Creative Research Methods - a reflective online discussion

Creative Research Methods – A Reflective Online Discussion Ruth Leary, Chris Bilton, Hannah Grainger Clemson, Nike Jung, Robert O’Toole, Steve Ranford (University of Warwick) Creative Research Methods – A Reflective Online Discussion Ruth Leary, Chris Bilton, Hannah Grainger Clemson, Nike Jung, Robert O’Toole, Steve Ranford (University of Warwick) Abstract: In November 2013 the Institute of Advanced Studies (University of Warwick) hosted a meeting of interdisciplinary colleagues interested in Creative Research Methods. The aspirations were to kick-start the debate at Warwick and create a platform from which researchers can develop projects that embrace new forms of intellectual enquiry and knowledge production. Following the meeting, several of the attendees agreed to develop some of the discussion points and briefly responded to a number of questions in an online document over a period of a few weeks. This paper is the result of that real space and online collaboration. Reflective Discussion In November 2013 the Institute of Advanced Studies (University of Warwick) hosted a meeting of interdisciplinary colleagues who had responded to an open invitation from Ruth Leary (Centre for Cultural Policy Studies) to explore their interest in Creative Research Methods. The aspirations were to kick-start the debate at Warwick and create a platform from which researchers can develop projects that embrace new forms of intellectual enquiry and knowledge production. Ruth is currently running an IATL Fellowship initiative, The Mediasmith Project, which is an investigation of transmedia documentary as a research method, and was particularly keen to hear others’ views on the use of digital media and technology as research tools. Exchanges: the Warwick Research Journal, 1(2), April 2014 226 The meeting took the form of small-group brainstorming, feeding back, and then continuing the discussion over some creative activities, including origami. Image: Martin Jackson 2005, http://origami.island-three.net/index.html Following the meeting, several of the attendees agreed to develop some of the discussion points. In the spirit of experimenting with alternative modes of communication, they briefly responded to a number of questions in an online document over a period of a few weeks, resulting in the following discussion. The content and format has been edited only in a minor way to retain the dialogic style. The group welcomes any comments or feedback from readers - responding either to the questions or the ideas. Contributors (in alphabetical order): CB - Chris Bilton, Director of the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies ; HGC - Hannah Grainger Clemson, Research Fellow in the Institute of Advanced Study / Centre for Educational Studies; NJ - Nike Jung, PhD student in the Department of Film & Television; RL - Ruth Leary, Senior Teaching Fellow at the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies ; RO - Robert O’Toole , Senior Academic Technologist & PhD student, Cultural Policy Studies/Centre for Education Studies/IT Services; SR - Steve Ranford, Senior Academic Technologist for the Faculty of Arts. 1. When we say ‘creative’ research methods, do we mean ‘arts–based’? HGC: I don’t think this is exclusively arts-based, as creative to me means trying new forms and approaches to solve problems. I think that when working visually and kinaesthetically one wants to find research methods that suit and embrace that. Exchanges: the Warwick Research Journal, 1(2), April 2014 227 NJ: For me, creative means forgetting the rules—for a moment—to experiment and focus more on the process and the attempt, rather than the result, and this flow-state can obviously also be achieved without any art: it’s more related to freedom from confinement but also from immediate criticism. CB: Creativity is an overused term of course, but in this context I think we’re mainly using this as shorthand for anything outside the normal frameworks of academic research and writing. Going a bit further, creativity theory stresses bisociation—combining different frames of reference or thinking styles in unexpected but valuable ways, so I think working across disciplinary boundaries comes into play as well. HGC: Isn’t this quite dangerous, if we have not properly mastered the tools of that other discipline? Perhaps by crossing said boundaries, we are also crossing out of the realm of academia as being specialist knowledge and skills. CB: Boundaries are essential to any creative process. ‘Thinking outside the box’ is not a helpful term here, and expertise within a domain is still important. I’m talking more about combining ways of seeing and thinking, rather than transdisciplinarity. Bisociation could happen by combining different paradigms within an academic discipline, not just by importing some artistic methods from outside. RL: I worry about not having properly mastered the tools of ‘that other discipline’. If we’re talking about a transdisciplinary approach, that’s when we should be inviting practitioners to work with us to develop approaches that are both authentic (to the discipline) and rigorous. By creative, I’m also thinking about how we facilitate the expression of other forms of intelligence, beyond the linguistic and logical, that more conventional approaches tend to favour. 2. What has to change in order to legitimise new forms of enquiry? RO: We have very few, if any, spaces that can be ‘occupied’ by a project over a length of time (that is, for longer than a single session on a single day). Creative projects benefit from having a base that can be filled with inspiring and challenging materials (for example, posted on the walls and annotated with post-it notes, and in which prototypes and finished products may be developed, interacted with and tested-out. Not having such spaces significantly affects Exchanges: the Warwick Research Journal, 1(2), April 2014 228 the shape and depth of projects. For example, when a project is hosted in its own space, a wider range of participants are able to access it and contribute. Therefore, this allows a wider range of experiences to be represented in the collection of inspirations/challenges, and gets more people to interact with prototypes. By restricting participation to time-limited slots, the possibility of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’, with all of its direct and collateral benefits, becomes much less likely. For practitioners of ‘participatory design’ and ‘design thinking’ approaches, project spaces are essential. See for example Brown’s 2008 paper on ‘Design Thinking’ for an account of the IDEO 3 Spaces approach. There are also significant similarities between such project spaces and scientific laboratories. This may help in drawing scientists into creative collaborations, working in spaces that are more familiar to them than the traditional Arts seminar. HGC: Does this come down to academic snobbery and even naivety? In his book, Practice as research in the arts: Princi (...truncated)