The following represents the formal submission of my Higher Degree Research (HDR) Professional Doctorate Project 1 Document.
This 47,000 word (excluding references, bibliography and appendices) document is in many ways equivalent to a traditional PhD Doctoral Program Confirmation Document.
The document has been spllit across 7 blog posts due to its size.
Please see Pt28a – Research Study Project 1 Submission, it includes the Title page, the Abstract, the Statement of Originality, the Contents, and the Introduction of the Exegesis.
Please see Pt28b – Research Study Project 1 Submission, it includes the Chapter 1 Literature Review.
Within this post, Pt28c – Research Study Project 1 Submission, it includes the Chapter 2 Methodology.
Chapter 2 Methodology
2.0 Introduction
In this chapter I discuss the methodological approach for my intended research study. As a practice-led, auto-ethnographic study of my DIY music and sound-making practice, drawing on the methodologies of reflective and reflexive practice, this project involves the collection of multiple forms of data in various textural forms. One of the project’s objectives is to undertake a qualitative study within the creative arts field, revealing the opportunities and challenges that lie with such a dual primary role approach: how a creative person can be both the subject and researcher, and the implications of this on the practice during the production of a cultural artifact.
2.1 Situating methodology
Webber’s (2009) study “In Music and in Life: Confronting the Self through Auto-ethnography” was an interesting discovery, with great resonance to my proposed study. Webber draws on a practice-led methodology, with a focus on self. As an auto-ethnographic study, Webber performs the dual primary roles of both the creative practitioner as subject; and the research practitioner as observer. In doing so, he demonstrated how an investigation of creative arts-based practice is synergistic with an ethnographic research study. Webber describes the technical process of composition, and then steps back and analyses it in terms of discriminations made and the reasoning behind these. Irrespective of creative practice or research practice, in order to ascertain what discriminations the practitioner is making, one must closely observe the process holistically. Firstly, as the subject in practice as it is unfolding (Ryan 2014, 80; Young 2015, 150); and secondly as the observer stepping back from the process (Ryan 2014, 80)[1]. As with a research practitioner, the creative arts practitioner offers: a subjective perspective through a particular lens; requires multiple levels of agency of both functions and faculties in order to experience, and derive meaning; and in engaging in such a process, likely transforms one self at various junctures of practice (Lawrence 2012, 476). However, Webber’s study does differ to my proposed study in two distinct ways:
- Webber was diagnosed with the condition Asperger syndrome just prior to commencing his study, and was motivated to use his study to understand himself and how specifically that condition informed his music-making practice. I have no known condition, and am motivated by a need to examine process in order to engage with my music-making practice more effectively;
- Webber’s music-making practice is composition for theatre, and his research study investigated (micro) functional discriminations in the compositional process;
2.2 Creative practice methodologies and models
My Research Study is designed to be a multi-method qualitative study: a practice-based, auto-ethnographic arts practice as research study. My experiential phenomenological lens is focussed on the examination of human connection to music and sound-making practice. I am hoping to – in the first instance – discover existing knowledge that provides insight into the many issues I have had over the past several decades. Some of which are: defining the term music-making now encompass; discussing the concepts of hybridity and convergence; broadening of terms to include music & sound; consider the so-called connection that many of us humans feel while consuming music; exploring self, aesthetic experience, motives, and values in general, and specifically related to music and sound-making practice; and investigate how can one subjectively connect to one form of music, and not another form of music. My rigorous investigations of these issues have led me to the question:
How do the interdependent tenets of hybridity/convergence, agency and subjectivity afford – or inhibit – one’s authentic connection to contemporary DIY music and sound-making practice?
In the second instance I am hoping to develop new knowledge, informing a holistic model of sustainable authentic practice; and creative praxis. As an auto-ethnographic arts practice as research study, I am expecting it to be an emergent transformative experience; with self experiencing the moment; engaging in conscious, deliberate and systemic reflective practice; re-experiencing past events; and being afforded the opportunity to reinterpret meaning from these past experiences and memories. I chose a practice-led auto-ethnographic study as I needed to investigate and understand my connection to different approaches of music and sound-making practice. Necessarily, a central tenet of this study is self – self-narrative and self-system (Newman & Newman 2012, 267-268; Hargreaves et al 2002, 7-8; Hallam 2017, 475; Lewis 2010, 313; Fredrickson & Cohn 2010, 783; Morin 2005, 116; Neisser 1994, 2); self-culture and one’s beliefs, values and attitudes (Rokeach, 1979, 72; Hofstede 1984, 18); and dialogical self, self-awareness, inner speech and agency (Hermans & Gieser 2012, 201; Goudena 2014, 204-205; Morin 2005, 115; Wiley, 2016, 25; Fogel et al 2012, 191-192; Archer 2010; Gentile 2008, 1589)[2].
A second (2nd) interdependent tenet is that of meaning-making – deriving new meaning out of immersive and embodied experiences and re-experiences (Cranton & Taylor 2012, 4; Goncalves and Riberio 2012, 301; Atkins, 2008, 80-81; Mezirow 1991,10; Jarvis 2012,16; Lawrence 2012, 478; Fredrickson 2000, 578); the adaptive learner engaged in self-referential upward spiral activity (de Corte 2010; Gibbs 1988; Mezirow 1991; Mezirow 2012; Fredrickson & Cohn 2010, 783; Isen 2010, 549 & 555; McGregor 2008, 52-53); and agency of rational and extra-rational faculty responses; and affective experience of memory events (Lawrence 2012, 472; Kensinger & Schacter 2010, 602; Brackett et al 2016, 19311; Gentile 2008, 1589; Budd 1992, 52; Fredrickson 2000, 577)[3].
The third (3rd) interdependent tenet is that of creative practice-making – Praxis and Approaches: conscious, deliberate, systematic developed routine expertise; versus spontaneous, pre-verbal imaginal play, in flow, authentically connecting to practice (Homer 2009, 91; de Corte 2010; Lawrence 2012, 473; Csikszentmihalyi 2000, 49-54; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi 2014a, 258, 206); discrimination of materials, tools and structures in homogenous, heterogeneous and hybridized forms of music and sound practice; to represent and/or imitate associative memory (Young 2015, 150; Lawrence 2012, 473; Ryan 2014, 80; Vella with Arthurs 2003, 143 & 171; Waters 2000, 64; McLaughlin and McLoone 2000, 181; Bennett and Bates 2018; Graham 1995, 145-6; Budd 1992, 52; Fredrickson 2000, 577); andnarrative of multiple selves: multiple practitioner I-positions and voices experiencing/re-experiencing past significant experiences across practice each time differently (Hermans & Gieser 2012, 201; Goudena 2014, 204-205; Wiley, 2016, 25; Fogel et al 2012, 191-192; Lawrence 2012, 478)[4].
As I deepened my investigative research, I realised arts-based practice and research share a number of commonalities. “Qualitative researchers do not simply gather and write; they compose, orchestrate, and weave” (Leavy 2015, 17). The process of arts-based qualitative research is therefore similar to the way certain music and sound-making practitioners create cultural productions. Having completed my literature and textural resource review concurrent to a Pilot Study, I have now clarity that this is a study of two contrasting approaches to creative arts-based practice: the homogeneous form of an acoustic instrument roots-based approach (Vella with Arthurs 2003, 143); and the heterogeneous form of a digital virtual electroacoustic and sonic-arts based approach to music and sound-making practice (Vella with Arthurs 2003, 171). The utility will be the application of my experiences, insights and interpretations for other practitioners to benefit, irrespective of the field of creative practice; and scholarly discussion.
As illuminated above and highlighted by art’s literacy researchers (Griffiths 2010; Franz 2010; Wright et al 2010; Ryan 2014), a key aspect of a practice-led research study is to examine the degree a creative person can be both subject practitioner and the observer researcher. Key questions of my research practitioner self remain: what processes are required to ensure a robust and interrogative investigation occurs?; and, what are the implications of this dual primary role on the music-making practice workflow? Such a dual role places the practitioner self in an intimate position, well inside this study to narrate minute discriminations of practice. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Young’s (2015) chapter“Imaginary Workscapes: Creative Practice and Research Through Electroacoustic Composition” insists a robust study of creative arts-based practice needs to occur from within the practice, with the practitioner serving the dual roles of subject and observer. Blom et al refer to practice-led research as the insider, referencing the subject being inside the study (Blom et al 2011, 366). I accept engaging in a dual primary role of both subject and researcher will be a challenge within this study. Firstly, I need to consider how I conduct my self as both the subject practitioner and the observer researcher to ensure a robust and interrogative investigation occurs. Secondly, I will need to consider what – if any – effects this dual primary role has on the actual music and sound-making workflow, during creative practice. This consideration needs to include homogeneous, heterogeneous, and converged forms of music and sound-making practice workflow.
Engaging in cultural practice is central to human existence. Everything we do as humans is embodied within cultural practice (Lange 2012, 207). One produces culture when one engages in practice (Dewey 1934). In contrast to the views espoused in the High Arts-based approach to music and sound-making practice, anyone engaging in creative arts practice produces culture (Sagan 2015, 13). Irrespective of the level of functional agency a practitioner has, their output is of value to that culture (Leavy 2018, 3). “Creative action in all of its forms is a valued cultural phenomenon. It embraces a wide range of activities from everyday acts of making things to deeper levels of creativity that involve innovative tools, prompting insights into the natural world of expressions of humanity” (Young 2015, 151). Engaging in arts practice is about subjective experience and expression, affording meaning-making and self-making. Not only do humans “create culture” in creative arts practice, they create and recreate “themselves in the process” (Denzin 2016, 24-25). Engaging in creative arts-based practice requires accessing and exercising their rational and extra-rational faculties – biological, psychological and cognitive faculty responses; and affective responses – at any point in time. A person interprets a specific experience subjectively, drawing on a unique combination of faculty responses informed by their collective experiences. Lawrence (2012) in his chapter “Transformative Learning Through Artistic Expression: Getting Out of Our Heads” believes: “transformative learning occurs through a process of discernment or sifting through these various forms of meaning-making”. Discernment “leads to a contemplative insight, a personal illumination gained by putting things together and seeing them in their relational wholeness… The arts …call upon our imaginal, intuitive capabilities, often lead to the types of insights just described” (Lawrence 2012, 472-473). In Merriam and Bierema’s (2014) “Adult Learning: Linking Theory and Practice”, they paraphrase a leader in transformational learning, Dirkx: “transformation as centered in the emotional, inner unconscious world of the human psyche… transformative learning as accessing the unconscious world and incorporating it into our conscious being, our ego. This is done by way of attending to our emotions” (Merriam and Bierema’s 2014, 86). Creative arts practice draws on extra-rational faculties – our emotions – and in doing so, provides humans “the capacity to transform individual worldviews and when experienced collectively can potentially transform communities” (Lawrence 2012, 471). Similarly, by engaging in higher education research, one is engaging in cultural production. As Denzin summarises, “(a)utoethnography is the use of personal experience and personal writing to (1) purposefully comment on/critique cultural practices; (2) make contributions to existing research; (3) embrace vulnerability with purpose; and (4) create a reciprocal relationship with audiences in order to compel a response” (2016, 20). One necessarily immerses their practitioner self in existing knowledge – existing cultural production; and – hopefully – over time generates new knowledge – new cultural production (Lange 2012, 196). The process of engaging in knowledge – existing knowledge or the generation of new knowledge – is a multi-modal transformative process, which also draws on rational and extra-rational faculty responses (Willis 2012, 217). Auto-ethnographic research practice therefore similarly affords meaning-making and self-`
In presenting my methodology thus far, I have referred – amongst others – to the works of Leavy and Lawrence. Whilst they share a similar worldview, they define creative and artistic practice with different terms. In her chapter“Introduction to arts-based research” Leavy outlines twenty-nine (29) different terms that are currently used to refer to arts practice as research (2018, 3). Leavy deduces to use the more widely used term Arts-based research (ABR) over the many other terms used in peer-reviewed literature to describe art-based practice as research. Leavy decides ABR represents a balanced view of creative arts-based research. It is: “a transdisciplinary approach to knowledge building that combines the tenets of the creative arts in research contexts…. ABR practices” are “methodological tools used by researchers across the disciplines during any or all phases of research”, with “researchers engaging in art making as a way of knowing” (2018, 3). Leavy believes ABR adheres to four (4) main criteria: 1) art expresses truth to “bring about awareness (both knowledge of the self and knowledge of others)”; secondly, “the use of the arts is critical in achieving self/other knowledge”; thirdly, ABR “(v)alues preverbal ways of knowing”; and fourthly, arts-based practice as research “(i)ncludes multiple ways of knowing such as sensory, kinesthetic, and imaginary” (Leavy 2018, 20). Artistic expression draws on rational – cognitive – and extra-rational – non-cognitive – processes. In contrast to ABR, Lawrence uses the methodology transformative inquiry through art. Lawrence similarly views a synergistic correlation between arts practice and qualitative research, with the researcher as “the instrument in qualitative research as in artistic practice (Janesick in Leavy, 2018, 3). Lawrence believe research in the arts can be a catalyst for “transformative learning, through either the creating of art or the witnessing of art created by others” (2012, 471). Kates in Lawrence “sees creative expression as a return to imaginal play, in which our most basic way of knowing was preverbal” (2012, 473). Borgdorff notes a subtle distinction between different forms of artistic practice research. Relative to “research on the arts” and “research for the arts”, “(r)esearch in the arts” is classified “when .. artistic practice is not only the result of the research, but also the methodological vehicle, when the research unfolds in and through the art of creating and performing” (2011, 46). Borgdorf outlines four (4) dimensions that must exist for artistic practice to be: firstly, the subject of the research is the artistic and aesthetic experience. As such, it defies an exact definition linguistically; secondly “knowledge and experience are constituted only in and through practices, actions and interactions. In the context of discovery, …. artistic actions embody knowledge in a form” that may not have in itself a direct and obvious meaning; thirdly, “works of art and artistic practice… are situated and embedded”; and fourthly, “the experiences and insights that artistic research delivers are embodied in the resulting art practices and products” (2011, 47). Artistic and aesthetic experience is one of subjectivity, and therefore one is capable of interpreting art practice or an artistic product differently to another person. Similarly, qualitative research practice is also one of subjectivity, with multiple interpretations possible for those who engage with that research practice or research outcome. An auto-ethnographical methodology acknowledges and values this subjectivity.
One additional text that has significance in terms of arts practice as research is Sullivan’s (2010) “Art practice as research: inquiry in visual arts”. Sullivan’s research focuses on an alternative form of creative practice to music and sound-making practice: a creative practice that does not share the dynamic quadrants of developing over time and space as music and sound-making practice does. However despite this, his research informs the methodological perspective of my research study. Sullivan argues that the purpose of experience is not to gain knowledge in the first instance; it is to gain understanding (2010, 96). “(G)aining new understanding involves investigating issues” holistically – in context to the surrounding environment, culture and society – “that have personal and public relevance”. This kind of research is “imaginative, systematic, and inclusive…. drawing on all kinds of knowledge, experience, and reasoning” (2010, 97).Transformational theorist Mezirow’s view aligns: “our urgent need” is “to understand and order the meaning of our experience”, “to integrate it with what we know” (2012, 73). Sullivan proposes what he refers to as a fluid “framework for theorizing visual arts practice as research” in an attempt to describe “the interdependency of interests, issues, and approaches” (2010, 99). The Visual Framework is “designed to increase human capacity to intervene, interpret, and act upon issues and ideas” during creative (visual) arts practice (2010, 102). Sullivan’s multi-dimensional Visual Framework includes: three (3) methodological approaches to practice – a scientific empiricist practice; an interpretivist practice; a critical practice; and the creative practice (2010, 102); three (3) key features of research – structure, agency and action (2010, 102); three (3) dimensions of theory – create-critique, meaning-making, and problem-finding (2010, 106); and three (3) domains of inquiry – discursive, dialectical and deconstruction (2010, 107). Sullivan’s multi-dimensional Visual Framework is a complex framework of creative praxis (see below).
Figure I – Sullivan’s Visual Framework (2010)
The first aspect of Sullivan’s Visual Framework, which appeals to the context of my research – music and sound-making practice -, is the holistic and inclusive nature of the multi-methodological approach. Sullivan’s Visual Framework does not limit itself – as is often the case – to one methodological approach to practice, over another. The framework infers a harmonious sequential relationship existing between the varied methodological approaches. Each methodological approach is valid at a particular moment in time, depending upon the stage of practice the practitioner is engaged in. Sullivan’s Visual Framework acknowledges a practitioner may require a systematic approach to practice at a particular stage in practice; at other times a practitioner may require a high degrees of agency (functional or facility); and, at other times a practitioner may require a high degree of action.
The framework continues to demonstrate flexibility by acknowledging a practitioner may also require hybridised forms of methodology. At particular times, a practitioner may require a combination of methodologies. For example: in terms of meaning-making, Sullivan believes a practitioner will likely require both an empiricist and interpretivist approach; in terms of explanation-making, an empiricist and critical approach; and in terms of change-making, an interpretivist and critical approach (Sullivan 2010, 107). The Visual Framework also acknowledges the dynamic nature of creative-arts practice. Within an experience – as with learning – an effective practitioner will likely draw on a range of abilities and senses – rational and extra-rational faculty abilities and senses – at the different stages of that experience (Merriam & Bierema 2014, 109). At the interim stage of practice, one likely requires a rational – systematic, prescriptive – response to a functional need (Jarvis 2012, 60). The practitioner commences to practice with an initial idea, having reflected on past practice and considered any recent influences they may have experienced. There is no doubt some logistical matters to engage and establish, in readiness for practice. The practitioner will likely follow a disciplinary tradition, or his or her own developed ritual of what has been done many times previously as part of their start up ritual[5]. It is likely a predictable, systematic, prescriptive process. At the mid-stage of the creative practice, predictable, systemic, prescriptive systems generally become redundant as the practitioner searches to express unique creative content. One is likely to develop into an interpretive approach for this stage of the creative process, drawing on extra-rational faculties and abilities – creativity, imagination, curiosity, spontaneity, experimentation, trialling and exploration (Lawrence 2012, 472-473). This is the realm of imaginal play a number of citations in the proceeding section/s have referred to. At the mid-stage of practice, a practitioner interprets the experience subjectively as they engage within it; makes discriminatory decisions regarding the range of options they believe are presented before them; trials their choices; and reflects upon their choice in the context of the overall production. This mid-stage of practice represents an extended series of minute discriminations in practice, all guiding the direction of the creative-arts project to generate a unique cultural production. Engaging in practice at this stage would generally be an embodied experience; with the practitioner immersing them self into an optimised level of creative – natural stream of consciousness – flow. Creative expression – a “preverbal” form of meaning-making – occurs out of imaginal play (Lawrence 2012, 473); rather than a predictable, systematic, prescriptive approach. In the final-stage of practice, a practitioner takes affirmative action. The practitioner has now a developed concept, fleshed out in the creative phase, and now acts to complete the creative cultural production. As indicated previously, a practitioner may draw upon a hybrid approach of both an interpretivist and critical approach in taking action in this final stage of practice (Sullivan 2010, 107). The critical approach reflects the final decisions the practitioner needs to make in the creative arts process: analytical, collaborative, and most likely trans-disciplinary, drawing on both faculty and functional agency in their influencing and interpretation, as relevant and appropriate. The creative process is a subjective immersive experience, generating unique expression. Creative music and sound-making practice is a multimodal process, demanding a unique blend of faculties, abilities, senses, approaches and methodologies at different stages of practice (Moffat 2013, 27). A contemporary practitioner interprets in each and every practice experience with unique expression. No two-practice sessions will include the same creative discriminatory steps, the same mediums and materials, in the same sequence. It is however likely though, the practitioner will progress through the same global methodological development stages as outlined in Sullivan’s Visual Framework.
Learning and development is also a progressive process. A child is born into a dependent world, and develops over many years with (hopefully) increasing levels of independent learning. McGregor introduces in “Transformative Education: Grief and Growth” three (3) orientations to education curriculum delivery for learning: 1) transmissional; 2) transactional and 3) transformational (2008, 52-53). McGregor outlines the orientation for transmissional learning as being: a teacher-centred, systematic, prescriptive process. The teacher is acknowledged as the source of knowledge. The orientation for transactional learning is: a collaborative – teacher-driven but learner-centred – interactive process. Both the knowledge of the learners and the teacher are acknowledged to have valid knowledge. The teacher is seen as an expert, but also “a facilitator and mentor”(2008, 52). The orientation for transmissional learning places the learner in the centre of the process. The focus of the process is to help each learner “find his or her inner voice and power, so he or she feels empowered to effect social change and bring about justice, peace, freedom, and components of the human condition (2008, 53). As one develops in life and engages in positive experiences, one is projected on an upward learning spiral (Fredrickson & Cohn 2010, 783). Positive experience feeds confidence, affording more opportunity to learn and develop. As part of the developmental process, one develops self-awareness, inner dialogue, and likely connection to flow; leading to developed agency, greater confidence, and more independence (Fredrickson & Cohn 2010, 787; Ryan 2014, 77; Morin 2005, 116). Eventually, one is likely to be inspired to engage in practice to make social and cultural comment about their environs. McGregor’s three (3) orientations to education curriculum delivery shares a commonality with Sullivan’s Visual Framework. It integrates a sequential developmental pathway through stages of practice. In contrast to Sullivan’s multi-methodological approaches of empiricist practice; interpretivist practice; and critical practice which likely occurs within one practice session (2010, 102), McGregor’s three (3) orientations suggests development of ones practitioner self – and therefore their practice – across a lifetime[6]
The second aspect of Sullivan’s Visual Framework, which appeals to the context of my research study are the three (3) key features of research – structure, agency and action (2010, 102). Structure refers to a predictable component of research: it infers a systemised step-by-step process for a practitioner to realise a pre-determined outcome when followed. In contrast, agency refers to the empowerment – the degree of functionality – technical or non-technical – a practitioner possesses. Structure and agency are starkly contrasting concepts and approaches to practice. Structure is mechanical, processural, sequential; agency draws upon a practitioner’s affordance of both rational and extra-rational faculty development to be spontaneous and intuitive. Agency is developed until it becomes second nature. High levels of functional agency are sometimes referred to as routine expertise (de Corte 2010, 45). Structure and agency are mutually inclusive concepts, requiring application at different stages of the creative arts process. They are likely to occur sequentially in creative arts practice stages, even if that sequence occurs (only) across moments of time. They are however NOT interchangeable concepts. The mindset a practitioner is required to have in the particular stages of practice for both structure and agency differ vastly: they are in many ways extreme opposites. Kramer in his (2016) text “Postmodern music, postmodern listening” lists two (2) columns of adjectives describing qualities found in modern and post-modern cultural productions. Modernism qualities are described as: “form (conjunctive or closed), purpose, design, hierarchy, totalization/ synthesis, narrative, and determinacy”. Post-modernism qualities are described as:“antiform (disjunctive or open) , play, chance, anarchy, deconstruction/ antithesis, anti-narrative and indeterminacy” (Kramer 2016, 12). From these lists, I interpret Sullivan’s structure aligns to that of modernism; and agency to that of post-modernism. I interpret action to share qualities of both modernism and post-modernism. As such, I challenge contemporary practitioners to develop agency across these seemingly opposing qualities should they wish to effectivelyengage in creative practice.
For the purposes of this research study, I define agency as ones’ “fundamental capacity to create personal meaning, to initiate and ‘own’ the communication of desire and intent, and to make the ‘spontaneous gesture’ “ (Winnicott in Gentile 2008, 1589). Gentile explains whilst “agency is not constructed within relationship”, “our potential for agency becomes transformed into an experienced sense of agency” through the relationship (Gentile 2008, 1596). For Wiley,“(a)gency seems to be located primarily in inner speech and not in some other part or process of the self. One argument for this is that you can observe the agentic process by paying attention to your inner speech. We can watch— or rather listen— to how the dialogical self creates action” (Wiley 2016, 76). Wiley outlines the three stages of agency and inner speech as: defining, choosing and enacting (Wiley 2016, 79-84). This definition supports the use of a reflective journal to document inner speech and as a form of data collection for examining creative practice. The tools for data collection are discussed later in this chapter.
2.2.1 Auto-ethnography and arts-based practice as research
Davidson in her (2015) chapter “Practice-based Music Research: Lessons from a Researcher’s Personal History”examines a number of models and investigations of fellow professionals engaging in auto-ethnographical practice[7]. In examining Bartleet’s 2009 research, Davidson observed the significance of such a dual role auto-ethnographic research practice: a “highly personal but detailed account of her own practice offered insights” for her “to develop” her own musical practice (2015, 98). That is, critical reflective and reflexive practice “shaping her future practice” (2015, 99). Davidson highlights the importance of “capturing internal reflection”; observing one’s inner thoughts, and using “the ‘talk aloud’ technique” to hear what it is they are thinking or saying internally (2015, 96-97). However as Davidson notes, such an “emergent practitioner-led” methodology is not new to social science. It is essentially “action research” – following a “cycle of research planning, acting, observing and reflecting” – “focused on both the understanding and improving one’s practice” (2015, 100). The approach provides utility for both individual-based and group-based creative practice across fields and disciplines; affording “triangulation” of multiple sources of data generated during the creative practice process which can be used to rigorously analyse at a later point in time (Davidson 2015, 100).
Borgdorff distinguishes artistic research from action research. Like Davidson, Borgdorff sees artistic practice as a macro-umbrella activity; while action research refers to the micro-cyclical process the artistic practitioner experiences inside their practice. Action research is defined as: “the application of the experiential learning cycle to research activities designed to improve practice”. It involves the four stages of: developing “a plan of action to improve practice”; activity in carrying “out the plan”; observing “the effects of the action”; and reflecting “on these effects as a basis for future planning and action” (Gibbs 2013, 36; Gibbs 1988). Borgdorff believes the foundation of “(a)ction research aims at transforming and enhancing practice…. In the intimacy of experimental studio practice, we can recognize the cycle of learning in action research, where research findings give immediate cause for changes and improvements….. (A)rtistic research delivers new experiences and insights that bear on the art world and on how we understand and relate to the world and ourselves”(2011, 51). Engaging in experiential learning and reflective practice – conscious, deliberate and systematic reflective and reflexive practice – of past practice experiences affords a practitioner the opportunity to not only develop their practice, but perhaps more importantly, their adaptive competence (de Corte 2010, 46). Borgdorff argues “(a)rtistic research is therefore not just embedded in artistic and academic contexts”, it is central to identity. Artistic research not only “focuses … on what is enacted in creative processes and embodied in art products, but it also engages with who we are and where we stand” (Borgdorff 2011, 51). As such, art-based research practice embodies the three (3) tenets of creative arts-making, meaning-making and self-making.
My interpretive research study will be conducted through my experiential phenomenological lens (Grace and Ajjawi 2010). Reflecting on my life across numerous disciplines, I recognise I am the archetype who has to experience activities in life, rather than just theorising about it at arm’s length. Irrespective of my creative, sporting, or professional endeavours of education and management, I learnt early in my life that I need to experience something to understand it. Grace and Ajjawi state: “In existential phenomenology the focus is on individual’s experiences of being-in-the-world” (Grace and Ajjawi 2010, 198). In Experiential Phenomenology professional practitioners tend to be less interested in the philosophy of phenomenological method than its practice and application (Grace and Ajjawi 2010, 198). An auto-ethnography methodology would allow the study of my own practice, describing the socio-cultural activities and patterns.
“The word ethnography literally means writing about people. In a broad sense, ethnography encompasses any study of …. people for the purpose of describing their socio-cultural activities and patterns”(Burns 2000, 393).
Pace (2012) describes a number of ethnographic approaches, including a description that resonated within me relative to my approach to music-making in general. Pace (2012) outlined how evocative auto-ethnography is about writing emotionally about our lives. Ellis in Pace (2012, 5) notes that evocative auto-ethnography is “distinguished by the following characteristics:
-
- the author usually writes in the first-person style, making himself or herself the object of the research;
- the writing resembles a novel or biography in the sense that it is presented as a story with a narrator, characters and plot
- the narrative text is evocative, often disclosing hidden details of private life and highlighting emotional experience” (Pace 2012, 5).
My intended research study is to provide answers to a creative practice problem that I have experienced over the past decade. I expect undertaking this project will elicit past – intimate – experiences, which may generate affective responses at various stages of practice.
2.3 Developing reflective practice
Central to the professional doctoral program I am undertaking at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is the notion of reflective practice. I – along with my colleagues – had been led at a number of junctures to explore this particular research approach. Given the tertiary organisation that I was also working at was seeking to integrate reflective practice into its curricula, I could see the alignment this approach had with my intended practice-led auto-ethnographical creative arts practice as research. Lawrence-Wilkes & Chapman (2015) state, “reflective practice provides an opportunity to enhance professional performance and self-development by enabling insight and assisting learning for new understanding, knowledge and action”. As a multi-method practice-led approach, I intended to draw on and apply multiple approaches of reflective practice across the four-year part-time research study, in both Project 1 and 2. I intend to look to the approaches of: Schon (1983); Brookfield (1995); Brookfield (2002); Lyons (2010); Pascal & Thompson (2012); Archer (2007), Archer (2010), Ryan (2014), Griffiths (2010), and Finlay (2008) for insight regarding this practice. I commenced with two art’s practice- based discussions, and three non-art’s practice-based reflective practice authors. Whilst not music and sound-making practice specific, Ryan’s (2014) approach as outlined in “Reflective Practice in the Arts” introduces performative practice which aligns well to my practice focus. Ryan draws heavily on Archer, a considered expert in the area of reflective and reflexive practice. The work of Griffiths’ (2010) discusses the researcher self, which has obvious parallels with my research study of the practitioner self. Both authors discuss a multi-method of reflective practice and reflexive practice within their arts-based discussions. One of the advantages of a multi-method qualitative research study is that it permits complementary methods, allowing the results or findings of one method to shape the subsequent steps in the research process (Robson 1993). The other advantage of multi-method qualitative approaches is that it permits triangulation and enhances interpretability of the literature and data collected increasing the validity of the research findings. There will be an extensive amount of data gathered for interpretation as a matter of process, with commentary and reflection regarding the opportunities and challenges of certain workflows and combinations of the elements of music and sound-making practice.
The three non-art’s based authors I draw on are: Schon’s (1983) “Reflection-in-action” and “Reflection-on-Action”; Pascal and Thompson’s (2012) “Reflection-for-action”; and Lyons’ (2010) Reflective Journal toolkit questions (I develop these in a later chapter). I decided using a multi-method qualitative methodological approach would be congruent to the type of study I was about to engage. Specifically, that of a: practice-led research, evocative auto-ethnography, including reflective practice, and reflexive practice. Through a first-person narrative of my personal journey, critical reflection and reflexive practice, I will highlight the co-constituted nature of my music-making practice. I draw on multiple methodologies, from a range of divergent interpretations, experimenting in Project 1 to determine what will be effective given my specific creative practice context. Such a multi-method qualitative study research study will necessitate the planning of a multi-layered data collection strategy equitably across the various stages of cultural production, necessitating the conscious scheduling of time for both personas to practice – that of the subject – the creative practitioner, and that of the observer – the research practitioner.
I researched a number of reflective practice models with the view of locating a suitable model to apply within my research study: Rolfe’s Minimal Reflective Practice model (2002); Kolb’s Reflection and Learning model (1984a; 1984b); Gibbs’ Reflective Practice Cycle (1988); Schon’s Reflective Practice model (1983); Brookfield’s 4 Lenses (2006; 2002; 1995; 1986); TJ Carter’s amalgam model of Nature of Experiential Learning and Reflective Practice (2013); Ryan’s interpretation of Archer’s Reflexive Practice model (2014); Zwozdiak-Myers’ Framework of Reflective Practice (2012, 5), Moon’s Reflection in Higher Education paper (2001); Moffat’s Multimodal Reflective Process (2013, 29); Griffiths’ Research and the Self (2010); Boud’s Using Journal Entries to enhance Reflective Practice (2001); Boud et al’s Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning (2013); and Lawrence-Wilkes and Ashmore’s The Reflective Rational Enquiry diagram (2014, 64).
Whilst reading and considering the possible applicability to my particular music-making practice, I found my self reflecting on each of the various stages of my music-making practice, speculating how the particular methodological practice may apply. As I progressed my Project 1’s creative process in the initial months – particularly in terms of the collection of data and accompanying documentation process – I have found myself considering fundamental issues:
· if I reflect in my music-making practice, how do I reflect – ie what is the process I follow to reflect in my music-making practice?
· assuming I reflect, at what point in my practice – ie when did I engage in reflective practice in my music-making practice?
In terms of when I engaged in reflective practice in my music and sound-making practice:
· were there any observations in regard to the timing of my reflective practice? (ie: positive, neutral or negative implications);
· had I observed that my reflective practice occurred as a planned or unplanned process?
· what did my reflective practice process look like? (ie: site, time relative to my practice, did I collect evidence of these reflections? and if so, how did I collect this data/by what mediums did I collect this reflection data)?
· had I observed any benefits from engaging in reflective practice?
· to what degree would I classify these benefits as being tangible or non-tangible?
· how did I engage in the act of reflection or reflective practice?
It is said that creative practice moves from one of reflective practice to that of reflexive practice when practice is reflected upon, and choices of improvements are determined to trial and integrate into one’s practice moving forward. There is a sequence to the two forms of practice merely by definition, but as to how I can use or integrate these into my practice is still unclear to myself. Webber observed in his study exploring his self and his music-making practice:
“Auto-ethnography also heightens reflexive awareness. That’s the point of it, observing what you are doing and how you are doing it, constantly evaluating, critiquing, comparing to others, so there can be a tendency for the two processes to feed off each other……..” (Webber 2009, 268)
In exploring my options to engage in reflective practice, I decided to apply Ryan’s description of Archer’s model in “Reflective Practice in the Arts” as a base – drawing on aspects of other’s models – as way forward to developing my own model. Whilst not music-making practice specific, Ryan talks about performative practice which applies very well to this experience of this creative stage of my music-making practice. Archer’s model terms this type of reflective practice as [bottom right point] “Expressivity – reflecting as performer to improve/change in the moment” (Ryan 2014, 80).
Figure II – Archer’s Reflective Practice model (Ryan 2014)
At the moment of time within my stream of consciousness writing, I am performing – improvising within my mind, considering and expressing, and then responding to my prior thought/s. It is much the same way I respond when I am performing music, and improvising. I am reflecting in the moment, and within a slit second responding with another melodic, harmonic and rhythmic line. I think the key aspect of this type of reflection is ‘in the moment’. The reflective practice is on-site, in the moment. As noted in a previous chapter, Schon (1983) refers to this reflective practice as being “reflection-in-action”. As a music practitioner I engage in this form of reflective practice regularly. Effectively, I am in the creative process, performing. The evidence of this reflective practice is actually the output of the performance – the cultural production; whatever form that may be. Whether the improvised instrumental solo that may or may not be captured on tape or video; or the stream of conscious writing committed to the document (paper of electronic).
Aesthetics is another stage of the reflective practice process according to Archer: “Aesthetics – reflection of the perceiver of art” (Ryan 2014, 80). According to Archer’s model, aesthetics is a arm’s length reflective practice. It may also include other’s in the performance piece, other than the creative practitioner such as an audience member, who is observing the performance as it occurs, with the performer actually responding to their response (facial, vocal, etc) and altering their creative practice as a result. However, as a researcher observer of my own creative practice, stopping and considering my process from a distance – perhaps even only at an arm’s length – is highly likely going to cause the creative performance in the moment, to stop, while the practitioner, the observer, steps back and look at their art from a greater distance than in the first step of the reflective practice stage; that of expressivity. The last stage of Archer’s reflective process is that of expression: “Expression through symbolic capture – reflecting on and learning about self through the semblance produced” (Ryan 2014, 80). This process is likely to be in contrast to the two former stages of the reflective practice process. Instead of being on-site, this part of the process, is likely to be away from site, as part of what Schon (1983) has referred to as either “Reflection-on-Action”; or possibly what Pascal and Thompson (2012) has referred to as “Reflection-for-action”. With this distinction, I continued to proactively engage in reading broadly and deeply to further consider my reflective practice model options from other specialist research practitioners, in order to apply to my particular auto-ethnographic pilot study. The models that I was drawing upon that appeared to be resonating with me were those of: Schon (1983); Haseman (2015); Ghaye and Lillyman (2014; 2006); Brookfield (2006; 2002; 1995; 1986); Archer (2010; 2007); Ryan (2014); Griffiths (2010); Rolfe (2002); Kolb (1984); Lawrence-Wilkes and Chapman (2015); Lawrence-Wilkes and Ashmore (2014); and Boud (2001). I will take the opportunity to apply a hybridised model in Project 2 to test it in creative practice. Additionally, I also recognise the need to research how one is expected to then test one’s practice, pre-reflection and post-reflexive developments. It would seem to be quite a challenging task, but a necessary one to be able to provide qualified or quantified evidence of either positive or not positive results from such reflective and reflexive practice within my research study. It is after all a requirement of robust academic research – to demonstrate thorough research practice.
It is anticipated conducting a pilot study at the outset of the research study will afford me the opportunity to set parameters around the study, defining what was to be in scope, and what was not. As an outcome of the Project 1 Pilot Study I envisage four (4) forms of data will be generated: firstly, a range of documents including various computer-based applications and handwritten notes and charts; secondly; reflective narratives of my journey to date, informed by literature and textural resources; thirdly, exploratory music and sound practice sessions experimenting with a range of processing to create a psychedelic musical style aesthetic; and experimenting with creating music and sound objects and events as associated memory narratives of significant events in my life; and fourthly, the series of creative written memory narratives of selected significant events in the first twenty (20) years of my life. As part of the first form of data, I intend to use a diverse variety of “aesthetic style of text” such as: stream of consciousness journal entries, reflective journal entries, prose, lyrics, short story narrative; “and other forms of fragmented writing” such as iNote and iCal entries; and observation notes in written form and in mind map form (Boyle & Parry 2007, 186). I plan to use the rich data generated as source material to analyse against the existing literature and textural resources in Project 2.
2.3.1 Blog site
A number of practitioners have written about the importance of using journal writing to enhance reflective practice (Boud 2001, 9; Blom et al 2011). Ghaye and Lillyman referred to the act of scribing the gathered data – the reflections – as advancing the reflective process “from talking about (it), to evidencing reflection” (2014, 26). I decided to use blogs as a means of more formally recording the data of my thoughts, opinions and observations across the stages of my music and sound-making practice. I decided this strategy would be an effective means of crystallising my recorded data, as I went through my usual multiple draft writing process. The practice and process of writing – in many forms – has always enabled me to better articulate my thoughts. This multiple draft writing process would include the following steps: generating ideas – often commencing from written notes made in iCal, in i-Notes, or notes taken manually on paper (usually for me, in the form of a mind map); expanding on these ideas, most often developed in a mind map form; deciding on the intended narrative as an aim and objective of the written outcome; ordering the generated and expanded ideas into what appears to be a logical structure, at that point in the process; returning to develop the central ideas as required; copying the work to date into a more standard medium, be it a text document, or a word document; embellishing these ideas into a structured narrative (inclusive of non-fiction- based content, self-reflective content or fictionalised content); and then better articulating my intended narrative, in terms of grammar and expression. I would continue to write, hone, craft the written text, until it demonstrates the attributes of re-writing:
-
- continuity and coherence, and
- the content has realised both:
- personal self-satisfaction in terms of what has been expressed within the intended narrative
- content integrity of the narrative relative to the original aim and objective of the intended narrative.
2.3.2 Data Management system
Whilst this to be a five (5) track EP of original compositions, I also need to gather all forms of data created or gathered in the process of engaging in the above process over the course of the Projects I developed a folder structure and numerous excel, word and text documents to create a electronic structure of support for my Project 1. Creating the folder structure helped me greatly to develop – to conceive and illuminate the elements and considerations I could us in my approach to my Project 1, and develop documents that I could use to gather data in co-existence with my music-making practice workflow. The development of these documents has been ongoing, with the development of documents considered to be in harmony with my practice workflow, to gather any form of data surrounding my music-making practice.
2.4 Significance of this research study for the industry, field and discipline
The significance of this research can be categorised into three areas: a blended philosophical approach additional to the current academic literature; the expansion of research methodologies usually applied in this area; and the development of a new music-making praxis, inclusive of the practitioner self. The combination of my ontological perspective, epistemological approach and multi-methods research study, will add a unique perspective to the literature on music and sound, cultural sociology, phenomenology, arts’ literacy, self and narrative. This interpretive research study will be conducted through my experiential phenomenological lens (Grace and Ajjawi 2010, 198), using qualitative methodologies of: practice-led research, reflective practice, critical thinking, reflexive practice, ethnography and evocative auto-ethnography over the two projects. No current studies seek to blend these three into the one paradigm.
As mentioned, Bennett (2000) and Frith (1996) discuss music and sound, cultural sociology, and narrative for example, but from a different ontological perspective, disregarding arts’ literacy and self. Others sharing my ontological perspective such as Griffiths (2010) and Ryan (2014) tend to discuss areas of my intended phenomenology – arts’ literacy, self and narrative – but disregard music and sound, as well as the specificities of cultural sociology. Others such as Bartleet (2009) and Davidson (2015) both cover creative arts-based research regarding their music and sound-making practice. However, their studies offer more of an insight into the auto-ethnographic research aspect of the study, rather than a specific focus on their music and sound-making practice. There is no peer-reviewed research study which comprehensively investigates the three (3) tenets of music and sound-making practice, meaning-making and self-making; across multiple stages of practice; from an experiential phenomenological lens as a practice-led auto-ethnographic research study. It is this differentiation, which provides my intended research study significance.
As an examination of music and sound-making practice and self, the research methodologies not only focus on evocative auto-ethnography but also draw on critical reflection and reflexive practice principles. As Rescher notes:
“not only is knowledge indispensably useful for our practice but the reverse is the case as well. Knowledge development is itself a practice and various practical processes and perspectives are correspondingly useful—or even necessary—to the way in which we go about constituting and validating our knowledge” (2003, xvii).
It is one of my objectives to showcase the opportunities and challenges of such a qualitative study within a creative arts’ discipline. In this way my research study will contribute to transforming existing epistemologies of practice. I would expect to contribute in terms of the amount of interpretive data that will be gathered throughout my research study; in terms of music and sound-making practice; and in terms of research practice.
This study innovates by comparing and contrasting the three (3) approaches to contemporary music and sound-making practice, exemplifying the level of hybridity and convergence that exists today. As a result, greater levels of agency are required by contemporary music and sound-making practitioners. As outlined in the previous section, functional music and sound-making production texts typically limit their focus to technical agency, ignoring aesthetics or creativity[8]. My investigation includes consideration of the self in context – that of subjectivity and agency -, providing a broader holistic view of contemporary music and sound-making praxis. My research will provide peer industry practitioners with an in-depth investigation of the relationships of the elements of contemporary practice; and a developed praxis of contemporary music and sound-making practice. This will include a guide for aspiring practitioners in best practice, stimulating discussion amongst fellow researchers, field and discipline practitioners and creative industry educators.
I would expect my research study to contribute in terms of higher order behaviours in a taxonomy of reflective practice. As a multi-method practice-led approach, I will draw on and apply multiple approaches of reflective practice across the four-year part-time research study, in both Project 1 and 2. There will be an extensive amount of interpretive data gathered as a matter of process, with commentary and reflection regarding the opportunities and challenges of such approaches including that of: Archer (2010; 2007); Ryan (2014); Griffiths (2010); Brookfield (1995); and Finlay (2008); within contemporary music-making practice. Of particular note will be data elicited regarding a creative practitioner performing the dual role of both practitioner and researcher, and the implications this has on the music-making practice workflow. The interpreted findings in this research study will also provide utility across disciplines. In a world with a developed DIY intent, and developing degrees of hybridised practice across all disciplines, I trust my research study will broaden discussion in the field of social and cultural studies by providing both data and narrative for dual primary role-based (subject and researcher) formal research studies.
Footnotes:
[1] I will develop this idea later in this chapter, and provide examples in the following chapters
[2] see Appendix 15 Page 2018f for image representation of this tenet.
[3] see Appendix 15 Page 2018e for image representation of this tenet.
[4] see Appendix 15 Page 2018d for image representation of this tenet.
[5] This could be: getting an instrument, tuning it, turning on a monitor, and plugging it in, and checking volume levels. It could be getting a bottle of water; a pad and pen; and a recording device ready as the initial stage of practice.
[6] Transformational learning is aligned with life-long learning (Mezirow 1991, 2089).
[7] Davidson’s “Practice-based Music Research: Lessons from a Researcher’s Personal History” offers insights into the history of auto-ethnography in music and sound-making practice. Davidson shares her experiences in ethnography, observing other’s practice at arm’s length, effectively developing her own confidence to commit to a dual role auto-ethnographic research investigating her own practice (2015, 97).
[8] Moylan’s (2007;1992) texts are an exception
Please now refer to Pt28d – Research Study Project 1 Submission, for the continuation of this document which includes Chapter 3 Creative Practice in Critical Perspective.
NOTE:
-
- all references are included in Pt28f – Research Study Project 1 Submission, and
- a bibliography is included in Pt28g – Research Study Project 1 Submission.
