Creative Practice as Research: Discourse on Methodology

Abstract

In recent years artistic practice has developed into a major focus of research activity, both as process and product, and discourse in various disciplines have made a strong case for its validity as a method of studying art and the practice of art. This paper presents a methodological approach to creative practice as research, and includes an overview of the different types of practice-related research currently undertaken across a variety of disciplines; discussion of the purposes and applications of creative practice research; and the Practitioner Model of Creative Cognition sample methodology I developed through my own creative practice research. The online version of this paper is a living discussion of practice-based methodologies in creative practice research, included as part of the special issue The Disrupted Journal of Media Practice, and invites reader contributions and discussion for future revisions.

Keywords:

• practice-based research
• creative research
• methodology
• auto-ethnomethodology
• creative cognition

Notes

1 Available at http://scalar.usc.edu/works/creative-practice-research/

2 Smith and Dean 2009; Brophy 2009; Sullivan 2010; McNiff 2013; McNiff 1998; Gray and Malins 2004; Macleod and Holdridge 2006; Carter 2004.

3 Available at http://scalar.usc.edu/works/creative-practice-research/

4 It is noted that all research endeavors can be argued to be ‘creative’, and conversely all creative practice can be argued to incorporate research and knowledge development, however implicitly. For the purposes of clarity in this particular discussion, I am drawing an artificial distinction between creative practice and scholarly knowledge as is generally communicated through academic discourse, while acknowledging that in practice, the two can be rather blended. Insights and alternative approaches that can enhance this discussion are welcomed in the comments of the online version of this paper.

5 Both approaches center on creative practice as a primary method of knowledge development. The distinction lies in the role of the creative artefact. For practice-led projects, the artefact is not as important as the process of creating it. In practice-based projects, however, the final artefact is a key element. In my research, I was interested in how changing from a prose writing practice to a digital writing practice affected my process and the narratives I produced. The former is a practice-led element, while the latter is practice-based.

6 When I encountered significant difficulties composing a particular chapter of a prose novella that I intended to adapt to a digital fiction, I eventually found that creating the digital (multimodal, interactive) version before the prose version was more conducive to the story. I discuss this in Skains 2017.

7 In my case, my domain is the field of Creative Writing (both prose and digital); my field is largely comprised of creative writing researchers, creative writers, literature scholars, e-literature scholars, and narratologists; and I am an experienced prose writer (short stories, unpublished novels). Throughout the course of this research, I gained knowledge and established long-term memory in digital fiction and digital writing. I discuss how the acquisition of this knowledge to my long-term memory affected my creative practice in Skains 2017.

8 Mark Marino’s 2006 treatise on Critical Code Studies primarily focuses on post-textual analysis of a work’s source code; however, it is also relevant to approach source code from a practice-based perspective, examining how the practice of composing a creative work through the material medium of code (which the computer then translates into artefact) affects the composer and the work itself.