http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8811-0524
![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This scoping review addresses the issues of responsible conduct of research (RCR) that can arise in the practice of research-creation (RC), an emergent, interdisciplinary, and heterogeneous field at the interface of academic research and creative activities. Little is yet known about the nature and scope of RCR issues in RC, so our study examined three questions: (1) What are the specific issues in RC in relation to RCR? (2) How does the specificity of RC influence the understanding and practice of RCR? (3) What recommendations could help address the issues highlighted in the literature? To answer these questions, we conducted a scoping review of the academic literature (n = 181 texts) dealing with RCR in RC. We found that researcher-creators faced some very different RCR challenges in comparison with their colleagues in the rest of academia. Addressing these issues is important for both the RCR and RC communities in order to ensure that the rapid development of this field occurs in line with the norms of RCR which, nonetheless, should be adapted to respect the particularities of RC and allow its contributions to the academic world.
Acknowledgments
We want to thank Hortense Gallois for her support in data collection and management.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Author Contributions
Study design: JCBP, VC and NV; Data collection: ESH and SMC; Data analyses: NV, VC and SMC (for the “Nature of the RC approach” theme); Supervision of preceding contributions: JCPB, VC and NV; Steering committee review of preceding contributions: BWJ, PG, FJL, CN and MC; Manuscript drafting: NV wrote the first draft, coordinated comments and revisions from the co-authors, and lead subsequent revisions. All co-authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Notes
1. This is exemplified by the funding of the project of which this study is a part. This project was commissioned by the Québec research funding agency (Fonds de recherche du Québec) which had experienced difficulties in assessing RCR in the context of RC. They acknowledged in 2016 that the application of their RCR policy raised particular challenges when applied to RC projects, and that there was a need to advance knowledge on RCR to better support the RC community (see the FRQ call for projects).
2. We are aware of having worked alongside the debates on the “real” nature of the research carried out by artists as, for example, designers who work outside the university setting. While we recognize the importance of these debates, it was not necessary to dive into them to conduct our scoping review which did not have as objectives to solve them.
3. This equivalence between RC and “arts-based research” or “practice as research” may be considered too simplistic. Some authors also make distinctions between RC – where creation is an integral part of the problematization, as well as being evaluated for its artistic merit – and other forms of research in the humanities and social sciences that mobilize creation more as a complement to research, be it a means of expression, intervention or dissemination (Paquin and Noury Citation2018).
4. For more information about how RCR and RC intersect, see Noury, Cloutier, and Roy (Citation2018).
5. We present here a summary of the methods used. For the full details, see supplementary material.
6. The Schlag ! project (2002) was state-sponsored, i.e., by the city of Paris and the French Ministère de la Culture. The realization of this interdisciplinary project (e.g., circus, theatre, and new technologies) involved a collaboration between the Centre National de cinématographie and the Institut de recherche et coordination acoustique-musique (a public research center conducting both scientific research and musical creation).