Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Artistic Practice Research?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Artists in the University

Abstract

Underlying personal beliefs about the relationship between artistic practice and research can influence how research management systems are designed, how individuals approach the task of evaluating artistic research and for artistic researchers themselves, the degree to which they engage with the university research agenda. This chapter explores three broad stances in relation to this relationship: that artistic practice fundamentally different from research, that artistic practice meets the criteria defining research and that artistic practice is a form of legitimate research that differs in process and output. It explores how artistic researchers themselves understand and recognise when artistic work constitutes research and the challenges that artistic research brings to traditional university expectations and practices in research management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example: Popper (1935) Logic der Forschung. Verlag von Julius Springer, Vienna, Austria: Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962; Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience, Minton Balch, New York; Dewey J (1960) The Quest for certainty, Capricorn books New York; Snow, C.P. (1959). Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Encounter, 12, 17–24; Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: selected essays (vol. 5019). Basic Books; Eisner, E.W. (1981). On the Differences between Scientific and Artistic Approaches to Qualitative Research. Educational Researcher, 10(4), 5–9; Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

References

  • Andersson, E. (2009). Fine science and social arts: On common grounds and necessary boundaries of two ways to produce meaning. Art & Research, 2, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government. (2017). Measuring Impact and Engagement of University Research. National Innovation and Science Agenda. http://www.innovation.gov.au/page/measuring-impact-and-engagement-university-research. Accessed on 7 January 2017.

  • Australian Research Council. (2012). Discovery Projects Funding Rules for Funding Commencing in 2013. http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/DP13/DP13_fundingrules.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2012.

  • Australian Research Council. (2010). Previous Schemes. http://arc.gov.au/media/previous_schemes.htm. Accessed 25 September 2010.

  • Baker, S., Buckley, B., & Kett, G. (2009). Creative Arts PhD: Future proofing the creative arts in higher education: Scoping for quality in creative arts doctoral programs. http://www.olt.gov.au/project-futureproofing-creative-arts-melbourne-2007

  • Barone, T. (2001). Science, art and the predispositions of educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 30, 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, E. (2006). Creative arts practice, creative industries: method and process as cultural capital. Speculation and Innovation: applying practice led research in the creative industries (pp. 1–13). Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beittel, K. (1959). Molesting or meeting the muse: A Look at research on the ‘creativity’ in the visual arts. Studies in Art Education, 1, 26–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell-Villada, G. (1996). Art for art’s sake and literary life: how politics and markets have shaped the ideology and culture of aestheticism 1790–1990. Nabraska: University of Nabraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, D., Blom, D., & Wright, D. (2009). Artist academics: Performing the Australian research agenda. International Journal of Education and the Arts 10(17), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J. (2002). Ways of seeing. In G. Stygall (Ed.) Academic discourse: Readings for argument and analysis (pp. 107–130). Ohio: Thomson Learning Custom Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgdorff, H. (2012). The conflict of the faculties: perspectives on artistic research and academia. Amsterdam: Leiden University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandstadter, J. T. (1969). The artist in higher education. Art Journal, 29, 45–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannigan, E. (2005). Beyond silence. RealTime, 68, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burr, S. (2010). Around the room: A summary of the symposium discussions. Creative and Practice Led Research Symposium. Canberra. http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue8/Burr.pdf

  • Candlin, F. (2001). A dual inheritance: The politics of educational reform and PhDs in Art and Design. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 302–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, P. (2004). Material thinking. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms: potential problems of more autonomy? Higher Education, 62, 503–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth of Australia. (2002). Developing national research priorities: An issues paper. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth of Australia. (2005). Research quality framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia: The preferred model. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S., & Poletti, A. (2011). The new ERA of journal ranking: The consequences of Australia’s fraught encounter with “Quality”. Australian Universities Review, 53(1), 57–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coryn, C. L. (2006). The use and abuse of citations as indicators of research quality. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 4, 115–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coessens, K., Crispin, D., & Douglas, A. (2009). The Artistic Turn: A Manifesto. Leune University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, J. (2015). Composition is not research. Tempo, 69(272), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, R. (2016). Exploring artistic identity and place in society: Perspectives and insights from higher education students in Australia. Creative Industries Journal, 9(1), 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Haan, S. (1998, March 26). The Relationship between the composer, performer and listener in twentieth century music making. Inaugural professorial lecture. Brisbane: Griffith University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2008). 2008 higher education research data collection: Specifications for the collection of 2007 data. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durst, D. (1957). Artists and college art teaching. College Art Journal, 16(3), 222–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. W. (1981). On the differences between scientific and artistic approaches to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 10, 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. W. (1999). Rejoinder: A response to Tom Knapp. Educational Researcher, 28, 19–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26, 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, J. (2004). Theoretical remarks on combined creative and scholarly PhD degrees in the visual arts. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 38, 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emme, M. J. (1997). Making space for good research: A response to David Templeton. Studies in Art Education, 38, 112–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmerson, S. (2017). Is my performance research? In R. Burke & A. Onsman (Eds.), Perspectives on artistic research in music (pp. 27–46). Maryland, US: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorenza, B., & Sedita, S. (2005). The economics of intangible: some theoretical bases on networks of creativity with a focus on cultural, design and science based industries. Paper presented at The Dynamics of Industry and Innovation: Organizations, Networks and Systems: DRUID tenth anniversary summer conference. Copenhagen, Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frayling, C. (2006). Foreword. In K. Macleod & L. Holdridge (Eds.), Thinking through art: reflections on art as research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freundlich, A. (1975). On the university as the best environment for training artists. Leonardo, 8(2), 121–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R. (2010). The known world. In Text special issue: Symposium: Creative and Practice led research—Current Status, future plans. http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue8/Gibson.pdf

  • Gray, C., & Malins, J. (2004). Visualising research: A guide to the research process in art and design. Aldershot, Hants, England Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C., & Pirie, I. (1995). Artistic research procedure: research at the edge of chaos? Paper Presented at the Principles and Definitions: Five Papers by the European Postgraduate Art & Design Group. Winchester School of Art. Winchester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, H. (2001). Research training in the creative and performing arts and design. UK Council for Graduate Education, Dudley: UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haseman, B. (2006). A manifesto For performative research. Media International Australia; Incorporating Culture & Policy, (118), 98–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, M. (2007). Shifting Boundaries and the academic profession. In M. Kogan & U. Teichler (Eds.), Key challenges to the academic profession: UNESCO forum on higher education research and knowledge (pp. 191–202). Kassel: University of Kassel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. (1980). A discussion paper on research in the visual fine arts prepared for the Birmingham Polytechnic, England, in 1978. Leonardo, 13, 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, J. (2002). Creative Writing as research and the dilemma of accreditation: How do we prove the value of what we do? Text, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magee, P. (2014). What Distinguishes Scholarship from Art? New Writing: International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing, 11(3), 400–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2000). What is the place of science in educational research? Educational Researcher, 29, 38–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Resisting the assault on science: The case for evidence-based reasoning in educational research. Educational Researcher, 30, 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monash University. (2017). Research Outputs Data Collection Policy. http://policy.monash.edu.au/policy-bank/academic/research/research-outputs-data-collection-policy.html. Accessed on 6 January 2017.

  • Nelson, R. (2013). Conceptual frameworks for PaR and related pedagogy: From ‘hard facts’ to ‘liquid knowing’. In R. Nelson (Ed.), Practice as research in the arts: principles, protocols, pedagogies, resistances (pp. 48–70). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue, D. (2009). Are we asking the wrong questions in arts-based research. Studies in Art Education, 50, 352–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2002). Frascati manual: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental design. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007). Working party of national experts on science and technology indicators: Revised Field of Science and Technology (FOS) classification in the frascati manual. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risenhoover, M., & Blackburn, R. (1976). Artists as professors: Conversations with musicians, painters, sculptors. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sade, G. (2012). Intractable Differences: Artistic research and the problem of practice. In P. Flanigan (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Research Creativity, Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scrivener, S. (2002). The art object does not embody a form of knowledge. Working Papers in Art and Design, 2. http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/783/1/WPIAAD_vol2_scrivener.pdf. Accessed on 22 July 2017.

  • Singerman, H. (1999). Art subjects: Making artists in the American University. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloane, J. (1963). The scholar and the artist. Art Journal, 23, 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. P. (1959). Two cultures. Science, 130(3373), 419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, G. (2006). Research acts in art practice. Studies in Art Education, 48(1), 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenungsson, J. (2009). The writing artist. Art & Research, 2(2), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trowler, P. (2013). Can approaches to research in art and design be beneficially adapted for research into higher education? Higher education research and development, 32(1), 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Melbourne. (2017). Management of Research Data and Records Policy (MPF1242). https://policy.unimelb.edu.au/MPF1242. Accessed on 6 January 2017.

  • University of Queensland. (2017). Guidelines On Evidencing Academic Achievement. http://www.uq.edu.au/shared/resources/personnel/appraisalAcad/guidelines-evidencing-academic-achievement.pdf. Accessed on 6 January 2017.

  • Wald, G. (1957). The Artist in the University. College Art Journal, 16(4), 280–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. (2015). The white cube in the black box: Assessing artistic research quality in multi-disciplinary academic panels. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2015, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D., Bennett, D., & Blom, D. (2010). The interface between arts practice and research: attitudes and perceptions of Australian artist-academics. Higher Education Research and Development, 29(4), 461–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, L. (2005). Is impact a measure of quality? Producing quality research and producing quality indicators of research in Australia. Paper presented at the AARE Focus Conference on ‘Quality in Education Research: directions in policy and practice’ Cairns.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Jenny Wilson

Authors
  1. Jenny Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jenny Wilson .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wilson, J. (2018). Is Artistic Practice Research?. In: Artists in the University . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5774-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5774-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5773-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5774-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation