Ruth
Leary, Chris
Bilton, Hannah Grainger Clemson, Nike Jung, Robert O’Toole,
Steven Ranford
Abstract:
In
November 2013 the
Institute of Advanced Studies (University of Warwick) hosted a meeting
of
interdisciplinary colleagues interested in Creative Research Methods.
The
aspirations were to kick-start the debate at Warwick and create a
platform from
which researchers can develop projects that embrace new forms of
intellectual enquiry
and knowledge production. Following the meeting, several of the
attendees
agreed to develop some of the discussion points and briefly responded
to a
number of questions in an online document over a period of a few weeks.
This
paper is the result of that real space and online collaboration.
Keywords:
creativity;
research methods; play; technology
Reflective
Discussion:
The
meeting took the form of small-group brainstorming, feeding back, and
then
continuing the discussion over some creative activities, including
origami.
Image: Martin Jackson 2005, http://origami.island-three.net/index.html
Following
the
meeting, several of the attendees agreed to develop some of the
discussion
points. In the spirit of experimenting with alternative modes of
communication,
they briefly responded to a number of questions in an online document
over a
period of a few weeks, resulting in the following discussion. The
content and
format has been edited only in a minor way to retain the dialogic
style. The
group welcomes any comments or feedback from readers - responding
either to the
questions or the ideas.
Contributors
(in alphabetical order): CB - Chris Bilton, Director
of the Centre
for Cultural Policy Studies ; HGC - Hannah Grainger Clemson,
Research Fellow in the Institute of
Advanced Study / Centre for Educational Studies; NJ - Nike Jung, PhD
student in the Department of Film & Television; RL
- Ruth Leary, Senior
Teaching Fellow at the Centre for
Cultural Policy Studies ; RO - Robert O’Toole , Senior
Academic
Technologist & PhD student, Cultural
Policy Studies/Centre for
Education Studies/IT Services; SR - Steven Ranford, Senior
Academic Technologist for
the Faculty of Arts.
1. When
we say ‘creative’ research methods, do we mean
‘arts–based’?
HGC: I
don’t think this
is exclusively arts-based, as creative to me means trying new forms and
approaches to solve problems. I think that when working visually and
kinaesthetically
one wants to find research methods that suit and embrace that.
NJ: For
me, creative
means forgetting the rules—for a moment—to experiment and
focus more on the
process and the attempt, rather than the result, and this flow-state
can
obviously also be achieved without any art: it’s more related to
freedom from
confinement but also from immediate criticism.
CB:
Creativity is an
overused term of course, but in this context I think we’re mainly
using this as
shorthand for anything outside the normal frameworks of academic
research and
writing. Going a bit further, creativity theory stresses
bisociation—combining
different frames of reference or thinking styles in unexpected but
valuable
ways, so I think working across disciplinary boundaries comes into play
as
well.
HGC:
Isn’t this quite
dangerous, if we have not properly mastered the tools of that other
discipline? Perhaps by crossing said
boundaries, we are
also crossing out of the realm of academia as being specialist
knowledge and
skills.
CB:
Boundaries are
essential to any creative process. ‘Thinking outside the
box’ is not a helpful
term here, and expertise within a domain is still important. I’m
talking more
about combining ways of seeing and thinking, rather than
transdisciplinarity.
Bisociation could happen by combining different paradigms within an
academic
discipline, not just by importing some artistic methods from outside.
RL: I
worry about not
having properly mastered the tools of ‘that other
discipline’. If we’re talking
about a transdisciplinary approach, that’s when we should be
inviting
practitioners to work with us to develop approaches that are both
authentic (to
the discipline) and rigorous. By creative, I’m also thinking
about how we
facilitate the expression of other forms of intelligence, beyond the
linguistic
and logical, that more conventional approaches tend to favour.
2. What
has to change in order to legitimise new forms of
enquiry?
RO: We
have very few,
if any, spaces that can be ‘occupied’ by a project over a
length of time (that
is, for longer than a single session on a single day). Creative
projects
benefit from having a base that can be filled with inspiring and
challenging
materials (for example, posted on the walls and annotated with post-it
notes,
and in which prototypes and finished products may be developed,
interacted with
and tested-out. Not having such spaces significantly affects the shape
and
depth of projects. For example, when a project is hosted in its own
space, a
wider range of participants are able to access it and contribute.
Therefore, this
allows a wider range of experiences to be represented in the collection
of
inspirations/challenges, and gets more people to interact with
prototypes. By
restricting participation to time-limited slots, the possibility of
‘legitimate
peripheral participation’, with all of its direct and collateral
benefits,
becomes much less likely. For practitioners of ‘participatory
design’ and ‘design
thinking’ approaches, project spaces are essential. See for
example Brown’s
2008 paper on ‘Design Thinking’ for an account of the IDEO
3 Spaces approach.
There are also significant similarities between such project spaces and
scientific laboratories. This may help in drawing scientists into
creative collaborations,
working in spaces that are more familiar to them than the traditional
Arts
seminar.
HGC:
Does this come
down to academic snobbery and even naivety? In his book, Practice
as research in the arts: Principles, protocols, pedagogies,
resistances, Nelson (2013)
states:
Limited
attention has
been paid to the institutional constraints that in some instances have
hindered
the development of PaR [Practice as Research]. These range from strong
academic
traditions which privilege theory, to divisions between theory and
practice in
the very structures of education (university vs. art
school/conservatoire), and
regulatory frameworks which in some instances effectively exclude PaR
by
inscribing ‘the scientific method’ into research
regulations. (2013:5)
RO:
Where
participatory approaches seek to connect with and transform diverse
communities
(for example, connecting together the Arts and Sciences), project
spaces need
to be embedded and open. Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hilgren (2012) give
a good
account of this approach, and how they used a set of interconnected
embedded
design spaces to link together disparate communities. These approaches
are
essential when addressing complex, ill-defined, multi-perspectival,
non-linear
problems of the kind described by designers as ‘wicked
problems’ (Buchanan
1992). However! This poses a significant challenge to conventional
university
infrastructures, which are oriented towards disconnected and almost
disembodied
teaching events. My view (based on my research) is that universities
that are
able to change their orientation from the generic lecture theatre to
the
creative project space have a significant advantage. Universities that
are
locked-into the lecture/seminar/own-study triad (building ever bigger
lecture
theatres) will struggle to adapt to the requirements of a
creative-designerly
economy. Drawing upon disciplines that already work in these ways is an
essential strategy in achieving this turnaround (Theatre, Creative
Writing,
Architecture, etc.). But! Online digital spaces, when designed really,
really
well (and I’m not convinced we have anything good enough yet)
could do a
similar job.
HGC: As
a journal
editor, I am constantly encouraging authors to incorporate a range of
ways of
expressing and sharing data. Publishing online facilitates this and I
think if
the outputs shift in form, then the enquiries that lead to them will
have the
freedom to do so.
RL: I
agree there
could be a degree of academic snobbery and naivety at play here. There
is a
danger that the academy sees itself as the place of those who think,
which does
practitioners—who are equally as reflective and intellectually
engaged with
their work—a huge injustice. Collaborative working and knowledge
sharing
practices tend to place less emphasis on the role of the expert, which
means a
rethink of attitudes and priorities. We are already seeing this
reflected in
the debate about open publishing.
3. Does
the role of the researcher have to change with a more
creative methodology?
NJ: The
role of
everyone and everything involved would change - and that is scary, and
maybe
uncomfortable, because it is something new, where the rules and the
correct way
of proceeding are not yet fixed. And we are trained to avoid
‘failure’ at all
costs.
CB: I
think any
‘creative’ methodology - like creative practice - will
involve a bit more risk,
putting one’s personality on the line and the risk of appearing
ridiculous. The
approach may be more participatory too with the researcher as
orchestrator /
facilitator, rather than sole author - a surrender of authority on all
sides.
And because of the embarrassment potential, the researcher may need to
reassure
and prompt, encouraging participants to dive in without too much
forethought.
SR:
Does a pattern of starting by defining the ‘research
question’ hinder the ability for more explorative and creative
research
methods? Are there other approaches that could be explored that lead to
more
creative methodologies? Is there institutional pressure for research to
fit into
a nicely framed research question; is it a deeply ingrained habit, or
do we
need it for our brains to process and function in the research space?
HGC: So
are we
talking about barriers at an institutional level or an individual
researcher
level? In my experience there is a challenge in that the kinds of
methods we
employ often involve both a more subjective placing of the researcher
and a
re-framing as they mould evidence for dissemination. An example would
be
working with a group of participants to explore places or experiences
through
the taking of photographs or devising a performance piece.
RL: Lack
of
objectivity is a familiar criticism aimed at practice-led and other
‘creative’
research methods but subjectivity and ‘moulding the
evidence’ is an inherent
risk in all research. We are perhaps more practised at controlling for
this
within more familiar research frameworks. ‘Holding’ a space
that facilitates
both exploration and experimentation but also upholds academic values
such as
rigour and critical analysis is also a challenge. This inevitably
necessitates
a de-throning of authority but simultaneously escalates the
researcher’s
responsibility as the agent of a process which is unpredictable, and
therefore
feels riskier for all concerned.
4. How
does your interest in creative research methods
capture the spirit of your own pedagogical approach?
RL:
I’ve been
exploring my interest in this area for some time by facilitating open
space
learning workshops that draw upon kinaesthetic and experiential
learning, forum
theatre and improvisation techniques.
Storytelling, embodiment, liminality and reflective practice are
key
words for me.
HGC: Key
words that
spring to my mind are: collaboration; dialogue; narrative; playful.
CB:
Drawing an image
of organisation, role-playing a decision process or a negotiation,
playing with
Lego - these slice through the more predictable responses we might
normally
have in a classroom discussion. It’s also an opportunity for
students who may
not be so confident / articulate verbally. A mix of methods allows
different
ideas and people to come to the front. I find there’s a bit of
awkwardness /
suspicion at first but once they get going it can flow. Speed and time
limits
help!
HGC: I
agree that
there is always a degree of suspicion at first but we are in the
privileged
position of having faith in these approaches. My concerns are for a)
those
educators who have not had these experiences, and b) students (and
therefore
future researchers) coming through a primary and secondary education
system
which is in danger of losing such an ethos altogether.
5. What
do ‘play’ and ‘improvisation’ mean to you?
CB:
Starting a
sentence before you know how it’s going to…
RL: I am
reminded of
Picasso’s saying: ‘Every child is an artist. The problem is
how to remain an
artist once he grows up’. Improvisation and play mean
(re)connecting and
engaging with your inner child.
HGC:
Both have a
spirit of freedom and of trial and error, where multiple
interpretations are
expected and accepted. However, I think both are still governed by
rules,
agreed upon by the participants (even tacitly) to create purposeful
working
boundaries. There is also a sense of being the audience for each other,
rather
than a separation. This makes them quite close, personal, and
of-the-moment.
Actions can be altered ‘next time’ but the capacity for
profound and lasting
experiences is still there. The freedom to ‘play’ in
research is great, but I
am not sure ‘improvisation’ is tolerated. I’d be
genuinely surprised and
delighted to hear of examples.
NJ:
Definitely a more
interactive, less determined procedure, which involves both mind and
emotions.
HGC: At
the beginning
we discussed how ‘creative’ does not necessarily mean
‘arts-based’, however
researchers in the arts are already in tune (!) with a more messy
process of
discovery. In Research Methods in Theatre
and Performance, the editors, Baz Kershaw and Helen Nicholson,
state in the
introduction that:
Getting
lost, meeting
obstacles or generating disagreement in the methods and methodologies
maze are
intrinsic to collaboration, but these moments of confusion, dissent or
antagonism can be very research–rich (2010:2)
CB:
Getting lost also
requires a level of self-confidence. Or in the case of our students, a
trust in
the educational process and in us as educators, believing that their
confusion
is a creative journey and not merely confusing!
6. Are
we using technological tools effectively enough?
HGC: I
think there is
scope for more integration.
SR:
There is a lot of
potential to be explored in how technical tools can be integrated into
creative
research methods. In relation to both research data sources, that
people are
using to discover insight, and the ways that data is being manipulated
and
visualised. I’d argue that the techniques and mind-sets that are
needed to
effectively exploit this potential require interdisciplinary skillsets,
and are
in short supply.
RL: I
completely
agree—integration is key. I share the frustration that I have a
good sense of
the potential but lack the technical skills to realise it.
HGC: But
is it that
our generation (‘surviving school without Google’) do not
possess the skills or
is it that human superiority and belief in our own bodies and minds as
a
near-perfect window on the world
prevents us ever accepting it—perhaps
both causing a vicious circle? Is this where the arts fall down
compared
to the sciences, who have long-embraced technology?
CB:
There is a danger
of fetishising technology, especially with the emphasis on
‘digital tools’ in
education and the arts. Old technologies (storytelling, visualisation)
can
trigger new ideas.
RL: I
think we need
to be careful here. Artists have often been the first to exploit
technology in
new and unimagined ways. However, using technology gratuitously has
less value
than not using it at all; our challenge is to work out what it can add,
not
necessarily what it can substitute for. Video
didn’t kill the radio star!
7. What
do we expect or want from our research audiences?
NJ:
Ideally, to give
space and time as if it is the first time. Which goes both ways.
CB:
Ideally to be
more interested in the subject than in the method we are using to find
out
about it: open minds and curiosity from
the audiences as well as researchers, tolerance of risk and failure,
all the
things you’d hope to encounter in an audience for experimental
creative
practice.
HGC:
Less snobbery
from academics; more listening by the government; increased confidence
in the
general public.
8. What
place have emotion and lived experiences in research
methodology?
NJ: They
are in fact
in there all the time, but usually not admitted to because we still
work with a
body-mind split.
RL: I
agree. I find
this mind-body split deeply problematic and have been able to draw on
my
background in movement and dance to some extent, but there is scope for
more.
Digital storytelling and visual sociology techniques are helping us
realise the
value of emotion and lived experience and there is an emerging field of
research in memory and affect in digital media studies.
HGC:
Performance
Ethnography (see Denzin 2003 amongst others) interests me because it
directly
gets to grips with the lived experience and ‘re-lives’ it
as a way of exploring
and understanding it, but in a more objective fashion. It is an
alternative to
the singular view problem I described above.
9.
Conventional
research can be democratic. Is creativity just less
‘disciplined’?
NJ: I
don’t think
these things are mutually exclusive or opposed.
SR: I
find I’m the
most creative when responding to the challenge of enabling constraints,
rather
than in a vacuum of rules. Is creativity already the process of adding
discipline to imagination?
CB: I
agree that
there is potentially a false dichotomy here. We tend to work more
creatively
within constraints than without them. And of course one could do a lot
of the
things we’ve discussed here within the constraints of
‘conventional’ research.
HGC: If
we are being
‘creative’ then being new is perhaps going to be less
structured initially. If
we are being ‘playful’ then rules are more flexible and
boundaries are
blurred. In the other sense of
‘discipline’, the more we share of our methodologies, the
more of a CRM
‘discipline’ we can create in academia.
RL:
Maybe it’s a question of timing and
when to apply the
rules rather than a question of being less ‘disciplined’;
purposeful play as
opposed to play for play’s sake. In my experience much of the
value is realised
through structured reflection afterwards - the process alone is not
enough.
10. What
are the possibilities for creative research methods
to create higher charged, political spaces that stimulate debate?
NJ: At
this moment
that seems too early to tell.
RL: It
seems as if
the debate is gathering momentum although until now it has mainly been
the
preserve of practice-based humanities disciplines. Interest in
alternative
research methods probably needs to reach some kind of
cross-disciplinary
tipping point and I think it’s likely to be the use of new
technological tools
that will precipitate this.
Notes
The 2014
International Federation for Theatre Research World Congress will be
hosted by
the School of Theatre, Performance and Cultural Policy Studies at the
University of Warwick, 28 July-1 Aug, when the ‘Performance as
Research’
Working Group will also be meeting. For more information, visit http://iftr2014warwick.org/
Ruth
Leary is leading
an IATL funded Fellowship The Mediasmith Project exploring transmedia
documentary as a creative research method. For more information, go to http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/mediasmith
References
Brown,
T. (2008), ‘Design Thinking’, Harvard
Business Review, June 2008, 84-95. Accessed online at http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/thoughts/IDEO_HBR_Design_Thinking.pdf
Bjögvinsson,
E., P. Ehn, and P-A. Hillgren (2012), ‘Design Things and Design
Thinking:
Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges’, Design
Issues, 28 (3), 101-116. Accessed online at http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/DESI_a_00165
Buchanan,
R. (1992), ‘Wicked Problems in Design Thinking’, Design Issues, 8 (2), 5-21. Accessed online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511637
Denzin,
N.K. (2003), Performance Ethnography:
Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Culture, London: SAGE
Kershaw,
B. and Nicholson, H (2010), Research
Methods in Theatre and Performance, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press
Nelson,
R (ed) (2013), Practice as research in
the arts: Principles, protocols, pedagogies, resistances,
Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan