Keeping Research in Tune with Practice

Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)

Abstract

This chapter examines the relationship between practice, research and evaluation with reference to the design and development of interactive systems for use in a large-scale dance work developed in collaboration with Stalker Theatre, Encoded. Strategies for keeping creative practice and the associated research aligned with the concerns of practicing artists are presented. These strategies include working with experienced, high-calibre artists, applying user-centred, iterative design and development approaches, and carefully examining the impact of new technologies and techniques on performers’ practices and experiences. Findings from an examination of Stalker Theatre’s experiences with the Encoded systems indicate that the use of interactive systems in live performance has a significant impact on the way performances are developed, staged and structured.

References

  1. Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  2. Candy L (2014) Evaluation and experience in art. In: Candy L, Ferguson S (eds) Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice. Springer, London, pp 25–48Google Scholar
  3. Candy L, Edmonds E (2002) Explorations in art and technology. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crabtree A (2003) Designing collaborative systems: a practical guide to ethnography. Springer, New York/SecaucusGoogle Scholar
  5. Edmonds E, Candy L (2010) Relating theory, practice and evaluation in practitioner research. Leonardo 43(5):470–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frayling C (1993) Research in art and design. Royal College of Art, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Glaser BG (1978) Theoretical sensitivity. The Sociology Press, Mill ValleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Jacob RJK, Girouard A, Hirshfield LM, Horn MS, Shaer O, Solovey ET, Zigelbaum J (2008) ‘Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces’. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’08). ACM, New York, pp 201–210Google Scholar
  10. Johnston A (2011) Almost tangible musical interfaces. In: Candy L, Edmonds E (eds) Interacting: art, research and the creative practitioner. Libri, Oxfordshire, pp 211–224Google Scholar
  11. Johnston A, Candy L, Edmonds E (2008) Designing and evaluating virtual musical instruments: facilitating conversational user interaction. Des Stud 29(6):556–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnston A, Candy L, Edmonds E (2009) Designing for conversational interaction. In: Proceedings of New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME), Carnegie Mellon University, 3–6 June, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 25–48Google Scholar
  13. Merton RK (1957) Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Mogensen P (1992) Towards a provotyping approach in systems development. Scand J Inf Syst 4:31–53Google Scholar
  15. Norman DA (2010) Natural user interfaces are not natural. Interactions 17(3):6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Paxton S (1975) Contact improvisation. Drama Rev 19(1):40–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Sengers P, Gaver B (2006) ‘Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation’. In: DIS ’06: proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, New York, pp 99–108Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Creativity and Cognition Studios, School of Software, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of TechnologySydney, UltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations