Introduction

All creative processes begin by establishing an end goal, the realisation of a vision to be. This intended purpose is the one directing a creator’s (or an author’s) experience of immersion in a thorough process of exploration. This process establishes the author’s ontological positioning and their relationship to the desired end result. Moreover, immersion in exploration creates space for identifying the best methods for uncovering and acquiring the knowledge to help refine this ontological positioning. Beliefs and attitudes in relation to the process of bringing the vision to life begin to more clearly emerge, building the grounds for epistemological inquiry. These personalised learning tools help inform the decisions made in the selection of the instruments and methods deemed appropriate for creative production. Alternatively, they can equally help in the selection of the right tools for scientific analysis and subsequent theory building. Thus, the scope of the intended result becomes more visibly delineated, regardless of its scientific or artistic nature. Finally, the ensuing strengths and limitations of these final products create a direct line of communication between the creator and the intended audience. Critiques and interpretations of the works are then issued by the public, in a dialogue that can continuously assess and reappraise these visions over time. In other words, differences in the work of creators and researchers, artists, and academics begin to blur. Their projects, ideas, or theories are meant to be sent out into the world in the hopes of either revealing something novel or in the hope of offering solutions to an existing predicament. Sometimes, the intended result is to spark inspiration. Other times, the work is meant to merely soothe, to offer relief of some kind. Hopefully, all proposed goals take place concurrently.

Definitions of Neuroaesthetics and PBL

It is precisely because of these parallels between the academic and the artistic, between the sensuous-experiential and knowledgeable-analytical that we set out to highlight how the concept of problem-based learning, a present-day pedagogical approach, fits into the wider scope afforded by the field of neuroaesthetics. So, as it is customary to begin all introductions, we too shall begin by describing the explicit purpose of both neuroaesthetics and problem-based learning.

Magsamen (2019) proposes that the role of neuroaesthetics is to “develop arts-based solutions that address real-world issues”. Neuroaesthetics itself is an emerging field resting at the intersection of a wide range of disciplines, namely “neuroscience, neurology, cognitive science, engineering, psychology, psychiatry, public health, design, education, the humanities, and the arts themselves” (p. 5). Fittingly, “in brief, PBL is a pedagogical approach that enables students to learn while engaging actively with meaningful problems. Students are given the opportunities to problem-solve in a collaborative setting, create mental models for learning, and form self-directed learning habits through practice and reflection” (Yew & Goh, 2016, pp. 75–76).

Benefits of Using PBL in Academia and Humanities Research

Arguably, problem-based learning can be approached from two different standpoints. On the one hand, PBL might be approached in a broader sense, more along the lines of a compass in the unexpected process of artistic/scientific exploration, outside traditional academic use, so ‘from above’. On the other hand, PBL is most frequently used ‘from below’. In a restricted sense, in viewing PBL from below, it may be understood as a practical method of its own, contained within specific guidelines. The majority of articles in the literature (Yew & Goh, 2016) showcase PBL as a forward-thinking teaching method. Primarily, it is in educational and various professional settings that the method has been observed to make headway. This is owed to the fact that all teaching methods using PBL start from designing tasks mirroring real-life scenarios or ‘problems’ that require both individual and group management. In essence, the method is a perfect example of how tasks ought to be planned and implemented following the student-centred approach to teaching (Amerstorfer & von Münster-Kistner, 2021).

Yew and Goh (2016), in their review of PBL application in academic settings, establish the use of sequences standard to this teaching method (p. 76):

  • A problem analysis phase;

  • A period of self-directed learning;

  • A final reporting phase.

Problem-based learning presupposes the selection of a problem inspired by contexts related to students’ field of practice, but outside traditionally curated classrooms. Typically, this ‘real-life’ issue is complex, the process of identifying potentially viable solutions requiring joint effort, time, and in-depth analysis and clarification of its scope. It is at this stage, when students need to engage in communication styles and activities (e.g. brainstorming) that favour collaboration and mediation, especially when working in teams of two or larger groups. Then, what follows is a period of negotiation with fellow classmates on individually assigned workload, once a potential solution for the problem has been uncovered. Learners who are aware of their strengths and weaknesses can easily decide their level of contribution in the process of uncovering solutions for the problem at hand. Similarly, students might also find it difficult to easily come up with just one solution. Thus, they might simply negotiate what aspects each of the learners will focus on, individually, before a second round of brainstorming can commence to help identify or narrow down potential solutions. In essence, PBL methodology emphasises the fact that learning is not a linear process and that it actually requires extended periods of time for reaching desired end results. Therefore, PBL might not in fact always be positively received by learners, upon the realisation that when moving out of one’s comfort zone, so when tackling, in Lev Vygotsky’s view (1896–1934), a new Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsyky, 1978), errors might be made, especially in front of other peers or tutors. Lastly, in the reporting phase of problem-based learning, students reconvene to make light of their findings and potential solutions uncovered. In this format, the lecturer/tutor acts mostly as a guide or facilitator for learners, especially in the problem analysis and reporting stages.

At the same time, transitioning between the different phases of the PBL method requires moving back and forth between convergent and divergent thinking. In other words, by engaging with PBL-style tasks, students come face-to-face with the opportunity to practise these complementary skills. Divergent thinking is, in essence, an approach that is best used for “idea generation” (Aviña et al., 2018), whereas convergent thinking is used for narrowing down results through “idea testing and selection” (p. 169). Ultimately, Aviña et al. posit that the shifting back and forth between cycles of “idea generation followed by idea filtering, refining and retention” (p. 169) lies at the basis of all learning and research processes in producing creative scientific work. Evidently, similar methodologies may be employed in artistic practice as well.

Clearly, problem-based learning promotes the development of student collaboration and individual academic achievement, all at once. Successful applications of PBL are meant to enhance students’ critical thinking skills, self-reflection abilities, and creativity. Furthermore, this method establishes the importance of self-awareness and necessarily requires learners to become adept at taking on individual responsibility for moving the process forwards, particularly in the self-directed learning stage. Specifically, the fact that the teacher acts as a facilitator and allows students to freely explore and become aware of strengths and weaknesses, as well as to choose their roles within teams directly encourages learners to act as autonomous agents in the act of studying. This creates an expectation of learners acting as emotionally intelligent individuals, empowered and in charge of their actions, aware of possible limitations, and not afraid to ask for help from either peers or tutors. Thus, the PBL framework seems to truly enhance the skills that are needed in real-life professional settings, effectively preparing learners to swiftly adapt to the unpredictability and challenges soon-to-be encountered in their chosen field of study.

Similarly, the structure of the PBL method has significant benefits in terms of reframing the process of evaluation, an aspect of the learning cycle that can of course produce anxiety for learners. When using this method, students are rated as having achieved success in their respective roles within groups by way of multiple variables, including assessment of active engagement and participation in the analysis and self-directed learning phases, the power balance thus shifting from tutor as ‘expert’ (and much more in control of student behaviour) to tutor as ‘facilitator’ or ‘guide’, available for learners at their request. Concurrently, the teacher acts as a monitor to ensure that proper task engagement is delivered, but the parameters for the successful attainment of goals in the PBL framework are flexible and varied since students are actively involved in the process of problem definition and analysis, effectively co-creating the scope of the problem and delineating potential strategies for uncovering appropriate solutions. Thus, the learners help co-establish the parameters of successful attainment of tasks, they get to decide what role to take within groups, based on self-assessment of capabilities. At the same time, it becomes clear that error-making, in this framework, is viewed as acceptable and considered a normal part of the learning process which is not envisioned in a linear fashion. This aspect would evidently benefit learners in the sense that the importance of being perceived as already proficient in their respective endeavours would be of less importance, this negative self-assessment and fear of being perceived as incompetent in front of peers and the tutor being a regular concern for students (Amerstorfer & von Münster-Kistner, 2021). Hence, an inaccurate and negative construal of the self-concept constitutes a significant impediment that may get in the way of successful academic achievement, by shifting attentional focus from the tasks at hand to processing image maintenance (Van der Linden et al., 2021). However, the design of the PBL framework can diminish the likelihood of this outcome coming to fruition, the evaluation process itself valuing flexibility, creativity, and individuality to the detriment of summative forms of testing (Ismail et al., 2022). Consequently, evaluations done while using the PBL method indirectly highlight the importance of abilities honed over time and that of knowledge acquired through increasing levels of difficulty in task design set in accordance with the learners’ development of skills. As such, the development of creativity, critical thinking skills, and divergent thinking are the mental abilities primarily rewarded in problem-based learning.

Lastly, the capacity of the PBL method to induce flow-like states could highly increase students’ level of enjoyment in the course of successful attainment of task accomplishment. Van der Linden et al. (2021) claim that the research on human performance identifies the concept of “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008, 2014), as a “state of full task engagement and low levels of self-referential thinking (e.g., worrying, self-reflection). Flow is often associated with athletes, artists, or scientists who are fully task-absorbed in order to achieve peak performance” (p. 1). Then, it comes as no surprise that if learners experience a state of flow while solving tasks, they would achieve greater academic success while feeling enthused and joyful to be actively pursuing goals that they establish for themselves, with help from their tutor’s input. Technically, student motivation would be highly increased, compared to the passive roles required of learners in teacher-led frameworks.

So, to reiterate, due to the repeated transitions between group work and self-directed study, due to the complexity of switching between convergent and divergent thinking in the PBL framework, and because these roles and activities necessitate that learners take much more responsibility and gain autonomy in the learning process, problem-based learning appears to contain all the ingredients needed for inducing flow states. Empirical evidence attesting to descriptions of the subjective states experienced during flow, alongside recent neuroscientific reviews of Csikszentmihalyi’s theory (Van der Linden et al., 2021) highlight the connection between such states and the feeling of pleasure. This pleasure is felt while being intensely engaged in the process of task accomplishment (especially when irrelevant stimuli to goal achievement are ignored). This sense of deep enjoyment also results as a consequence of the great success rate achieved because of the heightened effort and attention used in the course of task engagement. In fact, Csikszentmihalyi (2008) describes this process as “joy, creativity, the process of total involvement with life” (p. vii) and even goes so far as to claim that states of flow have the capacity to offer individuals a sense of meaning, by giving them the instruments for creating a general sense of happiness in their lives. For all these reasons, it might be inferred that PBL is seen by educators as a shining beacon of hope for having the potential to truly revolutionise and modernise teaching in classrooms at tertiary levels. Ultimately, PBL seems to harbour the ability to improve learners’ lives, while training them to become skilled professionals.

Challenges of Using PBL in the Classroom

It must be noted that in practice, the transition from more traditional formats of teaching to a student-centred approach is not a seamless process. This is especially true in Romanian-based learning environments, according to the OECD and the Educated Romania project (2016). The goals of the project posit from the very beginning the recognised need to “develop a more competency-focused, student-centred approach to teaching and learning […]”, aiming to support the professionalisation of teachers in Romanian educational settings. To this end, the European Commission is committed to providing the necessary support to the Structural Reform Support Service (SRSS). Furthermore, through additional collaboration with the current Presidential Administration, the SRSS is expected to help modernise the current Romanian educational system by 2030.

The reasons behind the challenges in creating sustainable student-centred learning environments can be, in this particular case, quite likely traced back to the country’s communist past and heavy-handed Soviet-era influences. These may be described as endorsing values such as conformity, strict obedience to authority figures, and adherence to vertical hierarchies of power and influence (De la Sablonnière et al., 2009). Activities directed under such sociocultural parameters necessarily trickled down into the classrooms, with a particular preference towards the use of teacher-led educational strategies. This is evidenced by the difficulty in implementing the student-centred approach to teaching in Kyrgyzstan (De la Sablonnière et al., 2009), a case study arguably comparable to Romanian educational settings, in which the lingering effects of the communist era can still be felt. These effects are evidenced not only by reported student difficulty in adapting to student-centred tasks (Danko & Duarte, 2009; De la Sablonnière et al., 2009) but by the author’s personal experience in teaching in the foreign language classroom as well. The author is currently working as an Assistant Lecturer at the Department of Foreign Languages for Specific Purposes, at the Faculty of Letters, Babeș-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca. Additionally, the author is currently involved in teaching Japanese language and culture to undergraduate students in the Faculty of Letters. The course is designed as a 3-year-module. Thus, the cumulative experience of training students to acquire the knowledge and skills in both standard Japanese and English for Psychology, the latter being a specialised variety of the English language used by practitioners in Psychology and related disciplines, reveals similar patterns in the challenges encountered in the classroom. This is partly owed to the fluid nature of the teaching–learning process, a fact noticeable in both classrooms, and it is also evident because of the complex requirements that setup a learning environment as one conducive to the successful attainment of knowledge and skills. Amerstorfer and von Münster-Kistner (2021) highlight the complexity of factors that need to be considered in maximising student academic achievement, the focus being on ensuring the classroom is perceived by learners as a safe space, where they are allowed to explore and reveal vulnerabilities in front of their peers and tutors (Papuc, 2021).

Thus, building on Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning (1978), students have to overcome poor self-esteem in academic settings, they ought to develop emotional intelligence (particularly self-awareness, social skills, and emotion management) and would also need to practise collaboration and self-directed learning if PBL is to be used in the classroom. In particular, perception of experiences in the classroom is influenced by how much success or how much failure learners tend to associate with past academic performance, according to Bernard Weiner (born 1935) and his social attribution theory (1986). Naturally, this subjective assessment is inevitably intertwined with factors of an emotional nature: perception of classroom or laboratory performance rated by experts (lecturers, tutors) and peers, and accuracy of one’s perception of self (here included self-esteem). Typically, learners tend to approximate and internalise their social role as ‘students’ by referencing past academic achievement while predicting future failure or success, this model is evidenced by research analysing student performance when using foreign languages in formal academic settings (Boudreau et al., 2018; Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2016, 2022; Dewaele et al., 2018). These findings indicate the emergence of two parameters crucial in understanding classroom behaviour: the co-construction by learners and tutors of teaching/learning styles that veer into either anxiety or enjoyment in participation in classroom activities. Hence, when learning environments are designed in such a way as to create safe and fun collaborative settings, the PBL method could very likely be the best recipe for inducing flow states through task accomplishment. This way, learners could benefit from both improved mood and self-esteem in pursuit of academic achievement, and from higher rates of academic success. Thus, PBL could potentially give way for future researchers, artists, and academics to lay the foundation for establishing a robust, creative, and healthy approach to tackling their desired projects.

Conversely, PBL might also be approached ‘from above’. In this sense, the principles of PBL may be used broadly, without necessarily employing the method in a restricted sense, as suggested by its classroom use. In fact, on further examination, the author can retroactively look back on her teaching and research practices to find that the best outcomes in both arenas have been attained whenever principles underlying PBL methodology were deployed. Whenever seminar tasks and course pack materials were designed starting from learners’ immediate needs in the ESP and foreign language classroom, that is when academic achievement and a sense of joy were not only observed by the author but verbally expressed by students. In some instances, this proved an easy standard to set, especially for the students learning the kana writing systems of the Japanese language. As an example, a scheduled calligraphy session after weeks of practising the syllabaries would always lift up students’ spirits and would demonstrate in a fun and novel way, that progress had been attained in the course of making sense of a completely different type of language system. This particular session would also highlight the almost meditative state of mind necessary for practising calligraphy. It also demonstrated the unwavering self-confidence needed to wield the painting brush so as to express one’s inner thoughts by creating beautiful compositions of black ink lines traced on top of the empty surface of white rice paper.

Alternatively, ample levels of creativity and collaboration were utilised in the English for Psychology seminars, by designing tasks (with the help of department colleagues) that required learners to engage in deep discussions and analyses of the many subjects covered in class. It is especially in highly interdisciplinary subjects or environments where the PBL methodology seems to shine (particularly when aiming to perfect language-related skills while acquiring Psychology-related knowledge and abilities). All study pack materials (12 units per semester) were planned to help students become aware of their current level of development in reading, listening, writing, and speaking in English, with particular attention being paid to enhancing the academic and field-related knowledge, skills, and vocabulary. Class activities that required learners to participate in pair or teamwork sessions in which they essentially engaged in peer-learning sequences, followed by ad-hoc verbal reports of uncovered results to fellow classmates were highly appreciated. On one such occasion, students were asked to work together in teams of four or five, to decipher the result findings in six studies. These were articles selected to reveal that cultural influences affect voting for political candidates and affect interpretations of visual stimuli from our immediate surroundings. Learners were also exposed to studies revealing that cultural influences may also affect social preference, our sense of self and identity, as well as the selection of strategies in mathematical processing. In the discussions that ensued in light of exposure to these materials and ideas, and after having engaged in both group work and self-directed learning, students revealed the great sense of joy and meaningfulness experienced in the process of exploring such concepts.

PBL, Artistic Practice, and Collaborative Applications

Problem-based learning (PBL), being an active problem-based solution, exhibits many similarities to the methods employed in art and design instructional settings. Both PBL and art-based learning engage students in an iterative process, where they identify a real-world problem, follow an investigative plan, and produce a public product. They also involve refining and revising work based on critiques and connecting personal experiences and contexts to the work being produced. Furthermore, PBL’s gold standards of critique and revision, and public product align well with the educational arts standards (Taylor et al., 2018). Both approaches share similarities in their student-centred approach with teachers serving as facilitators (Markham et al., 2006). Both allow for imaginative play and generate educational potential regardless of economic circumstances (Kaihovirta-Rosvik, 2009).

Arts is further proposed as a separate educational lens by Eisner (2008), who suggests that its incorporation in education can provide unique lessons that form and content are inseparable, everything interacts, nuance matters, the surprise is rewarding, the limits of language don’t define cognition, somatic experience is crucial, and open-ended tasks allow for the exercise of imagination, which is a vital human aptitude. Considering this natural alignment, PBL can be applied to artistic projects in various ways. For instance, the Vision and Art course at Wellesley College creates a learner-centred environment where students engage directly with the material through laboratory exercises, interactive lectures and discussions, class field trips, and independent student projects. In this interdisciplinary setting, PBL helps students explore the physics of light, the shortcomings of physical descriptions of colour, and the brain’s necessary computations to address observed phenomena, thereby supporting the exploration of artists’ challenges in rendering colour (Lafer-Sousa & Conway, 2009).

PBL views learning as a collaborative process (Dolmans et al., 2005), providing a structured and cooperative environment that can lead to new knowledge and innovative solutions to complex challenges. Therefore, when extending beyond the classroom, PBL can be used as an effective method for promoting interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly between the arts and sciences. An example of this approach is seen in the “Researching Empathy Through Staged Performance” project, which combines artistic practice with academic methods and involves cross-disciplinary studies and scientific theories. The project aimed to balance the different demands of artistic and scientific research, with the former requiring intuitive and exploratory practices and the latter needing robust methodologies. In order to support these diverse demands, the project was developed across two institutions—The Design School Kolding and Aalborg University—using PBL approaches. In particular, the Aalborg PBL Model has been the foundation of all university programmes since its establishment in 1974. The PBL environment supported the research design process and the complexity of the empirical study, allowing for cross-disciplinary approaches within an academic framework (Da Silva, 2018).

The relationship between art and science has been a topic of discussion for decades, with the ‘two cultures’ debate initiated by C.P. Snow in 1959 highlighting the mutual incomprehension between the two disciplines. Elkins argues for a separationist view of aesthetics in art and science (Elkins, 2008), while others maintain that the two fields are complementary, operating across cognitive rationality and imagination with a level of functional interdependence (Richmond, 1984). The preconscious relations between science and art are projected through the conscious minds of individual scientists and artists. Ascott takes the consciousness proposition even further, positioning the mind as both the context and content of art, as the object and subject of study (Ascott, 2000). Moreover, aesthetics theory remains relevant to both science and art, as it encompasses ideas such as unity, simplicity, interpretation, and experience (Birsel et al., 2022). Root-Bernstein argues that scientific formulations are often built on aesthetic considerations, which in turn can lead to new discoveries (Root-Bernstein, 1996). Similarly, the relationship between aesthetics and form introduces new dimensions to creative research and practice (Cardenas et al., 2021). These ongoing debates and investigations have led to the emergence of art-science-technology as a progressive field.

Despite the growing interest in interdisciplinarity between art, science, and technology, there is limited research on how to conceptualise collaboration as a form of creative practice (Dieleman, 2017; Miller, 2014; Muller et al., 2020; Schnugg, 2019; Vienni Baptista et al., 2020). Initiatives such as the Alliance for the Arts and Research Universities aim to institutionalise efforts towards arts and science integrative research, working to develop frameworks for collaboration, evaluation, recognition, and communication across diverse media and different bodies of knowledge (Birsel et al., 2022).

Collaborating with a Neuroscientist: An Example of Artistic and Scientific Interdisciplinarity in Action

The intersection of art and science offers novel opportunities for exploring complex research problems and developing innovative solutions. In this context, Anja Borowicz, a visual artist, and Dr. Adela Desowska, a neuroscientist, have established a collaboration called GestureLab. The project focused on the relationship between working gesture and object, with an aim to abstract the gesture from its context to reveal its meaning and shape it therapeutically. Drawing from theoretical domains of social (labour), cognitive (psychology), neuroscience (motor adaptation, function recovery), and art, the collaborators sought to understand the gestures through/as multifaceted approaches.

GestureLab1 MIRRORING & ENACTING (GL1) was the first in a series of Gestic Labs and it was held in a cultural information centre as a part of the Waltham Forest London Borough of Culture programme. The installation comprised a large booth covered tightly in a black heavy-duty stage fabric, except for the front panel that functioned as a rear projection screen. A projector, positioned at the rear, cast a blue grid onto the screen while relaying the shadow of the participants to the outside. Inside the booth, a monitor showcased a video reel of working actions, carefully selected to encompass various levels of complexity, speed, and aesthetic appeal to enhance engagement. Participants mimicked the movements and their efforts were recorded by two cameras, one inside the booth and one outside capturing the shadow projection. The booth created a sense of privacy while also inducing a certain level of sensory deprivation. The location and aesthetics of the setup attracted a diverse group of passers-by and residents. Participants engaged with the material in a way that reflected their bodily ability, age, and lateralisation. Left-handed people frequently swapped hands for more complex movements, leading to varied kinetic interpretations. Children were not allowed inside the booth due to health and safety concerns, but they were drawn to the shadow and mimicked the gesture spontaneously.

GestureLab 2 BODYWORKS or WORK IN THE HEAD (GL2) was developed as a facilitated session at Chisenhale Dance Space, London, with contributions from experienced movement practitioners. The event was structured loosely and progressed from guided exercises to self-initiated responses. Participants engaged with the same video sequence as part of the warm-up and a non-verbal introduction to thinking about object-gestures. Next, they were offered multimodal material, from instructional texts and images of bodies at work to gestic soundscapes, all distributed across the space for self-directed selection, to be engaged with directly or used as an inspiration into movement. Participants progressed from mimicking to simulating to imagining the movements—exploring, adopting, and weaving them as tiny fragments into their inherent style. The session ended in a lounge space, where participants conversed over cups of tea about the project, their associations, and potential explorations.

Artistic considerations for the booth aesthetics combined layers of multiple taxonomical references. The blue grid became a metaphoric tool, echoing modernist designs and alluding to graph paper for measuring and plotting, scientific analysis, and engineering designs. It evokes early motion photography such as Eadweard Muybridge’s studies, which employed grid arrangements to expose movement progression. Blue is that of blueprints and of the first synthetic colour, Prussian Blue, a mix of oxblood, potash, and iron sulphate. Blue decreases excitement and blood pressure (Modi et al., 2019), and it can slow our breathing. Grid is democratic, extending in all directions ad infinitum, and allows for different interpretations and imaginations, much like the works of Agnes Martin overdrawn with tight-pencilled lattices, with variations of density and colour, hesitant and enigmatic. However, in Frank Gilbreth’s work, the grid, alongside other factors such as clocks, stark lighting, cameras, and observers becomes almost oppressive, replacing natural relationships between workers and their objects with measured reenactments (Corwin, 2003). Similarly, in GestureLab1, the grid too becomes a practical consideration for the neuroscientist who needed reference points to scrutinise the gesture. Shadow, on the other hand, is an image by itself, a moving image, and an extension of an object or body. It is a Jungian unconscious, the disowned self (Jung, 1978), which holds onto the effort of movement, its shivers, inconsistencies, and fluidities—the human aspect. The grid and the shadow in GestureLab abstract and flatten the bodies onto a one-dimensional surface yet retain enough liveness and characteristics for the participants to identify themselves with their echoes. The abstraction wishes to capture the essence of experience.

Scientific aspects for the project drew strongly on the concepts of mimicry and studies of mirror neurons in humans. According to Shaughnessy (2011, p. 47), a sensory-motor experience can be used to retrain the human mirror neuron system, as revealed by research in cognitive neuroscience. In the context of GestureLab 1 and 2, the process of mimicry has evolved into simulation, allowing for a deeper understanding of the mechanisms at play. While mimicry involves conscious and voluntary imitation, simulation creates new rules and generates a novel experience (Bastiaansen et al., 2009; Goldman, 2009). However, mimicry remains a crucial element in human interaction, promoting trust, empathy, and likability (Hatfield et al., 2009). In particular, mimicking emotional signals is context-dependent, and individuals tend to imitate those who are perceived to promote affiliation goals (Decety and Jackson, 2004; Prochazkova & Kret, 2017). Participants in GL1 and GL2 enjoyed mimicking and simulating movements, which may become integrated into their bodies and be drawn upon in the future. There is a distinct pleasure in watching other bodies performing the action—a form of kinesthetic empathy takes place merely by observing (Reynolds and Reason, 2012). This empathy connects individuals to other bodies, to the material and immaterial, establishing affective connections. The law of value becomes suspended on an affective level, empathy grows into compassion (Vishmidt, 2008). This kinetic empathy-compassion is an enabling force, facilitating personal growth and developing sustainable ethics (Braidotti, 2006). By using a collaborative approach, the artistic research into working gestures has been enhanced substantially through integrating scientific methods (selecting gestures based on complexity), concepts (mirror neurons), and observations (reflections on mimicry and simulation).

Copyrights, Ethics, and Permissions as a ‘Problem’ in PBL Collaborative Process

It should be noted that interdisciplinary collaborations between artists and scientists (as well as other disciplines) come with their own sets of challenges due to varying ethical, permission, and copyright concerns that depend on the collaboration’s nature, scope, and context. Many collaborations require careful ethical consideration of potential harms and exploitation, as well as the participation and involvement of various stakeholders with diverse expectations, needs, and interests. Therefore, artists and scientists must acknowledge the limitations and biases of their respective disciplines and ensure that ethical implications are addressed from the outset of the collaboration. To achieve this, ethical review boards, informed consent procedures, or participatory approaches that empower all parties to shape the research agenda and outcomes are necessary. Additionally, clear and transparent protocols for informed consent, ethical review, and stakeholder engagement must be established to ensure the fair and respectful treatment of all parties involved (Farsides et al., 2016). The EU “Trust me I'm an Artist” project aimed to create ethical frameworks for artists, cultural institutions, and audiences involved in the creation and experience of new art forms in biotechnology and biomedicine in Europe. It produced a toolkit for artists, scientists, and institutions that outlines the ethical principles and best practices for their collaborations (Dumitriu, 2018). By following such guidelines, art–science collaborations can balance creativity and innovation with ethical and responsible conduct.

Intellectual property is another important consideration in interdisciplinary collaborations, as it involves the use and dissemination of scientific data, materials, or processes that may be protected by patents or trade secrets. Artists may want to use these resources to create artworks that convey scientific ideas or phenomena, but they may not have access to them or may not understand the legal and ethical implications of their use. Similarly, scientists, engineers, or technologists may want to use artworks to communicate their research findings or engage with broader audiences, but they may not have the necessary permissions or licences from the artists or copyright holders. In 2021, the Serpentine Gallery surveyed over 250 respondents on the legal aspects of art and technology/science collaborations. The survey highlighted various concerns, including limited access to legal advice, contracts, ownership, and rights to use intellectual property. These issues were identified as critical points in such collaborations (Shin, 2021). Therefore, organisations, institutions, and other bodies should develop comprehensive intellectual property (IP) educational materials and online resources to support IP issues in cross-disciplinary collaborations. For example, innovative ways of exploiting open-source principles should minimise the risk of losing IP (Thill et al., 2012).

Yet another critical issue in cross-disciplinary collaborations regards copyrights, involving the protection and ownership of creative works, such as images, videos, or texts, which may be subject to different laws and regulations in different countries or contexts. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the moral and legal rights of creators and users of creative works and to negotiate fair and equitable terms for their use and dissemination. Several organisations and institutions in the UK provide copyright guides for artists and curators that explain the basics of copyright law, as well as the exceptions and limitations that apply to creative works (Artists’ Union England, 2018; Tate, 2016).

In the collaborative project GestureLabs, the ethical and copyright considerations became multifaceted. The project involved the use of secondary sources, such as online archives and YouTube videos, as well as observations and recordings of working subjects, including hairdressers and neuroscientists, in one-on-one situations. In such cases, participant consent forms and information sheets were drafted jointly between the collaborators, and credit was given to the contributors (British Sociological Association, 2017; Papademas & The International Visual Sociology, 2009; Wiles et al., 2008). Field recordings of workers in public spaces did not require consent due to the lack of access, distance, or fleeting nature of these acts. The guidelines and discussions surrounding the rights of street photographers should be referred to in such situations (IOP, 2018; Moussawi, 2017). The copyright considerations further involved the use of Creative Commons licences for the materials used, and the images were presented with aesthetic quality as well as research quality. The project also monitored new guidelines and considerations surrounding social media, as the concepts of ‘private’ and ‘public’ continue to evolve (Anderson & Rainie, 2022; Social Data Science Lab, n.d.; Townsend & Wallace, 2017; Woodfield, 2017).

In summary, cross-disciplinary collaborations face several challenges with regard to intellectual property, copyright, permissions, and ethics, which require careful consideration and negotiation to ensure that the collaborations are equitable, respectful, and impactful. By establishing clear protocols, guidelines, and frameworks that address these challenges, i.e., by solving it as a joint ‘problem’, collaborators can create meaningful and innovative projects that advance knowledge and creativity while respecting the rights and interests of all parties involved.

New Forms of Knowledge in PBL Collaborative Projects

According to Vygotsky’s constructivist principles (1978, 1986), cross-disciplinary collaborations benefit from co-constructing knowledge through dialogue with a ‘more knowledgeable other’. By bringing together experts from different disciplines and backgrounds, such collaborations can promote a holistic and integrated approach to problem-solving, leading to novel insights and solutions that may not have emerged otherwise. Additionally, cross-disciplinary collaborations can also foster improved communication, dissemination of new knowledge to a wider audience, and increased innovation, leading to the development of new technologies, methods, and practices. They can also help to break down disciplinary boundaries and promote interdisciplinary dialogue and understanding, leading to more comprehensive and nuanced understandings of complex phenomena. Transdisciplinary collaborations can promote social and cultural diversity, enhancing intercultural understanding, incorporating diverse perspectives, leading to more equitable and inclusive outcomes. This is particularly important in the context of universities fostering multicultural environments and the global nature of future work (Van den Beemt et al., 2020).

In their reflections on the GestureLab project, the artist describes how collaborations and interdisciplinary work were crucial to the substantial changes in their practice. The collaborative concept of GestureLabs expanded their artistic perspectives and exposed differences in science–art approaches, methods, and ethical responsibilities. This led to a number of discursive ‘soft collaborations’ with movement practitioners, and emerging relationships with a voice coach, a tai chi teacher, a hairdresser, and a ceramicist, which enabled continuous testing of ideas and development of GestureLabs. The artistic practice became a space of daily material practice of ideas, actions, and experiences, where the artist perceived different audiences and spaces, as participants and ‘soft contributors’ were engaged in their practice (Borowicz Richardson, 2022).

GestureLabs offer an example of how interdisciplinary collaboration can lead to new forms of knowledge production and experimentation. By bringing together different perspectives and experiences, GestureLabs has created a space for collective creativity and innovation. This collective potential lies in the collapse of habitual meaning and the opening up of new conversations, which are non-hierarchical and inclusive. One key aspect of this is the shared performance of gestures, which fosters awareness, empathy, and cooperation. As Marina Vishmidt notes, this collective potential can be seen as “the becoming-communist of capital” in unforeseen levels of global exploitation (Vishmidt, 2008, p. 33) In other words, this potential lies in the way that collaborative practices can challenge the dominant structures of power and capital, and create new possibilities for collective action and creativity.

Final Considerations on PBL Usage

Generally speaking, academic success can almost always be guaranteed (Amerstorfer & von Münster-Kistner, 2021) when nurturing: cognitive, metacognitive, affective, social, task, and communicative engagement and whenever classroom tasks are designed keeping in mind the aforementioned parameters. At the same time, both artistic and scientific practice make use of identical ingredients. Cognitive and divergent thinking are utilised repeatedly in analysis, the end product inherently acting as a testament to the creator’s sense of originality and creativity. Concurrently, all scientific and artistic work is intended to reach a given audience, validity, meaning, and reception being co-constructed over time. Therefore, the implementation of the PBL method, either in its restricted form or more broadly, by applying the guidelines and variables of problem-based learning through stimulation of learners’ creativity, analytical and critical thinking skills, as well as by enhancing self-confidence and collaboration skills can only be an asset in academic, scientific, or artistic environments.

Furthermore, taking into consideration the multiple stakeholders, different taxonomies and methods, ethical and copyright considerations, PBL has great potential to support collaborative research and problem-solving in interdisciplinary collaboration. The challenge would be to carefully tailor the process to suit the unique needs and processes of this field. Therefore, facilitating empathy-compassion at not only micro level, as was the case of the GestureLabs, but also at meso and macro levels as well, becomes an enabling force to facilitate personal growth and to develop sustainable ethics. By establishing clear protocols, guidelines, and frameworks that address these challenges as a joint ‘problem’, collaborators can bring to life meaningful and innovative projects that advance knowledge and creativity while respecting the rights and interests of all parties involved.

Thus, the potential of problem-based learning in artistic and scientific partnerships is multifold. Collaborative practices can challenge the dominant structures of power and capital, giving way to collective action and creativity. However, similar effects can be observed at a smaller scale. Due to the likelihood of problem-based learning creating flow states for participants actively and intensely engaged in either ‘real-life’ problem-solving (artistic/scientific creation) or while engaged in classroom task accomplishment, the resulting sense of joy and meaning ought to be considered crucial aspects in developing future practitioners in the arts and sciences. Finally, flow states, especially if encountered on a repeated basis in academic, artistic, or research environments, might, in fact, hold the key to reaching that ever-elusive state of happiness.