysis that follows must also be carried out in a manner that

affords genuine insight into the nature of the raw picture that has been obtained. All this is critical

to how soundly based the findings are, as researchers into complex human processes are all too

aware.

The information gathering and analysis methods used by the practitioner researchers in this book

were drawn mainly from ethnographic research and HCI research (Crabtree, 2003) as well as

strategies and methods for qualitative research (Richards, 2010), such as grounded theory (Glaser

and Strauss, 1967). Learning which methods are best for observing and recording people’s

interactions with art systems, and then making sense of it in ways that can be applied to interactive

works and experiences, is a significant challenge in itself. Many studies involved observing closely

and asking the right questions. At times, they needed to watch the audience without interruption

and at other times, usually immediately following first interactions with the work, they needed to

engage them in recalling what they did and how they reacted to their experience. To be able to do

this successfully required an understanding of appropriate research methods and how to apply

them.

Identifying well-tested methods for eliciting audience views about their experience of interactive

art is only the first step, however. Learning how to adapt and customise to suit the particular

context is a necessary second step. In audience studies conducted in Beta_SpaceX, asking people

what they were doing and thinking, using simple ‘think aloud’ techniques (Lewis and Rieman,

1994), even immediately after the interactive experience, did not always provide sufficiently rich

information. This was partly because of the difficult nature of capturing the complexity of

everything that was going on but mainly because of the (understandable) inability of the

participants to recall everything in sufficient detail to satisfy the need for a rich, detailed picture of

events. And so, video-cued recall was introduced into interactive art audience research (Costello et

al, 2005). Playing back video recordings of participant interactions to them and eliciting their

comments proved to be a very much more effective method for acquiring such information.

The question inevitably arises, why would a practitioner choose to embark upon a lengthy process

of gathering data, devising analysis frameworks, implementing coding schemes and analyzing

many examples across different cases? This involves learning new skills and being sure to be

rigorous about how the data is collected and analysed and how the results are interpreted at all

times. It bears a resemblance to scientific research with all the attendant expectations of being

reliable and repeatable that is a little too close for comfort for some. An alternative approach is for

an artist to observe audience interaction with an artwork casually and to respond instinctively. If

the evaluation is part of a formative process, the effect could be to alter particular aspects of the

developing artwork in response to the way the artwork performs or the way the audience responds.

What kind of justification is there for the employment of evidence-based research conducted in a

systematic manner by practitioner researchers? Let’s consider the negative viewpoint first. Many

practitioner researchers are naturally cautious about this form of research because it is often

perceived as being overly ‘scientific’ with potential to exert a negative influence on creative work.

Even if we say ‘systematic’ rather than ‘scientific’, the connotations remain of a highly rational

process that is an anathema to many artists. It is not unreasonable to doubt the value of systematic

research purely on the basis of its effect on the creative process. Being a creator, a maker of

artworks, does not sit easily with the business of scientific research. Not only does it require time

and effort to learn the skills, but involves a radically different way of thinking and that in itself

could have a distorting effect. Balancing the amount of effort needed on all fronts is a difficult one

to achieve. That said, there are good reasons to adopt a more structured and systematic approach

to understanding audiences and interactive works as the examples below indicate.

Mike Leggett, a practising filmmaker, came to empirical research with an expectation that he

would acquire confirmation of his initial working hypothesis that when people interacted with

his Mnemovie system, they would reveal their personal knowledge about the organisation of a

moving image collection; from that he expected to be able to compare the types of knowledge in

use. He worked with Zafer Bilda on the analysis and interpretation of the data, from which

graphical representations of the results of the questionnaires and recorded observations were

generated. The initial user-based approach revealed instead, other patterns among the sample

group and a ‘persona’ based view was identified, based upon the individual's interaction

style during an interactive experience. This evidence supported Leggett’s belief that creative rather

than functional approaches to interacting with movies was possible and could be encouraged by

making the design of each system specific to each video collection. It is clear from his experience

that the results of carrying out systematic studies were not only valuable in confirming his initial

assumptions but perhaps more importantly, they identified patterns of user types that influenced

his future designing. Being able to have confirmation of a belief through systematic studies is

helpful but when an unanticipated insight emerges as well, then the value for creative practice can

be far reaching. (see the chapter 'Memory, Schema and Interactive Video')

Brigid Costello, as an artist looking to make interactive works that encouraged audiences to ‘play’

carried out ‘formal’ or even ‘systematic’ evaluation studies of participant interaction in order to

explore whether or not she had achieved her aim. She used observational techniques to study

several of her own artworks, gathering data using video-cued recall and interviews and analysing

the data using qualitative analysis methods and software analysis software in combination with

mind-mapping software. The figures that resulted from the surveys were used to pinpoint trends

and preliminary findings. These were then tested and refined during the analysis of the interview

data. However, that process led to doubts about the value of systematic studies. She expresses her

initial reservations thus:

“I was concerned that the multiple opinions produced by a formal audience evaluation process might

confuse or muddy the artistic aims of the artwork and produce the poor results usually attributed to the

‘trying to please everyone’ effect of ‘design by committee’. I was also concerned that the process of

conducting and analysing audience evaluations might take precious time and focus away from my creative

practice.” (Costello chapter page $).

She found that the results of the audience studies yielded divergent opinions, which needed to be

carefully considered; however, in the end, she found the process “surprisingly rewarding and

creatively inspiring.” Most important, she was able to understand her audience more clearly and

design ways of interaction that were more effective on her own terms.

Andrew Johnston, whilst also acknowledging the considerable effort required by applying

systematic ways of generating results from interview data using grounded theory XI nevertheless,

found it achieved a high degree of immersion in the material:

“The grounded theory methods were useful in improving my awareness of the video material and my

sensitivity to the experiences of the musicians. I don’t think I could have achieved the necessary

degree of familiarity with this material with less labour-intensive methods” (Johnston chapter

page $).

For Zafer Bilda, the value of systematic research is clear. Without the kind of quantifiable results he

obtained from studying several artworks with many different people, he would not have been able

to discern patterns of audience behaviour. By identifying the existence of patterns he was then able

to capture an overall picture in his model of creative engagement. The model represents the

processes that people go through when they interact with different types of art systems and could

be interesting both to artists and to designers as well as researchers in the field of experience

design. For a designer such as Bilda, having reliable evidence is a pre-requisite for constructing a

model of creative engagement with confidence. On this basis, he was then able to devise design

principles for use in other system designs. This might well be the defining difference between the

interactive artist and the interaction designer. Whilst the first is seeking ways to create something

uniquely personal and distinctive, the second is seeking ways to create something with attributes

that serve a range of purposes.

A general point to note is that in developing systematic ways of investigating audience experience,

practitioner researchers were able to draw upon existing methods from other fields and apply them

to their own purposes. However, this is only a first step in the quest for developing a methodology

for practice-based research in interactive art. If artists decide they need evidence about audience

interaction beyond what they can observe casually, this introduces a new imperative into their

practice: you could say a new ‘norm’ of systematic evaluation. On the face of it, this is similar to the

norm in HCI of ‘knowing your user’. However, it would be unwise to assume that the HCI norm, or

that of any other discipline, is likely to satisfy the needs of interactive art. The experience of

practitioner researchers in the interactive arts indicates that, for the most part, developing a

methodology involves adapting and reformulating existing approaches in such a way as to address

the art context. In a certain sense, this requires the creation of new ‘norms’ out of old, existing

ones.

Methodology Creep: from Appropriation to Adaptation

As the discussion above indicates, there are different pathways to articulating a personal

methodology in practice-based research in interactive art. What becomes clear is that it is not

enough to identify an approach and simply appropriate it wholesale from existing sources in other

disciplines: adapting and tailoring to meet one’s own particular requirements is essential. Thus,

adopting reflective practice might prove useful, but of limited value, unless it is adapted to the

particular context through consciously applied documentation of the thoughts and actions vital to

the making and evaluating of artefacts. Similarly, empirical studies conducted using standard

methods for data gathering might produced results with less value than expected if there is

insufficient attention paid to the commitment of the participants to the research.

Instead of simply appropriating research methods from other disciplines and contexts, an

alternative approach is to find out what best matches artistic aims and knowledge and the creative

process itself. This is highly significant when it comes to involving audience participation in the

research process. In seeking to understand whether or not a particular work engages with an

audience in a particular way, it is vitally important that the participants in the research are treated

appropriately. This means not only selecting people with particular abilities and expertise, but also

designing situations that are most effective for keeping them active and interested. Brigid Costello

describes how important her ‘peer group’ participants were to her for acquiring responses and

opinions that revealed unanticipated consequences of the interactive experience. For her, designing

artworks for engagement meant also designing for an engaging evaluation experience. In effect, the

relationship between the research situation and the interactive one was, for the participant

audience, closely intertwined (see Chapter 'Many Voices, One Project').

In Andrew Johnston case, because he was working with expert musicians, all of whom had tight

schedules and were giving up valuable working time to participate in the research, it was especially

important to provide them with opportunities for creative exploration of the virtual instruments he

wished to evaluate. Like Costello, he was mindful of getting the best out of his ‘subjects’ and

therefore, giving them plenty of latitude to explore and experiment for themselves was essential to

keeping them engaged in the research activities.

These kinds of considerations are at odds with studies where ‘subjects’ are given tasks and directed

to follow a prescribed route without regard for whether they are interested in what they are doing

or not. In audience research, there is no point setting up situations that turn the participants into

subjects without regard for their scope for initiative and autonomy. This only leads to boredom and

can have a negative impact on their ability to give their responses in a genuine way. Moreover, if

the participants in the research have some kind of expertise in the field or a vested interest in the

outcomes, this will mean ensuring they have opportunities for developing a personal connection

with what is happening. It is important, of course, to be able to distinguish between the research

situation that is inherently negative for the participants or cases where the interactive experience in

itself is poorly conceived and executed. This is an issue that is affected by a number of factors

including: the design of the environment in which the research takes place, the relationship the

researcher builds up with the participating audience, and the level of skills with which the data

gathering is carried out. This last factor is not inconsiderable: having opportunities for training is

needed and the chances of doing things well are enhanced by the presence of other researchers

with experience from whom the practitioner can learn.

In addition to the above factors, the role of the environment for conducting is critical in this field

where the development of the artworks and audience research are parallel activities. The

establishment of Beta_Space, an experimental ‘living laboratory’ for audience interaction studies in

a public museum, was to prove a critically important development for many of the practitioner

researchers writing in this book. (See introduction to the book and chapter 'Prototyping Places: the

Museum, by Turnbull and Connell.

Interaction between Practice, Theory and Evaluation

Most of the practitioners in this book were based in a co-located research group that provided

support for learning new techniques and often collaborated with one another in the gathering and

analysing of information for the evaluation studies. Having a peer group of practitioner researchers

working together, with similar goals, is a significant advantage to conducting practice-based

research that employs a range of methods from reflective practice to evidence-based research. It

also afforded us an opportunity to study the patterns of practice-based research that evolved over

time. From these observations and interviews, it was possible to describe some features of the way

practitioner researchers develop theoretical frameworks that inform and guide the making and

evaluation of the outcomes of their practice.

The relationship between practice, theory and evaluation in practice-based research can be

represented as a model in which the practitioner follows a ‘trajectory’ or route, influenced by

individual goals and intentions. Each of the three elements: practice, theory and evaluation

involves activities undertaken by the practitioner in the process of making artefacts, developing

conceptual frameworks and performing evaluation studies. In summary:

Practice is a primary element in the trajectory providing as it does the activities of creating

artworks, exhibitions, installations, musical compositions and creative software systems, which

provide the basis for conducting research.

Theory, as it is understood in the context of practice-based research, is likely to consist of different

ways of examining, critiquing and applying areas of knowledge that are considered relevant to the

individual’s practice. Practitioner theory may consist of a working assumption that the artwork will

elicit certain emotions or qualities of experience in an audience; this will remain a personal theory

until it is subject to a more rigorous form of study that involves investigation as to whether or not

the opinion has any truth beyond an individual viewpoint.

Evaluation has a particular role that is defined by practitioners in order to facilitate reflections on

practice and a broader understanding of audience experience of artworks. It usually involves direct

observation, monitoring, recording, analyzing and reflection as part of a semi-formal approach to

generating understandings that go further than informal reflections on personal practice.

Fig. 1a General Trajectory Model Fig 1b Theory led model Fig. 1c Practice led Model

Figure 1 about here: Three Trajectory Models of Practice and Research

Figure 1a shows three trajectory models of practice and research. The first 1a, the General Model of

Practice and Research shows the three main elements: Practice, Theory and Evaluation. Each

element has outcomes and involves various kinds of activities. From Practice, the main outcomes

are Works [W], i.e. artefacts, installations, exhibitions, performances etc.; from Theory, the main

outcomes are Design Criteria [C] and Conceptual Frameworks [F]; from Evaluation come Results

[R]. Under theory, the outcomes are differentiated in respect of whether they arise from

practitioner theory or knowledge sources from research literature. The practitioner ‘framework’ is a

conceptual structure that is used to inform evaluation and the development of practice. Equally,

practice may inform the development of the framework and hence, theory.

WORKS

DESIGNCRITERIA

CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORKS

EVALUATIONRESULTS

Practice

Theory

Evaluation

WORKS

DESIGNCRITERIA

CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORKS

EVALUATIONRESULTS

Practice

Theory

Evaluation

WORKS

DESIGNCRITERIA

CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORKS

EVALUATIONRESULTS

Practice

Theory

Evaluation

The trajectories of practice and research can work in a number of different ways. Where the

primary driver is theory, a framework is developed that draws on theoretical knowledge and is used

to shape the Evaluation process and the creation of works (Figure 1b). A second type of trajectory is

one where the practice drives the development of theory (Figure 1c). In this case, research

questions and design criteria are derived through the creation of works and this leads to the

development of a theoretical framework which is used in the evaluation of the results of practice. In

both cases, the process is cyclical, and there is often a tighter iterative sub-process in which the

framework and practice develop together. This model represents how research and practice

interrelate in the process of developing practitioner frameworks. The trajectories represent

different kinds of relationships between theory, practice and evaluation as exemplified in the cases

described in Edmonds and Candy (2010). In each case, the interplay between practice, theory and

evaluation involved many iterations and much interaction between the elements as the creative

process drove a continuous process of change

Smith and Dean propose a model of creative arts and research processes: an iterative cycle web of

practice-led and research-led practice (Smith and Dean 2009: 20). It is intended to be a

representation of practitioner processes (including collaborative ones) taking different forms with

an overall ‘web-like’ characteristic. This includes, for example, process-driven or goal driven

orientations that may interact and lead to transformations and multiple outcomes at different

points. The stages within each large cycle of activities (ideas generation, investigation etc.) involve

many iterations during which the practitioner makes choices as to which results from the task in

hand are useful or which are best discarded. As they correctly point out, selection processes are

central to most models of creativity. Selection is a key task but it is not only vital to the

development of ideas and artefacts: selection is essential to the process of theory testing and

crucially, as we found, the evaluation process (Edmonds and Candy, 2010).

Practitioners, such as those referred to in this chapter and whose work is presented further in the

book, discovered that developing an interpretative framework is an integral part of the reflective

creative process. A critical question for people making interactive works is how to understand the

nature of audience engagement. In order to progress, practitioner researchers are developing

methodologies for evaluating audience experience and interpreting the nature of that experience in

relation to the characteristics of the works themselves. The research process and its outcomes are

bound to have implications for the individual’s practice and indirectly, therefore, the artefacts that

arise from that practice in the future. In this way practice-based research becomes an integral part

of the creative process and can have life-long durability. However, contributing to personal

effectiveness is not on its own enough to justify the label ‘research’ in its full and formal sense. For

that, the making a clear contribution to knowledge must be evident.

The ‘Language’ of Knowledge

Research is expected to contribute to the generation of new knowledge. Knowledge arising from

practice-based research is embedded in a range of outcomes: understandings about audience

experience, strategies for designing engaging art systems, taxonomies of emergent behaviour and

models of collaboration to take a few examples. And of course, there are the works themselves: the

made objects, the compositions, the performances, the exhibitions and installations.

If designing and making artefacts forms an integral part of the practice-based research process,

then sharing the results of the research may be impossible to do without reference to the relevant

artefacts. However, the creative work exists within a context: an artwork alone, without text,

cannot be seen as a research outcome (Biggs, 2003). As a minimum, a commentary is needed

which frames the context in which the work is to be understood, including the research norms and

tests. The context is seen to be physical, social or cultural but there is another aspect to consider. In

research, the context of a work needs to include the framing of its perception. We need to know

how to look or listen in a very direct sense. We need to know more than which cultural glasses to

wear. The expression of knowledge and whether or not it is communicable in a generally agreed

sense is an important issue when it comes to being able to judge whether or not there is a genuine

contribution to knowledge. In order to evaluate the knowledge, we need a common ‘language’.

Whether or not there is a commonly understood language that is embodied in an artefact, is a

contentious issue.

Smith and Dean discuss different forms of research and their relationship to the generation of

knowledge. ‘Knowledge’ is seen as verbal or numerical in expression and something that can be

generalized to other processes or events that are outside those that gave rise to it. It is also

considered to be transferable (and for that, verbal expression is paramount). However, they argue

that visual or sonic forms transmit knowledge in non-numerical or verbal forms and this form also

needs to be acknowledged if it is to be given sufficient weight in practice-based research outcomes

(Smith and Dean, 2009).

The nature of the particular form used to ‘transmit’ knowledge is an important issue. Some argue

for conducting empirical studies, the results of which are readily expressed in linguistic or

numerical forms by way of explanation. This ‘evidence’ can be understood unambiguously, it is

argued, whereas an artefact cannot stand on its own without an explanation of context. In many

ways, this is fundamental to the whole question of the role of the artefact in research and

knowledge generation. If the import of a painting has to be explained in words, it assumes that the

viewer does not have access to the ‘language’ of painting. However, not everyone can read

mathematical proofs and yet these are considered to be sufficient explanations for those who do. If

enough people know the language of painting to understand what the creator is claiming to be new,

why is there a need for linguistic explanation as well?

The question of ambiguity is central here. Explanations expressed in mathematical form use a

universal notation that is unambiguous to those that have learnt it. Likewise, musical scores have

similar characteristics with, perhaps, more room for interpretation. Without an unambiguous

‘language’ for all artefacts whether visual forms or interactive installations, there is room for

multiple responses and interpretations. That ambiguity is after all fundamental to the nature of art

and its complex relationship to our capacity for appreciation.

The role of words and the role of the elements of art are differentiated by Ernest Edmonds in his

chapter 'Art, Interaction and Engagement'.

“it is sometimes helpful to have a language of words to help one think about and discuss the art. For example,

although the key issues about an understanding of colour are embodied in artworks exploring colour, it is

also good to be able to name hue, saturation and intensity.” (Chapter page *)

For this artist and others like him, having a framework that takes linguistic form is an aid to

thinking that supports the art making. Indeed, as Scrivener points out the generative potential of

ideas themselves is important to the creativity in art practice: "Edmonds then goes on to describe

how he made these ideas be, by creating artworks embodying the postulated properties" (Scrivener

chapter part 2 p$). Thus, theoretical frameworks work in parallel with the creation of artefacts and

contribute to the artist’s longer-term creativity (Candy and Edmonds, 2011).

Research within practice is concerned with the nature of artefacts and the processes used in their

development. The role of the artefact in research is a contentious aspect of the practice-based

research debate especially where the artefact is seen as a significant part of the research

methodology and is implicated in the kind of knowledge that is generated. Practitioner research

may use artefacts as the object of study or as experimental apparatus. However, in many cases, the

actual creation of an artefact can be central to the research process and within a doctoral

programme may well represent the core of the new knowledge generated by the research. However,

whether that knowledge is communicated directly through the artefact is questionable. Whilst art

in itself is not directly concerned with ‘communication’, research that involves an artefact may

produce claims for new understandings that require some form of ‘justification’. The tradition of

presenting an exhibition of works towards the end of a research project is on its own insufficient

for this. If we accept that the artefact can, in some sense, represent new knowledge, the problem of

sharing that knowledge implies a need for a parallel means of communication, in effect, a linguistic

one that can help to frame the way that we view the artefact and grasp the knowledge.

There can be a tension between the practice driven view of research and the requirements of a

university doctoral award. Sometimes the written text and the artefact outcomes do not appear to

connect in an explicit way. This is not desirable in my view: a PhD should, I believe, represent a

unified piece of research in respect of the written thesis and the artefacts. The thesis illuminates

the artefacts and places them in context. The textual element is vital to completing the contribution

to knowledge that the artefact may represent. A doctoral submission should also include a

substantial contextualisation of the creative work. This critical appraisal or analysis not only

clarifies the grounds for the claim of novelty and location of the original work, it also provides the

basis for an independent judgement as to whether general scholarly requirements are met. The

submission is judged as a contribution to knowledge that shows doctoral level powers of analysis

and mastery of existing contextual knowledge, in a form that is accessible to and auditable by

knowledgeable peers.

Contributions to Knowledge

How can research in creative practice contribute to knowledge?

Research in its different manifestations is usually expected to lead, at one end of the spectrum to

better information, and at the other, to new knowledge that challenges existing theories and

assumptions. Researchers everywhere seek to verify hypotheses or prove that existing theories are

wrong. However, research in creative practice has particular characteristics that do not necessarily

conform to traditional norms about the nature of knowledge and how it is generated.

For one thing the practice that is so central to practice-based research is primarily directed towards

making things, whether they be visual or sound objects or installations, exhibitions or

performances. Nevertheless, for many practitioner researchers, whilst the ‘works’ are at the centre

of the research, there are also other kinds of outcomes. As discussed previously, for doctoral

research, outcomes must be shared with others so that a claim of novelty can be scrutinised and

accepted as such.

The outcomes from the practitioner research described throughout this book could be said to

contribute to knowledge in different ‘languages’. There are, of course the artworks themselves:

these are visual and sound artefacts such as ‘Sprung!’ by Brigid Costello, Shaping Form and Cities

Tango by Ernest Edmonds, ‘Plus minus NOW’ by Jen Seevinck, Spring and Asura.02 –

Disturbance and GEO: Narrative Landscapes by Chris Bowman, Save_as (2007/8) by Ian Gwilt

and PEGASYS by Sarah Moss. These works were created, evaluated and exhibited in public in

Beta_Space: the chapter ‘Prototyping Places: the Museum’ by Turnbull and Connell gives an

account of how these cases were handled.

What is important to understand about the creation of works within practice-based research is that

the practitioner is typically investigating new artistic forms and that they are likely to make their

claim to novelty explicit, often in textual form. This goes well beyond creating new content for old

forms. This second kind of outcome, running in parallel with the artworks, is a vital part of any

claims of novelty for practice-based research. These outcomes fall into three main categories:

1. Models, taxonomies, frameworks

2. Strategies, criteria for action/design

3. Exemplars, case studies.

Most outcomes are based on the results of studies carried out using socio-technical methodologies

drawn from HCI and Social Science. They are made possible by the considered use of documented

reflective practice as well as different types of observational studies, questionnaires and interviews.

Dave Burraston, who created experimental music, also made a contribution to the field of

generative processes using Cellular Automata (CA). Andrew Johnston, who made virtual

instruments for live performances, also developed a model of interaction that contributes to the

field of HCI and strategies for designing conversational interactive systems. Brigid Costello created

art systems for playful interaction and, from her research into audience behaviour, developed

design strategies and a model for classifying different kinds of play that contributes to Games and

HCI fields. Jen Seevinck created interactive art systems, as well as devising a theoretical taxonomy

of emergence in interactive art and from her audience studies, was able to validate her approach

and derive understandings about emergence and interactive experience. Zafer Bilda’s drive to

understand the general characteristics of audience engagement led him to observe different forms

in action from which he was able to derive a model of creative engagement. As with Johnston,

Seevinck and Costello, he was not content with modelling the phenomena he observed, but also

took what he learnt a step further by drawing out principles for interaction design from the results

of his studies.

Whilst the above examples, were mainly based upon empirical studies of audiences and art

systems, others were more speculative and exploratory in their way of working. Ernest Edmonds,

for example, devised a framework for proposing new interactive forms, and a taxonomy for

classifying interactive art well in advance of these ideas being realised in future works. Chris

Bowman’s visual explorations were inspired by the relationship between video images of the

natural world and Kenji Miyazawa’s poem, Spring and Asura and the influences of ancient

Buddhist sutras. Ian Gwilt explored the history and potential of mixed reality for creating

augmented art forms and exhibited works that exemplify this. Mike Leggett created a new

interactive video form and explored its implications prior to actually making works with the ideas

that arose from the making and exploring.

These outcomes from research in creative practice represent a wide variety of contributions to

culture and knowledge. The artworks and interactive art systems stand for themselves of course,

but also in practice-based research, they are placed in context through written theses and

disseminated in published papers. Some artworks will continue to be exhibited whilst others will

rest in personal and museum archives until the art historians of the future uncover and reinterpret

them. Inevitably, what is perceived as novel today in the artworks that have been so painstakingly

created, will in a relatively short time lose their sense of novelty as newer works emerge and

command attention. Some interactive systems will act as inspiration to others and become

transformed again in new forms. Other practitioners, as well as researchers in different fields, may

also find the models of interaction and creative engagement enlightening whilst the strategies and

criteria for design may be applied in different contexts. Moreover, it is worth remembering that

this research, with its focus on personal practice, plays a role in documenting the individual

creative process and interpreting the insights gained from it. In that way too, research in creative

practice can influence the ideas and actions of others who come afterwards and inform the general

area of creativity research.

In the chapters that follow, practitioner researchers explore the varied dimensions of their creative

work and how research has played a part in expanding their knowledge of how to reflect, observe

and evaluate as an integral part of making interactive works. But first, Stephen Scrivener presents

us with his reflections on the question of what is practice in art research and how the creation of

works relates to the generation of knowledge. He also takes us on a journey through his career as

an artist researcher who ventured into the world of computer science and came back into art and

design, feeling confident of his familiarity with practice-based research only to find, much to his

surprise, that his assumption about the requirements of research were not generally shared. He is

seeking answers to puzzles about “the incongruence between problem solving and projective modes

of new knowledge production” and, in the final chapter of the book explores the kinds of answers to

his questions derived from the chapters by practitioner researchers.

Notes

I A number of publications have attempted to characterise the nature of practice-based research and to take account of differing perspectives in the context of arts research. A selection of readings is provided in the bibliography for anyone wishing to explore further (see for example, Macleod and Holdridge, 2006, Barrett and Bolt, 2007, Sullivan, 2010, Smith and Dean, 2010, Biggs and Karlsson, 2011). II ‘art system’ is defined in chapter 1 as a system that changes within itself and where that change is apparent to an observer. The physical art system ...includes the audience. III In Candy and Edmonds, 2011, we discuss how the university rules are important and essential vehicles for giving the artefact a legitimate role in practice-based research. These developments have required changes to existing organisational rules and are relatively recent in the history of knowledge production. The opportunities for including artefacts in formal research remain limited on a world wide scale, and those that exist can only be seen as the beginning of a longer transformational process, the consequences of which we are still working through.

IV Even amongst those universities that accept the artefact for a PhD or Masters submission, most require an accompanying thesis, a written text that provides a linguistic dimension to the claims for originality. A notable exception is with notable exceptions- e.g. Music at York University, UK. Where a text is required, the actual form and content of this text varies enormously: from the exegesis that provides a parallel discourse to the exhibition or artwork expounding theoretical influences and cultural context, to the scientifically rigorous argument based upon empirical evidence, usually the results of the investigations undertaken by the practitioner that attempt to resolve a research question arising from the creation of artworks. These differences of approach to the written texts and the relative value of the exegesis versus the thesis in a PhD submission continue to be a matter of debate in some universities. V In the UK, the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC, 2011) defined research primarily in terms of research processes rather than outputs. This definition is built around three key features of any doctoral research proposal:

1. It must define a series of research questions or problems that will be addressed in the course of the research. It must also define its objectives in terms of seeking to enhance knowledge and understanding relating to the questions or problems to be addressed. 2. It must specify a research context for the questions or problems to be addressed. It must specify why it is important that these particular questions or problems should be addressed, what other research is being or has been conducted in this area and what particular contribution this project will make to the advancement of creativity, insights, knowledge and understanding in this area. 3. It must specify the research methods for addressing and answering the research questions or problems. In the course of the research project, how to seek to answer the questions, or advance available knowledge and understanding of the problems must be shown. It should also explain the rationale for the chosen research methods and why they provide the most appropriate means by which to answer the research questions. http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/PeerReview/Documents/Definition%20of%20Research2.pdf

The third element, describing methods, does not restrict creative practice to systematic procedures. The research must have a describable method but the practice may not. Whilst creative practice is often highly structured, the use of the word ‘method’ would often be limited to the less creative parts of the process. This is no different to research in mathematics, for example. A mathematician is not expected to explain how they came up with a proof but they must explain the method used within the proof. VI PhD theses: authors, titles and examiners may be found at: pages ** here VII In Kurt Lewin’s field theory, a ‘field’ is defined as ‘the totality of coexisting facts which are conceived of as mutually interdependent’ (Lewin 1951: 240).

VIII This is how Lewin describes the initial cycle: The first step then is to examine the idea carefully in the light of the means available. Frequently more fact-finding about the situation is required. If this first period of planning is successful, two items emerge: namely, “an overall plan” of how to reach the objective and secondly, a decision in regard to the first step of action. Usually this planning has also somewhat modified the original idea. (ibid.: 205) IX Elliott (1991) develops an interpretation of action research as a form of teacher professional development which has affinities with 'reflective practice'. Chapter 6, 'A practical guide to action research' builds a model based on Lewin's work.

X Beta_Space: Exhibiting and evaluating space at the Powerhouse Museum Sydney: http://www.betaspace.net.au/content/view/12/36/ XI Grounded Theory is the systematic generation of theory from systematic research. It is a set of rigorous research procedures leading to the emergence of conceptual categories. These concepts/categories are related to each other as a theoretical explanation of the action(s) that continually resolves the main concern of the participants in a substantive area. http://www.groundedtheory.com/what-is-gt.aspx