Who I am……

David L Page logo.20141231.v2_resize4

(Page 2017a)

Me, myself, I – the multi-facetted/multi-dimensional practitioner

As described in my blog Research Practitioner Part 16 (Page 2017b), I am a multi-facetted/multi-dimensional practitioner – a practitioner across multiple practices of education & learning, research study commitments, creative practice, professional consulting practice and family responsibilities. I concluded that:
“All of my practice informs my self; and my self informs my practice – irrespective of the industry, the field, the discipline, or the site”(Page 2017c).

~DLP Pro Image Fun 5b small.20141020

(Page 2017g)

A broad definition of me, myself, I – the creative practitioner

You will note that in terms of creative practice, I refer to my self as a creative practitioner. I consciously choose to use this broad term, not specific to any particular discipline – as I see  my self as a creative being who likes to engage in a broad range – a very broad range – of creative practice. Whilst I love to engage in what I would classify as the primary focus of my creative practice – music and sound; listening, creating and performing –  music and sound alone does not define me. Being passionate about music and sound does not mean that I am not also passionate about other forms of creative practice. I am a multi-facetted person, with many diverse dimensions to who I am as a being, and in what I love to engage in. I engage in visual arts, in design, in film and animation.

Engagement with particular creative media platforms for particular purposes

I also engage in web, but I see this as not so much as a creative process where I am creating,  I see my engagement with web as a creative process in terms of function; curation for gathering resources to use as a practitioner; curation of resources to source inspiration; resources of others practice and/or viewpoints that assist me in the reflection process; to create a sense of identity – for my self, and for others; and, to market and distribute my creative practice.
As I indicated in my blog Media Identity & Curation Part 2 (Page 2014), I apply a diverse media strategy to include my media sites of:  about.me, gravatar.com, wordpress.com, tumblr.com, twitter.com, linked-in.com, myspace.com, facebook.com, pinterest.com, you-tube.com, soundcloud.com, instagram.com, lastfm.com, slideshare.com, googlescholar.com, academia.com and google.com. I use these media sites for quite specific purposes.
  • For example, David L Page wordpress.com (Page 2017d) allows me to communicate detail of my professional practice – as a creative practitioner/subject, as a education & learner practitioner, as a reflective practitioner, as a management practitioner, and as a a researcher/observer in any or all of these areas.

    wordpress-site-20160129

    (Page 2017d)
  • I use David L Page Pinterest.com (Page 2017e) to provide a curated static visual view of my multi-facetted self. I am a professional practitioner who loves diversity. I love culture, having been blessed to live across three diverse cultures to date – European Australian, Japanese, Indian. I have experienced many more cultures in my global travels. I love all things music and sound – audio, in terms of production (tracking), post-production, live and theory. I believe in the access of education for everyone (referred to as community education). I love performance. I love fast fun things. I love the environment. .. I love… I love…. I love… I love…..
    Pinterest Board Categories.20160306.P1b
(Page 2017e)
  • I use David L Page you-tube.com (Page 2017f) to provide a curated audio-visual view of my multi-facetted self. As indicated above, I am a professional practitioner who loves diversity, culture, all things music and sound, education for everyone, performance, comedy, or fast fun things.. I love diversity…. 
David L Page You-tube channel.201706011
(Page 2017f)

Engagement with particular creative media mediums dictates what cultural productions I engage in

How I engage in media depends upon what cultural production – what cultural artifact – I will engage in at any particular time. Depending upon the medium I choose to listen to music or soundtracks will depend upon what I choose to listen to. Am I going to use the internet to stream; an iPod; a CD player – in a house, or a CD player in a car; a car radio; a portable tape player; a cheap record player; a high-end stereo system; or a high end 5.1 surround sound hi-fi system?
It is the same situation for visual arts and design. Depending upon the medium I choose to view visual arts and design will depend upon what I choose to view. on a small screen device such as an iPhone; via a static image platform such as Pinterest.com; via an audio-visual dynamic image platform such as you-tube.com; in a small art gallery with physical visual art or graphic displays; in a large National art gallery with physical visual art or graphic displays?
It is the same situation for film. Depending upon the medium I choose to watch film will depend upon what I choose to watch: on a portable small screen device such as an iPhone; a portable smallish screen device such as a laptop; on a small screen TV; on a large screen TV with a hi-fi 5.1 surround system; in a local suburban cinema; in a surround sound movie theatre equipped with dolby; or an outdoor drive in movie theatre with a window mono speaker system?
As a creative practitioner, I have listed examples below of media across four (4) disciplines and how I view them. Providing examples of four (4) different creative media disciplines I believe enables me to make my point of how engagement with particular creative media mediums very much dictates what cultural productions I actually engage in at any point in time.

~Music_staff Blue

(AE 2015a)
1. 4 different listening behaviours I exhibit:
  • eg 1: Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” for me, is best listened in the medium of an album, played on a HiFi record player system, in one sitting, in a comfortable chair, with ambient/subdued lighting (lava lamps etc), at the end of a day. Strict rule – no talking during each side… Flipping the album from side 1 to side 2 is the opportunity to have a break if one needs;

Dark Side of the Moon_Pink Floyd.1973

(Pink Floyd 1973)
  • eg 2: Tim Buckley’s “Greetings from LA” must be played as a full album, in sequence , in one go. I do not mind what medium I listen to it on (album on stereo, cassette tape, on itunes in car system, studio system, or on laptop/desktop/ipod/iphone via studio quality headphones) BUT MUST be listened to in sequence, at one time! (not negotiable);

Greetings From LA_Tim_Buckley.1972

(Buckley 1972)
  • eg 3: Where I did not buy the artist’s songs as an album, or I did, but I have never or have infrequently listened to it as a continuous complete album, I am happy to play the songs randomly in a multi-artist, multi-genre playlist via any medium (generally on itunes in car system, studio system, or on laptop/desktop/ipod/iphone via studio quality headphones);
  • eg 4: ambient music, or dance music for me is about a soundtrack to my life at that moment in time, supporting my emotional or physical state at that time, or my desired emotional or physical state at that time. I am happy to play the songs randomly in a multi-artist, signle-genre playlist via any medium (generally on itunes in car system, studio system, or on laptop/desktop/ipod/iphone via studio quality headphones).
    John Olsen_Sydney Sun [or King Sun] 1965, National Gallery of Australia © John Olsen.jpg(Olsen 2017)
2. 4 different visual arts and design viewing behaviours I exhibit:
  • eg 1: traditional art – physical paintings, etc – I do like to see in an art gallery, particularly a curated art gallery with a theme, or an artist’s works.. I like taking time to wander around in a relaxed stated;
  • eg 2: In saying that, I usually also like to have copies of my favourite works electronically (desktop pictures, pinterest, etc) to see and remind myself of that experience in the art gallery;
  • eg 3: I do view traditional art – physical paintings, etc – in coffee table books, but generally to see and remind myself of that experience in the art gallery…. eg 4: virtual design is ok on most modern mediums (laptop, desktop, etc). However in saying this, I tend not to view on smaller virtual devices such as iphones, as images gets lost/loses visual impact for me being so small, etc;
  • eg 4: Functional design, such as promotional or marketing brochures for me are best in a physical tactile state. i like to pour over them, digest them, turn the page, revisit the previous page, perhaps circle or add notes around the borders of the text that I may be attracted to, and have further questions about. I tend to want to engage physically with these mediums;
  • eg 5: virtual creative, artistic design is ok on most modern mediums (laptop, desktop, etc). However in saying this, I tend not to view on smaller virtual devices such as iphones, as images gets lost/loses visual impact for me being so small, etc.
3.4 different film viewing behaviours I exhibit:
  • eg 1: I most like watching feature movies on a movie theatre wide screen and sound system. However, I mostly watch them on my 65″ home TV with sound system – for convenience. For me, watching movies is a shared experience, watching with someone. I do not like watching animation movies on laptops or small screen for both the limited visual and audio experience, but mainly for the lack of watching in a relaxed shared experience environment. An example of a movie that i have seen in these conditions would be “Shawshank Redemption”;

Shawshank Redemption_CastleRockEntertainment.1994.jpg

(Entertainment, Castle Rock. 1994)
  • eg 2: Certain movies eg (original) “Point Break”, “Star Wars” are a cinematic experience, and lose a great detail of impact for me when not watched in cinema, but on my home TV system;
  • eg 3: Where I want to view a trailer to see if I am interested in watching it in full, I am happy to watch them on alternate mediums such as a laptop or desktop
  • eg 4: Certain movies eg “Blair Witch Project” I believe benefit from being watched on alternate mediums such as a laptop or desktop as this smaller – more intimate? individual? secretive? medium lends itself more to the intent of the narrative in my opinion.
4. 3 different animation viewing behaviours I exhibit:
  • eg 1: I most like watching feature animation movies on a movie theatre wide screen and sound system. However, I mostly watch them from the second or third time via a DVD on my 65″ home TV with sound system – for convenience. “Lion King” is a good example of this. For me – now – “Lion King” is best listened to (note, not necessairly watched) in one go. It can be in background playing as i am working. In one particular period when i was working home over a three (3) month period, I recall “Lion King” was playing in the background on repeat, all day, every day for those three (3) months;

    The Lion King_Walt Disney Pictures.1994

    (Disney 1994)
  • eg 2: I most like watching animation movies (eg Disney or Pixar) on a movie theatre wide screen and sound system. However, I mostly watch them on my 65″ home TV with sound system – for convenience. I do not like watching animation movies on laptops or small screen for both the limited visual and audio experience;
  • eg 3: Where there are short animations (3 minute Pixar), I am happy to watch them on alternate mediums such as a laptop or desktop, just to entertain myself for a short moment to lift my mood, distract me, etc.
5. x different games viewing behaviours I exhibit:
  • eg 1: No contribution possible. mes not a gameboy!!!

Conclusion

What creative media medium I engage with will dictate to a degree what cultural production – what cultural artifact – I will engage in at any particular time.  As a creative practitioner, I have provided examples across four (4) disciplines of how I may engage in particular creative media mediums, dictating what cultural productions – what cultural artifacts – I engage in at any point in time.
I love many, varied forms of creative media,  In my personal situation  have access to many, varied creative media mediums:  the internet; an iPod; a CD player – in a house, or a CD player in a car; a car radio; a portable tape player; a cheap record player; a high-end stereo system; or a high end 5.1 surround sound hi-fi system; a small screen device such as an iPhone; a laptop; a desktop; static image platform such as Pinterest.com; via an audio-visual dynamic image platform such as you-tube.com; a small art gallery with physical visual art or graphic displays; a large National art gallery with physical visual art or graphic displays; a small screen TV; a large screen TV with a hi-fi 5.1 surround system; a local suburban cinema; in a surround sound movie theatre equipped with dolby; or an outdoor drive in movie theatre with a window mono speaker system. Most of us in western countries have many, varied options and access in this era.
The mediums one chooses to access media through, could therefore dictate what media you actually engage in.
  • How do you access creative media?
  • How does this inform what cultural production – what cultural artifact – you choose to engage in at any point in time?
References
AE 2015a Music note montage in the universe image courtesy of: Angelic Exorcism (AE) Studio Projects  Accessed 11th March 2015
Buckley, Tim. 1972. Greetings from LA. Straight Records. Vinyl LP.
Disney, Walt. 1994. The lion king. Walt Disney Feature Animation. DVD.
DLP 2017a image courtesy of David L Page  Accessed 11th June, 2017
DLP 2017g image courtesy of David L Page Accessed 11th June, 2017
Entertainment, Castle Rock. 1994. The shawshank redemption. Colombia Pictures. DVD.
Olsen 2017 image courtesy of Sydney Sun [or King Sun] 1965, National Gallery of Australia © John Olsen  Accessed 11th June, 2017
Page, David L. 2017b Research Practitioner Part 16 Accessed 11th June, 2017
Page, David L. 2017c Research Practitioner Part 18 Accessed 11th June, 2017
Page, David L. 2017d  David L Page wordpress.com  Accessed 11th June, 2017
Page, David L. 2017e  David L Page Pinterest.com  Accessed 11th June, 2017
Page, David L. 2017f David L Page you-tube.com  Accessed 11th June, 2017
Page, David L. 2014 Media Identity & Curation Part 2  Accessed 11th June, 2017
Floyd, Pink. 1973. Dark side of the moon. Harvest. Vinyl LP.
– ©David L Page 11/06/2017
Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSave

Advertisements

Research Practitioner Part 24

onion-layers

Research Study

Abstract

The aim of this Doctor of Creative Industries Research Project is to investigate both my DIY music practice and my self as a practitioner during the process of creating and producing a cultural artefact (EP).  My research study is designed to be a multi-method qualitative study: a practice-based, ethnographic study that is to include a first-person narrative of my personal journey, critical reflection and reflexive practice, highlighting the co-constituted nature of my music-making practice. As an auto-ethnographic study, I designed the project for me to be performing the dual primary roles of being both the practitioner as subject, and the researcher. Such a multi-tiered examination represents a significant departure from current discussion of music practice, developing praxis of contemporary music practice. In this Project 1 research study exegesis submission I narrate the process to date, highlighting observation around my practitioner self, and my music practice and the emergent distinctions integrated into my developing music praxis.

~DL with Gretsch + C414.20141006.P21

(DLP 2015a)

Preamble

Continuing on from my previous blogs in this series….

In the beginning……

My journey in music-making commenced a number of decades ago. I made music via physical instruments without much thought of the process. I strummed chords on a guitar or piano, hummed or played a melodic phrase, developed lyrics, and over time a song emerged. I felt connected to the process; I felt connected to the music. I recall getting positive feedback when I shared my acoustic instrument-based songs with an audience. I followed this process several hundred times over several decades, and because of the relative ease these songs came to me, I did not feel a need to consider my music-making process.
As technologies developed, I transitioned into music-making using digital virtual technologies. I invested in virtual technologies, trialling a number of virtual music-making applications – digital audio workstations (DAWs). I experimented; I spoke to local pro audio retailers; I experimented some more; I bought instructional books and videos; I studied; I experimented a lot more. Over a number of years however, I found that irrespective of how much time and money I invested into my virtual music-making production practice, I never managed to achieve a similar flow or a similar feeling – a creative high – as I had music-making using physical instruments. My frustration using virtual technologies to make music grew. I enrolled into a practical tertiary course. The course assisted me greatly to develop my theory and practical skills. However, using virtual technologies to make music that I felt connected to, (largely) continued to elude me. There was one instance, a remix project where I felt a connection. That experience gave me hope that my attempts to use virtual technologies to make music I felt connected to, was not going to be in vain. I continued to experiment; I continued to read; I continued to invest; I continue to immerse my self into my virtual music-making production practice. However, I still found I wasn’t achieving a similar flow or a similar feeling – a creative high – using virtual technologies to make music as I had music-making using physical instruments. My frustration was at an all-time high. I had arrived at a juncture in my life where I felt there was now no alternative: my virtual music-making production practice needed an intervention. I needed to put my creative practice using virtual technologies to make music under scrutiny. In 2014 I applied to a formal academic research program – a professional doctorate program. I commenced the program in 2015. My formal research journey began.

My doctoral research study……

Research Study – 1st Observation:
I acknowledged that I approached my music-making practice in terms of the outcome – the finished product. I was not considering the process in which I was music-making, any more than with a cursory glance. My music-making practice was product-driven.

Starting Point_1st Observation.P1.png

(DLP 2017a)
I recognised that I approached my music-making with physical instruments in a different manner to my approach to music-making using virtual technologies (using my laptop to make music for example). In drilling down I determined that much of this was how I viewed both devices.
Physical instruments as I played were derived directly from nature. Pianos and guitars that I played were manufactured from woods from the forest. They are physical instruments that have natural resonant qualities. The woods expand and contract, depending upon temperature and humidity. They are large instruments that I can touch, embrace and/or feel the resonant qualities as they are played.
I viewed virtual technologies very differently. The actual device that housed the music-making application software (DAW) was a computer (a laptop for example). I saw a laptop as a device that houses many many application software that enabled me to record data and/or make transactions. I used computer technologies for administrative purposes (applications such as iNote, word, excel, etc); organisation purposes (applications such as iCal, reminders, etc); and everyday personal and business management (services such as the internet-based social media sites, banking sites, utility sites to pay bills, etc). I viewed the music-making application software (DAW) as somewhat removed from me. It was housed in a aluminium and plastic case, that I could see, but not touch. The virtual keyboards were engaged by pressing a computer keyboard letter;  or perhaps a key on a plastic physical keyboard controller. Neither devices are derived directly from nature. They are manufactured. A computer and a keyboard controller are physical devices which also have natural resonant qualities. They only minimally expand and contract in extreme conditions, with such occurrences perhaps likely to render these devices inoperable. There is also a slight delay between the time you touch the key and having the sound emitted out of the computer monitors. They are not what I consider to be large resonant devices that can be embraced and/or feel the resonant qualities as they are played, such as I experience with a piano or guitar.
Research Study – 2nd Observation:
As I attempted to scope out the parameters of my research study,  I was led to look at the industry of my practice, the field of music production, and the particular discipline of virtual technologies to make music. This process revealed gaps in my knowledge, and enabled me to form linkages across several strands within the field of contemporary music production.
I then looked in greater detail at the history of my practice, understanding for perhaps the first time the implications of how I approached my music-making practice – as product rather than process.  I also started to consider me as a practitioner, as the music-maker. Who was I? How did I arrive to be this person?
My eyes were starting to open.
Starting Point_1st Observation.P2a
(DLP 2017b)
Project 1 Pilot Study – 3rd Observation:
As I progressed my initial Project 1 Pilot Study, exploring the parameters of my music-making practice, I started to highlight certain elements which I considered key to my practice. As a flow on from my music-making practice, I acknowledged that the self was an element that had to be included. What motivated me to practice?
Phase 1_3rd Observation.P3b
(DLP 2017c)
My music praxis (v4) had six (6) elements listed: self, motive, music style, location, technology and workflow.
dlp-music-praxis-v4-large-with-lines-20151203-p1
(DLP 2015b)
My initial pilot study was to be an exploratory investigation to determine the parameters of my music practice; and to investigate what – if any – relationship existed between these elements. I engaged in conscious, deliberate and systematic reflective and reflexive practice of my creative practice, and as part of this process I felt obligated to consider everything that I observed.
As I progressively immersed myself into my quite isolated pilot study, I began to focus in on what I was doing at any point in time, as both the practitioner subject and the observer/researcher. To juggle both responsibilities was not beyond challenge and limitations. How was I to do both – be the creative practitioner, and simultaneously observe my practice?
Project 1 Pilot Study – 5th Observation:
One of the first elements I noted to be part of my developing music praxis (v5) – beyond the initial six (6) elements I had observed at the time of my Project Brief submission – was listening. I noticed listening was central to agency within my practice. Listening directed my choices and decision-making within my practice in terms of music style – in my ability to critically and analytically listen to reference tracks; in terms of my selecting appropriate notes and/or sonic event samples during the creative, pre-production or production stages; in terms of hearing needed or possible options of contra-melodies, rhythms, harmonies or instrumentation during the creative, pre-production or production stages; in terms of determining the degree of adjustment of sound sources or processing that needed to occur during the production or post-production stages.

Phase 1_5th Observation.P5c

(DLP 2017d)
I started to observe that a central aspect of this listening was also in terms of my practice overall, such as deciding when I needed to have a break. Yes, listening to an inner voice, reminding me I was in need a break from creative practice. I started to notice by paying more attention to my self – to listening to my self – there was a great deal of head chatter occurring while I was engaged in practice.
DLP DCI Praxis v5i.20160531.P1
(DLP 2016a)
I had always known of my head chatter, but had accepted it by my mid-twenties as the outpouring of my inner fears as I approached a new experience. By my early-thirties I had learnt to manipulate this head-chatter, to work for me rather than against me. I used my head chatter to consciously motivate and focus my self. I have continued to develop this practice throughout my life, assisting me in preparing for any form of performance, be it: public speaking, education practice (as educator), learning practice (as learner in formal instrument or personal development), and my music practice (on stage performing). However, I had never considered, nor explored my head chatter beyond this; particularly within the context of my creative practice.
As I listened more, I recognised that this head chatter – inner speech – did not just consist of just one voice, but were in fact multiple voices; multiple voices with multiple perspectives. As I focussed in on my listening – consciously, deliberately and systematically – I realised these voices were not necessarily independent. There was often a dialogue occurring between them. As I honed my focus and developed my inner listening, I noticed that the dialogue within my head was occurring across three perspectives of time – one of now; one of past; and one of future. In effect, three voices representative of each point in time. As Wiley (2010, P17) refers to it: the I of the present; the me of the past; and the you of the future. An epiphany. A light bulb moment, an ‘aha’ moment for me. The head chatter – as I had always referred to it – that had accompanied me in so many events and stage of my life, was indeed the inner speech of my dialogic self.
As my immersion in reflective and reflexive practice of my research study deepened, I honed in on the incessant daily dialogue of my dialogical self and began to distinguish between the inner speech – the three inner voices, the triadic voices of the I, the me, and the you – for each of my three selves operating at any point in time within the site of my practice: the self, the practitioner self and the observer/researcher self. I would take time to listen to the dialogue at any point in time during my creative practice, as they considered and debated: what I was seeing or observing, what I was hearing, what I was feeling, what I was imagining, what I was recalling, what I was smelling, or even what I was tasting; in order to better understand my music praxis. I devised ways to take notes during my practice of these daily triadic conversations, in order to return to them, reflect on them, and decode them. My music praxis developed as a result of this process, to not only acknowledge significantly more stages and elements of my music-making process; but, perhaps most significantly, the non-linear form of my music praxis (v8i).

DLP DCI Praxis v8i.20161231.P1.png

(DLP 2016b)
I realised my music praxis was in fact very circular, with reflective and reflexive practice occurring constantly at any point in time. ­
My practice has now developed to the point where I can engage in multiple forms of listening whilst immersed and engaged in any stage of practice. I can now distinguish between the triadic voices of my three selves: the self, the practitioner self and the observer/researcher self in the present, the past, and the future within a very short amount of time, or sometimes, almost instantaneously and/or simultaneously. Just as my critical and analytical listening has developed over many decades of practice, my ability to listen and decipher the dialogue occurring within my dialogical selves at any point in time has also developed.
I liken this developed complex skill to other forms of practice where multiple tasks are required in sequence over a very short amount of time, often times almost instantaneously and/or simultaneously. The practice of driving a car and the practice of performing are similar type complex skills that need to be learnt; and are often awkward or impossible when one first attempts them with no prior experience. The act of driving a car – accelerating, braking, looking to the side for another car, indicating, moving lanes, whilst watching cars to the side, in front and behind is an example of such a complex task. Another example of a complex task would be leading a band, singing into a microphone, engaging an audience, playing guitar, and selecting guitar floor pedals, over a very short amount of time, often times almost instantaneously and/or simultaneously. I recall when I was younger, that I would never be able to learn how to do both complex tasks. Now I reflect on how many times a year I engage in both practices without any preparation, and perform them to a very high level of practice: almost unconsciously.
Learning about, and getting to know my dialogical self has assisted my music practice exponentially. As part of the process, I have developed a greater understanding of my self which in turn informed my practitioner self. This in turn allowed me to develop my music praxis to a greater depth and level of detail than I was able to previously. I now have far greater agency of my praxis (v9k), and its twenty-one (21) interdependent elements, at each of the various eight (8) stages of my creative practice.
DLP DCI Praxis v9i.20170420.P1
(DLP 2017e)
As a result, I have far greater agency of my praxis (v9k) while music-making. I am now exponentially more focussed and more deliberate in my practice, most noticeably in my music-making within virtual technologies. I have found my self now responding within my music-making micro workflow in a similar vein to that of my performing – improvising – on my long-term physical instrument of choice, the electric guitar. I observe that I now engage – almost instantaneously and/or simultaneously – in the voices of the I, the me, and the you – at any point in time, within my site/s of practice. A split second in-practice, on-practice and for-practice dialogue – in performance, in assessment of what the practitioner self just heard or performed, in consideration of what options the practitioner self now has before them, their decision as to what they want to express, and the performing of the next music-making action. Yes, a fluid practice performance that demonstrates the harmonious integration of the elements of self, listening, reflective and reflexive practice. In essence: I listen, I practice, I reflect, I analyse, I consider, I choose, I prepare to act, I act – almost instantaneously and/or simultaneously.
This Project 1 Pilot Study has been a personal journey of creative and research practice, highlighting the co-constituted nature of my music-making practice. I now engage in the process of music-making in pursuit of authentic expression of self, irrespective of the medium. My authentic music-making practice – in contrast to my practice prior to engaging in this doctoral research – now transgresses the mediums of: physical instruments and virtual technologies. I now have a sense of who I am, what I am attempting to create, why I am attempting to create it, and an affective connection in the creation of it, irrespective of the medium of my music-making practice – physical instruments or virtual technologies. Virtual technologies are now as much an extension of my music-making practitioner self’s body, as playing my physical instrument of choice, the electric guitar. Allow me now to share my finding of this Project 1 Pilot Study – Holistic model to authentic practice – my journey and development through the four (4) phases of: identity-driven practice, value-driven practice, narrative-based practice, and embodied practice.
DCI Project 1 Model Graphic_Overview.20170607.P1c1.png
(DLP 2017f)
This blog series is planned to continue next month with Research Practitioner Part 25. It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.
References
DLP 2017a image courtesy of David L Page Project 1 Research Study Holistic Model of an Authentic Practitioner. Created 17th May, 2017
DLP 2017b image courtesy of David L Page Project 1 Research Study Holistic Model of an Authentic Practitioner. Created 17th May, 2017
DLP 2017c image courtesy of David L Page Project 1 Research Study Holistic Model of an Authentic Practitioner. Created 17th May, 2017
DLP 2017d image courtesy of David L Page Project 1 Research Study Holistic Model of an Authentic Practitioner. Created 17th May, 2017
DLP 2017e image courtesy of David L Page Project 1 Research Study Developed Praxis v9k. Created 17th May, 2017
DLP 2017f image courtesy of David L Page Project 1 Research Study Holistic Model of an Authentic Practitioner.  Created 17th May, 2017
DLP 2017c image courtesy of David L Page Project 1 Research Study Developed – Holistic Model of Authentic Practice. Created 17th May, 2017
DLP 2016a image courtesy of David L Page Project 1 Research Study Developed Praxis v5b. Created 17th May, 2017
DLP 2016b image courtesy of David L Page Project 1 Research Study Developed Praxis v8i.  Created 31st December, 2016
DLP 2015a image courtesy of David L Page. Created 14th September, 2015
DLP 2015b image courtesy of David L Page Project 1 Research Study Developed Praxis v4.  Created 4th December, 2015
Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 28th March, 2015
Page, David L. 2017. Doctoral Research Study Part 3 Accessed 17th May, 2017
Wiley, Norbert. 2010. “Inner speech and agency.” In Conversations about reflexivity, edited by Margaret S. Archer, 17-38. New York: Routledge
– @David L Page 17/05/2017
– updated @David L Page 30/05/2017
Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

 

SaveSave

SaveSave

Research Practitioner Part 5

cooltext170962165748837

“I don’t know where I’m going from here, but I promise it won’t be boring” [David Bowie].

 Observations of my practice

The Art of self-reflection

Since commencing my Doctorate in January 2015, I have immersed my self in researching the industry and field of my practice, attempting to better understand how my practice sits within the very broad fields of music and sound. As I drilled down further, I defined a number of divergent disciplines within the field of music and sound that had emerged as technologies developed (Théberge 1997, in Page 2015a). Reflecting on the path my music practice had taken over a number of decades, I noticed that my path had taken what could only be described as a diagonal trajectory, across a number of the disciplines of music practice, as technologies were developed. Like many of my peers, I seemed to be attracted to new technologies and attempts to apply these, like to a moth to a lamp, I was passionate about analogue technologies; but I was also curious as to the opportunities that digital technologies brought to practice: the multiple array of sound options within a small device, relative to the multiple analogue devices that would be needed to produce a similar array of sounds. Then as virtual environments became possible with the development of computer technologies, my curiosity was again attracted to the possibilities: the exponential array of sound options, within a relatively small device such as a desktop computer, relative to the multiple digital devices that would be needed to produce a similar array of sounds (see History Music Production Part 5a). As I delved deeper into my past, I accepted that I did not see my self as an innovator, just curious. A music practitioner who was attracted by new sounds and approaches to music production and performance. I began to recognise that I naturally took a multi-disciplinary approach in not only my music practice, but in my life in general. I recall few times in my life where I was content to focus on one discipline for an extended period of time. I have accepted that my practice now covers three broad disciplines: a broad definition of music practice (Small 1998), education and learning practice, and my most recent engagement, research practice.

Research Practice

Continuing on from my previous blogs in this series; I have actively engaged in research practice investigating various research methodologies, I started to define my view of what my practice was. Whilst I have not formally studied Reflective Practice at a tertiary level, I have been presented a number of formal tertiary milestone opportunities where I was required to reflect on my practice. As a post-graduate research student, I am reading broadly about this particular methodological practice in order to improve my understanding. Whilst reading, I have found my self reflecting on each of my various forms of practice, and speculating how the particular methodological practice may apply to any of these forms.
Questions arising in my mind over the past several months have included:
  • What is the range of opinions about the process of reflecting within academic literature?
  • What of these opinions have been related to the context of creative practice?
  • What benefits might I expect as result of my reflecting on my own creative practice?
    • Should I expect these benefits to be of a tangible or non-tangible form?
    • If of a non-tangible form, how will I know that I have received the benefit?
  • Does the current literature differentiate between the process of reflecting, and what is referred to as reflective practice?
  • What are there different models of reflective practice, and how could they be applied?
  • Could different models of reflective practice be more appropriate to different forms of practice?
  • Is the act of reflective process in itself expected to bring benefit to my practice?
As I have progressed my Project 1’s creative process over the past several months – particularly in terms of the collection of data and accompanying documentation process –  I have found myself considering:
  • if I reflect in my music practice?; and if so,
  • how do I reflect in my music practice?
Further questions have arisen:
  • assuming I reflect, at what point in my practice – ie when – did I engage in reflective practice?
Further:
  • 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 occured 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? 
Given that I nominated a number of authors in my project brief  who I had thought I would align myself to their approaches to reflective practice, have I found any of these models useful in the process of investigating my practice?
  • If so, which particular model or models have I found to be useful at which stage of my practice?
  • If not, are there other reflective practice models defined in academic literature that may better apply to my practice?
  • If so, which model or models may these be?

Reflective versus Reflexive Practice

The other side of the discussion practitioners may have with fellow reflective practitioner models is: when does creative practice move from one of reflection, to that of reflexive practice?  Reflexive practice is referred to 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.
For me as a songwriter, I have for many years acknowledged that I intuitively use a writing technique called stream of consciousness – writing commenced from a specific stimuli (visual or other), writing continuously, pursuing a thought process without stopping for contemplation, narrowing ones’ focus in on a central theme, until the point of a specific topic and line of thought is illuminated and committed to the document (paper of electronic). I find as part of the process I actually move into a semi-conscious state. It is as Ryan describes Archer’s model in “Reflective Practice in the Arts”. Whilst not music practice specific, Ryan talks about performative practice which applies very well to this experience of this creative stage of my music 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).

archer-in-ryan-2014-p80_reflective-practice-in-the-arts

Figure I – 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 blog, 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 realised I needed to read more broadly and deeply to consider my reflective practice model options from other specialist research practitioners, to apply to my particular auto-ethnographic research study. These are likely to be, in addition to the previously discussed Schon (1983), Brookfield (2002,1995, 1986), Archer (2010,2007), Ryan (2014) and Griffiths (2010); Rolfe (2002), Kolb (1984), Lawrence-Wilkes and Ashmore (2015), and Boud (2001).
I also 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.
This blog series is planned to continue next month with Research Practitioner Part 6. It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.
References
Archer, Margaret S. 2007. Making our way through the world: human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, Margaret S. 2010. Conversations about reflexivityOntological Explorations. New York: Routledge.
Bowie, David David Bowie quote  Accessed 3rd January 2016.
Boud, David. 2001. “Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2001 (90): 9-18. doi: 10.1002/ace.16.
Brookfield, Stephen D. 2002. “Using the lenses of critically reflective teaching in the community college classroom.” New Directions for Community Colleges 2002 (118): 31-38.
Brookfield, Stephen D. 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Brookfield, Stephen. 1986. Understanding and facilitating adult learning: a comprehensive analysis of principles and effective practices. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Griffiths, Morweena. 2010. Research and the self. In The Routledge companion to research in the arts, edited by M Biggs and H Karlsson, 167-185. London: Routledge.
Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
Lawrence-Wilkes, L and A Chapman. 2015. Reflective practice. Accessed 2nd June 2015. http://www.businessballs.com/reflective-practice.htm.
Page, David L. 2015a History Music Production Part 4 – Large Format Console Studios to Digital Project Studios  Accessed 18th March 2016.
Page, David L. 2015b. History of Music Production Part 5a – Rise of the DIY Practitioners Accessed 18th March 2016.
Pascal, J and N Thompson. 2012. “Developing critically reflective practice.” Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 13(2) 311-325. Accessed June 12, 2015. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2012.657795.
Question mark image courtesy of: Cool Text Accessed March 18, 2016.
Rolfe, Gary. 2002. “Reflective practice: where now?” Nurse Education in Practice 2 (1): 21-29.
 Ryan, Mary Elizabeth. 2014. Reflective practice in the arts. In Literacy in the Arts, edited by G Barton, 77-90. London: Springer.
Schön, Donald A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Aldershot, England: Arena.
Self reflection image courtesy of: Self-reflection-for-personal-growth  Accessed 18th March 2016.
Small, Christopher. 1998. Musicking: the meanings of performing and listening. Hanover: University Press of New England.
Théberge, Paul. 1997. Any sound you can make: making music/consuming technology. Hanover: University Press of New England.

 

Bibliography
Blom, Diana, Dawn Bennett and David Wright. 2011. “How artists working in academia view artistic practice as research: Implications for tertiary music education.” International Journal of Music Education: 0255761411421088.
Ellis, Carolyn. 1997. “Evocative autoethnography: Writing emotionally about our lives.” Communication Faculty Publications Paper 304.
Ellis, Carolyn S and Arthur Bochner. 2000. “Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject.” In The Handbook of Qualitative Rsearch, edited by Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, 733-768. New York: Sage.
Ferry, Natalie M. and Jovita M. Ross-Gordon. 1998. An inquiry into Schön’s epistemology of practice: exploring links between experience and reflective practice. In Adult Education Quarterly48 (2): 98-112. doi: 10.1177/074171369804800205.
 Finlay, Linda. 2008. “Reflecting on ‘reflective practice’.” Practice-based Professional Learning Centre paper 52 29 (August 12th, 2015). www.open.ac.uk/pbpl.
Franz, Jill M. 2010. Arts-based research. Researching Practice: A Discourse on Qualitative Methodologies 2: 217-226.
Gibbs’ Reflective cycle image courtesy of: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/543739354987865666  Accessed March 18, 2016.
Grace, S and R Ajjawi. 2010. “Phenomenological research: Understanding human phenomena.” Researcing practice: A discussion on qualitative methodologies. Rotterdam: Sense.
Haseman, B 2015. Forensic reflective practice: effecting personal and systemic change. Accessed 7th July, 2015. https://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_118711_1&content_id=_5744651_1.
Kolb, Alice Y and David A Kolb. 2009. “Experiential learning theory: a dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development.” In The Sage handbook of Management Learning, education and Development, edited by Steve J Armstrong and Cynthia V Fukami, 42-68. London: Sage.
Knowles, Zoë, Gareth Tyler, David Gilbourne and Martin Eubank. 2006. Reflecting on reflection: exploring the practice of sports coaching graduates. Reflective Practice 7 (2): 163-179.
Lyons, N. 2010. Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry. Vol. 1 New York: Springer.
McKee, Alan. 2003. Textual analysis: a beginner’s guide. London: Sage.
Mykhalovsky, Eric. 1996. “Reconsidering Table Talk.” Qualitative Sociology 19 (1).
Pace, Steven. 2012. Writing the self into research using grounded theory analytic strategies in auto ethnography. TEXT Special Issue Website Series 13.
Page, David 2016 QUT KKP622 Mid-Project 1 Research Study Progress Report submission draft Accessed 18th March 2016.
Page, David 2015c QUT KKP603 Project Development in the Creative Industries submission DLP DCI Project Brief  Accessed 18th March 2016.
Roth, Robert A. 1989. Preparing the reflective practitioner: transforming the apprentice through the dialectic. In Journal of Teacher Education 40 (2): 31-35.
Wright, David George, Dawn Bennett and Diana Blom. 2010. The interface between arts practice and research: attitudes and perceptions of Australian artist‐academics. Higher Education Research & Development 29 (4): 461-473.
– ©David L Page 20/03/2016
Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

Doctoral Pilot Study – Part 1

Doctorate of Creative Industries Project 1

research

This blog is a continuation of a series. See here for the previous blog.

Background

Continuing on from Doctoral Research Study – Part 4 , as stated in my Project Brief submission, the topic of my Research Study is entitled: Contemporary DIY Music Practice and the Practitioner Self.
As outlined in that same document my Project 1 is to be: Through a first-person narrative of my personal journey, critical reflection and reflexive practice, I will highlight the co-constituted nature of my music practice. As highlighted relatively recently 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 practitioner and researcher, what processes are required as a result in order to ensure a robust and interrogative investigation to occur, and the implications of this dual primary role on the music practice workflow. I intend to experiment in Project 1 to determine what is effective considering my context and workflow. It is predicted that such a mixed-method qualitative study research study would 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 creative practitioner, and that of the research practitioner (Page 2015c).

Beginnings Part 1

cooltext170962165748837

“I don’t know where I’m going from here, but I promise it won’t be boring” [David Bowie].
I began this DCI research study on the 2nd January 2016 not having engaged in a formal academic research project previously. I admit to being somewhat lost where to start. Questions that arose in my mind included:
  • How was I to embark on this journey?
  • How effectively was I going to perform the dual primary roles of being both the practitioner as subject, and the researcher?
  • How was this going to translate into daily activities that would enable my research study to progress along the specified time line requirements of the sponsoring higher education institution?
  • How was I going to create a creative and music production workflow drawing on the methods I have outlined in my Project Brief Methodology chapter?

Step One

Given my overwhelm, I took the advice I received as feedback from my Project 1 brief assessor, ‘David, return to the Project Brief Aims and Objective often throughout your research journey to maintain your research study focus’.
excerpt from Project 1 Brief Project Aims and Objectives
The aim of my KKP59 Doctor of Creative Industries program Research Project 1 is to investigate both my DIY music practice and my self as a practitioner during the process of creating and producing a cultural artefact (EP), developing praxis of contemporary music practice. Such a multi-tiered examination will represent a significant departure from current discussion of music practice (Page 2015).
My praxis has already developed over Year 1 through a number of incarnations to the current version four (see Figure III below). My praxis version 2 (see Figure I below) outlined four elements of practice that I suspected were likely to be interdependent: music style, technology, location and process. I felt that I needed to layout these four elements to highlight their interdependency, and the non-linear order that they may be considered in the course of my practice.  I had understood my research study was to be cycling around and around the practice (Page 2015).. 
dlp-music-praxis-v2-20160522-p1
Figure I – Praxis version 2 (Page 2015)
My praxis version three (3) (see Figure II below) then developed along similar lines to version two (2), however following the realisation of how central my self was to my practice. I realised that my attitude and my previous experience was definitely influencing my practice. The five elements of practice were now outlined in a similar interdependent relationship. Music style, technology, location and process, adding the practitioner self in the middle of the diagram to highlight the significance of self at the centre of ones’ practice.

dlp-music-praxis-v3-20151203-p1

Figure II – Praxis version 3 (Page 2015)
Upon further observation and reflection, I described my practice and self as being two distinct and yet significant elements. As I continued to observe my practice, and reflect on my decision-making process, I realised that in many ways I had two practices: the practice of my music endeavours; and the practice of my self.
In figure III below, I laid out what was central to my study, my practice on the left (blue section), and depict that manner in which I cycle around and around that practice with the circular lines around the outside of that blue section. Acknowledging my observations and reflections that occasionally I deviate from here, questioning my motivation to practice, I drew a dotted black line from the blue section to the green section towards the bottom of the chart. Further acknowledgement of my observation and reflection immediately following questioning my motive, led me to accept that I then generally spend some time away from my practice, within my self; immersing within my self – my thoughts, feeling and emotions, considering my past, my life experience, my life decisions and my desired future. As this process is generally engaged in away from my practice, away from my practice site, I chose to depict this process in a very different colour – pink – and in a separate section, to the right of my practice section. I observed that I would cycle around my self in reflection and questioning of my self, in a relative short time compared to the time I spent in my music practice, before returning back to my practice (black line from base of self (pink) section, returning to the top of the music practice (blue) section.
Having developed Praxis version 4, I now understood that a central aspect of my research study – in addition to the practical and aesthetic choices and decisions I make whilst cycling around and around my practice – was going to be for me to observe, comment and even perhaps describe my motives and share some of the internal dialogue that I often have away from my practice, but as a direct result of having engaged in my music practice. I was starting to arrive at the understanding that whilst this journey into my self would occur as a separate practice to my music practice, it was in the larger picture, part of the same practice: an integrated, holistic presentation that necessarily included both my music practice and the practitioner self.
As this praxis developed, I developed some simple questions that related to each of the elements, that I thought may help me to maintain my focus whilst I was engaged in this research study process:
  • Music style: what I am making?;
  • Location: where am I making it?;
  • Technology and Workflow: how am I making it?;
Occasionally,  I would leave the parameters of my music practice, and consider my motive for practice.
  • Motivation: why am I making it?;
I would then tend to become quite introspective, and consider my self – my thoughts, feeling and emotions, considering my past, my life experience, my life decisions and my desired future – relative to my music practice.
  • Self: who is making it?. That is, who am I ?
dlp-music-praxis-v4-large-with-lines-20151203-p1
Figure III – Praxis version 4 (Page 2015)
As I delved deeper into the literature and considered my practice, I realised both the significance of the elements of motivation and self upon my practice, and the lack of conscious consideration I had made of these in version two (2) of my praxis, and the superficial consideration of the element of self I had made in version three (3) of my praxis. In terms of current literature on music practice, seldom is either motivation or self discussed relative to music practice. Rarer still are studies of practice conducted that include the practice, the motivation, and the practitioner self.
Additional to these simple focus questions, I then developed three (3) sub-questions to my research study question:
  • Research study question: In contemporary DIY music practice, what effect does motive and creative technologies have on creative production?;
  • Sub-question 1: what is the relationship of the elements of music practice within the digital virtual environment. That is, are these elements within my music practice independent of each other, or are they in actual fact interdependent?
  • Sub-question 2:  what is my motivation to practice music?
  • Sub-question 3a: how does my music practice contribute to the concept of my self?, and
  • Sub-question 3b: how does my self-concept shape my music practice?
excerpt from Project 1 Brief Project Aims and Objectives
As the contemporary DIY music practitioner, I will engage in the creation and production of five original compositions, with the theme of each composition being representative of some aspect of my life: past, present or future envisioning. The practice-led research study will allow the multiple stages of cultural production, from creation to production to release, to be tracked and captured using multiple methods, for the intended purpose of critical reflection and reflexive action by the researcher-self. I will investigate how my EP’s are uniquely shaped through the relationship that exists between: technology, music style, workflow, creative location, and motive in what most now operate within, a digital virtual environment; and, how my music practice contributes to the concept of my self; and in turn, how my self concept then shapes my music practice. Within each of the music practice projects (Project 1 and Project 2), I will be concerned with the conditions that exist, what options are available, what decisions are made, what workflows result, and what output is achieved. I will consider my motive (or motives) for music practice; the outcome (or outcomes) desired, and investigate to determine whether these are in fact typical within the field of music and sound, or whether they are typical of recent motive discussions in the developing discipline of contemporary DIY music practice. I will research, source and if required, develop valid industry-acceptable standards to measure my music practice against. On a more personal level, the research study will explore the degree to which my music practice exists as an expression of the self, and in turn, how a greater understanding of self shapes my music practice (Page 2015).

Step Two

 Of particular importance 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 practice workflow. In a world with a developing DIY intent, it 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. It is critical that I demonstrate academic virtue, rigour and transparency of researcher as subject to avoid bias. As a researcher, I subscribe to Griffith’s view that irrespective of what research methodologies one utilises – quantitative, qualitative ethnographic or auto-ethnographic – the researcher must illuminate their “relationships, circumstances, perspectives and reactions”, making these clear to the reader (Griffiths 2011, 184). One way of addressing the separation of the self, is to ensure there are a diverse range of reflective devices and mediums in order to capture the data, so that these mixed-methods can then be used to distil the true data about my self and processes, in order to crystalize the outcomes and conclusions. It is a goal of mine to showcase the benefits and merits of such a qualitative study, particularly within a creative arts field, and therefore to have demonstrated academic virtue (Bridges 2003 in Griffiths, 2011, 183), be considered to have rigour, and guarded against bias, is a primary goal of mine for this KK59 Doctorate of Creative Industries research study.
Therefore in order to progress my Project 1, I thought it would be ideal at this point to establish a structured approach to my research study with the creative outcomes of a cultural artifact (five track EP). Starting at a place I felt comfortable, I deconstructed the creative and music production process, and established a checklist template that could guide me in the creative construction process. This template lists sixty steps across the five stages of the creative and music production process: the creative, pre-production, production, post-production, and the distribution stages. I designed it as a wall-chart quick check to check off the various steps as I progress along the creative and music production process.
I then created summary Creative and Music Production Checklist text document that I imagined would provide a place for me to journal detailed comments as I progress along the creative and music production process checklist.

Step Three – Methods

excerpt from Project 1 Brief Project Aims and Objectives
As a practice-led, auto-ethnographic study of my DIY music practice, drawing on the methodologies of reflective and reflexive practice, this project will involve 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 artefact (Page 2015).
My third step was to provide some order to my project, particularly the creative aspect, and consider how I was going to substantively collect the bulk of the required data from my research project – that of critical reflective practice. I returned to my Project Brief, and noted some of the methods I had considered would be beneficial to record data for both critical reflective and reflexive practice (see figure iv below).
appendix-ii-specific-mediums-envisaged-to-be-used-for-data-gathering-v13c-20151203
Figure IV – Data collection methods (Page 2015)
These were: iCalendar, iNotes, excel documents, word and text documents, and a blog.
I set about creating a workflow using these mediums (iCalendar, iNotes, excel documents, word and text documents) to use to record as much of my daily progress as possible. These mediums included utilizing the previous constructed Creative and Music Production Checklist and journal for noting down comments and observations and reflections.
Step Three – Part A iCalendar and iNotes
ical-image-20160129-p2
Figure V – iCal (Page 2016)
I have found that I have relied on iCalendar (see figure v above) and iNotes to maintain a record of what and when I was doing music practice, and recording data. Despite assuming I would use the excel charts and journal documents primarily, I have found that I have used iNotes as the primary data collection medium, given the accessibility of this on numerous portable electronic devices (MacBookPro, iPhone, and iMac), its syncing functionality, and the ability to copy and paste the content into other formats such word, excel, powerpoint and text documents. I have found such a medium can be very spontaneous, but as a result, the language and tone is mostly lay.

inote-image-20160129

Step Three – Part B Data Management system
As a higher education research study I need to be able to provide evidence of robust investigation; of my proactivity and application over the course of the Projects, demonstrating my engagement in this research practice to all key stakeholders. Part of my research study is to provide deliverables. 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.
Mediums planned to be used to gather data from this Project 1 process are:  paper/pen, notebook,  post-it notes, journals, inotes, text, word, excel, mindmaps, sketches, drawings, photos, audio memos, calendar entries, meeting notes, social media chats (eg: FB group, slack channel, msn, or skype chats, etc), blogs, industry forums (eg: Gear Slutz threads), curation and social engagement sites (Pinterest, You-tube, Vimeo, Soundcloud, WordPress, Tumblr, Instagram, etc)
I also 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-existance with my music 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 practice. These included: the development of my Project idea, group meeting minutes, discussion re gaps in my human resource portfolios, advertising for assistance where needed, Supervisor and Associate Supervisor meeting minutes, observation reports re live and virtual listening sessions, critical listening observations of other’s cultural productions, blogs re musical styles, discussion re reference tracks, examples of reference tracks, blogs of reference track critical, analytical, social and cultural analysis, scoping documents, project brief, pre-production plan brief, extensive pre-production plan (with live room stage setup, equipment required, variety of micing positions and technique options, input lists),  DAW session (PTs, LP, Ableton) with scratch tracks/compositional ideas/experimentation with samples or tracking, blogs re session reflections, evidence of research (pdfs, websites, industry texts, academic texts), blogs reflecting on my research, and gaps in my knowledge or skillset (personal/soft skills, technical/physical or virtual, application/physical or virtual), evidence of my being proactive in exploring these gaps, and increasing my knoweldge and skillset around these gaps, blogs reflecting on my experimentation and developing my practice, song or compositional development drafts, DAW session (PTs, LP, Ableton) with demo tracks, extensive post-production plan (with location and technology likely to be used – photos or console channel strip templates or DAW screenshots of likely processing methods, types, manufacturer models), blogs reflecting on my engagement as a creative media practitioner with society (peers, industry, mentors, public), blogs reflecting on my self as a practitioner as to what I have discovered or learnt about my self.
Step Three – Part C 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 range of my music practice stages. 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 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 iNotes, 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;
  • Continuing to write, hone, craft the written text, until it demonstrates the atributes of re-writing:
    • continuity and coherence, and
    • the content realises 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.
Knowing the blog would be published for all to read was now going to be an additional motive to ensure my blogged reflective journals were well crafted, articulating my reflections succinctly and authentically,  Writing has supported me in my many forms of practice over much of my life as the vast stock of written material in my filing cabinets in my project studio office demonstrates. However, the practice of writing for me had predominantly been a very private process. A practice where I could express my self in the privacy of me, and only me, as the audience. However, I now have a more developed understanding that a key characteristic of robust reflective practice is that the data collected from my reflective practice, is shared with others. Yes, progressing “from I to us” (Ghaye and Lillyman 2014, 24), Whilst this next step brought up immense fears and insecurities of self – actually scaring the living daylights out of my private self – I knew it was an essential step for my development of practice.
A second benefit of using blogs as a medium was that I could see the writing of the blogs as being a progressive step to hone a more formal language and tone to better meet academic compliance. I accepted a by-product of me embracing the formal academic world of research would also include my need to develop my practice of writing that would be scrutinised by my academic peers, in the public arena: “from independence to inter-dependence of practice ” (Ghaye and Lillyman 2014, 27).
As I have developed a social media network over the past several years, I re-examined my blog site through tumblr. It had frustrated me over the past year that tumblr had not provided me the flexibility that I had envisioned of a fully interactive blog site. Across January I sought peer opinion as to recommended sites, with the view of engaging someone to construct a suitable site on my behalf. Due to several obstacles (mainly lack of immediate availability of valued assistance), I embarked on researching and constructing a site myself, and decided upon a wordpress site (see figure vi below). After some initial learning challenges, I have found this site is easily managed by myself – creating and editing blogs – and allowed me to easily integrate this new communication medium into my already developed social media network.
wordpress-site-20160129
Figure VI – DLP WordPress site (Page 2016)
This blog series is planned to continue next month with Doctoral Pilot Study – Part 2. It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.
References
Blom, Diana, Dawn Bennett and David Wright. 2011. “How artists working in academia view artistic practice as research: Implications for tertiary music education.” International Journal of Music Education: 0255761411421088.
Boud, David. 2001. “Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2001 (90): 9-18. doi: 10.1002/ace.16.
Bowie, David David Bowie quote  Accessed 3rd January, 2016.
Franz, Jill M. 2010. Arts-based research. Researching Practice: A Discourse on Qualitative Methodologies 2: 217-226.
Ghaye, Tony and Sue Lillyman. 2014. Reflection: Principles and practices for healthcare professionals 2nd edition. Digital: Andrews UK Limited.
Griffiths, Morweena. 2010. Research and the self. In The Routledge companion to research in the arts, edited by M Biggs and H Karlsson, 167-185. London: Routledge.
iNotes image courtesy of:  iNote  Accessed 28th January, 2016.
Pace, Steven. 2012. Writing the self into research using grounded theory analytic strategies in auto ethnography. TEXT Special Issue Website Series 13.
Page, David L. 2016.  DLP iCal screen Accessed 28th January, 2016.
Page, David L.  2016.  DLP WordPress site Accessed 28th January, 2016.
Page, David L. 2015a Now Accessed 27th January, 2016.
Page, David L. 2015b Doctoral Research Study – Part 4 Accessed 27th January, 2016.
Page, David 2015c QUT KKP603 Project Development in the Creative Industries submissioDLP DCI Project Brief  Accessed 27th January, 2016.
Question mark image courtesy of: Cool Text Accessed 27th January, 2016.
Research image courtesy of: Research Accessed 28th January, 2016.
Ryan, Mary Elizabeth. 2014. Reflective practice in the arts. In Literacy in the Arts, edited by G Barton, 77-90. London: Springer.
Wright, David George, Dawn Bennett and Diana Blom. 2010. The interface between arts practice and research: attitudes and perceptions of Australian artist‐academics. Higher Education Research & Development 29 (4): 461-473.
– ©David L Page 29/01/2016
Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSave

SaveSave

Now

Now
This blog is a continuation of a series. See here for the previous blog.

The Opportunity

The here and now always represents an opportunity – an opportunity to change, or not to change. To choose either is a choice, despite what we may tell ourselves.
As the image above highlights, life is dynamic, flowing in patterns. However unlike the image above, the patterns of life are not always as obvious to us humans. Sometimes we are too close and involved to see. We may need some distance, or an outside opinion to gain some perspective on the actuality of the situation.
In all aspects of life, irrespective of whether we are engaging in sport, in exercise, a hobby, a job, or being a family member, a lover or a friend, it is our responsibility to develop our practice – the way we engage and do things.
It is our responsibility to plan, to act, to stop, to reflect and consider, to seek outside opinion and feedback, to critically analyse our actions and the outcomes realised, to propose and to adapt, and then to continue our practice. The discipline of development via reflective and reflexive practice is not a one-off affair, but an on-going commitment to the advancement of our maturity, our wisdom, our knowledge, and our skills.
DL Logo_Full.20141231.v3c
In my life I have had the opportunity of diverse experiences across a number of industries and disciplines in a number of cultures and countries. I am very fortunate to have had such diversity of opportunities. However, at certain junctures we are presented with opportunities to reflect on our practice, our current trajectory, and change our direction.
QUT Industries logo
My current doctoral research study in the Creative Industries is an opportunity to explore a new direction, and most importantly as part of the process, stop and critically reflect on my four decades of music practice to investigate the way I engage and do things as a contemporary DIY music practitioner. Now represents an opportunity – an opportunity to develop a plan, to act, to stop, to reflect and consider, to seek outside opinion and feedback, to critically analyse my actions and the outcomes realised, to propose and to adapt, and then to continue my practice. Hopefully as a more mature, wise, knowledgeable and skilful practitioner.
This blog series is planned to continue next month with Research Practitioner Part 3. It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.
References
DL 2005 US Review image courtesy of DL. Accessed 14th January, 2016
QUT Creative Industries image courtesy of QUT Creative Industries. Accessed 14th January, 2016
Pulsating image courtesy of: Image Accessed 15th January, 2016
– ©David L Page 15/01/2016
Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

Doctoral Research Study – Part 4

Design of Research Study

qut-logo

This blog is a continuation of a series. See here for the previous blog.

 Aim of Research Study

The aim of my Doctor of Creative Industries’ Research Project 1 is to investigate both my DIY music-making practice, and my self as a practitioner during the process of creating and producing a cultural artefact (EP), developing praxis of contemporary music practice. Such a multi-tiered examination will represent a significant departure from current discussion of music-making 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 practice. As highlighted relatively recently 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 practitioner and researcher, what processes are required as a result in order to ensure a robust and interrogative investigation to occur, and the implications of this dual primary role on the music practice workflow. I will draw on multiple methodologies, from a range of divergent interpretations. I will experiment in practice in Project 1 to determine what is effective considering my context and workflow. 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 creative practitioner, and that of the research practitioner.

My Research Study Project_3 Points_No self.P0.png

Figure I – Research Study Approach (Page 2015)

Multi-methods qualitative study

This empirical research study will be conducted through my experiential phenomenological lens (Grace and Ajjawi 2010, 198), using a multi-method qualitative methodology, including that of: practice-led research, evocative auto-ethnography, reflective practice, and reflexive practice, over the two projects. 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 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). 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). Understanding this, I can therefore see how looking at the body of field literature through my lens can contribute to the field. I note that De Carvalho’s (2012) perspective in her article “The Discourse of Home Recording” article is that of a radical structuralist, viewing the world from a power relationship basis (Burrell and Morgan 1992). Whilst interesting from a point of view of understanding the power relationships within the broader industry, I fail to see the relevance of this perspective in trying to understand and improve the efficiencies of my practice.
Blom et al refer to practice-led as the insider, reference to the subject being inside the study (Blom et al 2011, 366). As I am in a dual primary role of both subject and researcher within this study, I am well inside this study.
Choosing auto-ethnography for this research study is a natural selection of methodology given the relationship I have with music. When I first heard the soul singers, the rhythm and blues singers, and the confessional singer songwriters of the 1960’s, I was drawn in. I found my home. The rawness, the honesty and the truthfulness spoke out to my self. As a writer, irrespective of prose or music, I learnt from a young age to write without a filter – to write from a place of honesty, truthfulness, very personally. Autoethnography enables the subject to be brought back under the spotlight, and celebrates the personal, the emotional and the vulnerable qualities that are deeply embedded within (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). This study is about that self, my practitioner self, the self at the heart of my music practice, learning to understand what motivates that person, and how I can maintain an open and constant relationship with that person across all music practice irrespective of musical style, technology, workflows, or creative location. I accept that my music practice-based research study will be an emergent one, illuminating my self and how I see my self within my world, through the creation and development of an original EP. Autoethnography is about telling a story, as is the creation of music, be it the compositional aspect, or the lyrical aspect. Mykhalovsky asserts: “to write individual experience is, at the same time, to write social experience” (1996, 141). Creating art is about creating a narrative, usually reflecting on an experience or observation, and then making the specific very general so others relate to it. It is as Mykhalovsky describes.
Focussing within the discipline of ethnography, Ellis points out that evocative autoethnography is about writing emotionally about our lives (Ellis 1997). Ellis in Pace (2012, 5) notes that evocative autoethography 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).
The 10,000 word exegesis will be a first-person narrative of my personal journey, with myself performing the dual primary roles of being both the subject, and the researcher. I am expecting this research study to be revealing, and at times, confronting. I do expect this study to not being dissimilar to that of being a music practitioner – writing and performing from a place that in my experience, is often revealing and confronting.
I practice music everyday, and have done for over four decades. As indicated early on in this Project Brief, I have practiced music without the conscious connection to motive or self. This is a great example of how practitioners, especially sole practitioners who are usually working in isolation without the possibility of input from other organisational members, can progress on a particular focus of functional music practice without looking outside of their realm. What practitioners require is a regular opportunity to stop and consider their everyday actions and processes. As 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 will draw on and apply multiple approaches of reflective practice across the two-year full-time research study, in both Project 1 and 2. I will look to the approaches of: Schon (1983); Brookfield (1995); Brookfield (2002); Lyons (2010); Pascal and Thompson (2012); Archer (2007), Archer (2010), Ryan (2014), Griffiths (2010), and Finlay (2008) for insight regarding this practice. At this time, I am considering commencing with two art’s based discussions of reflective practice, and three non-art’s based reflective practice authors. Ryan’s (2014) approach as outlined in “Reflective Practice in the Arts”. Whilst not music practice specific, she talks about performative practice which applies very well to music practice. Additionally, Ryan draws heavily on Archer, a considered expert in the area of reflective practice. Secondly, the work of Griffiths’ discusses the researcher self, which has obvious parallels with my research study of the practitioner self (2010). Both authors discuss a mixed method of reflective practice and reflexive practice within their arts-based discussions. One of the advantages of a mixed 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 mixed method qualitative approaches is that it permits triangulations and enhances interpretability of the literature and data collected increasing the validity of the research findings. There will be extensive empirical data gathered as a matter of process, with commentary and reflection regarding the opportunities and challenges of certain workflows and combinations of the elements of music practice. The three non-art’s based authors I will draw on are: Schon’s (1983) “Reflection-in-action” and “Reflection-on-Action”; Pascal and Thompson’s (2012) “Reflection-for-action”; and Lyon’s (2010) Reflective Journal toolkit questions.
reflection-in-on-for-action
Figure II – Reflective Practices Summary (Anderson et al 2015)
In my Doctoral Research Project 1 I will vary the combinations of the six elements as noted above – self, motivation, musical style, technology, workflows, or creative location – across the 5 original compositions and productions. In order for the study to have merit, these combinations will need to be detailed, along and other data recorded progressively, at any point in time. Data observations could be: what conditions exist in terms of the six elements; what options in terms of the stages of cultural production are available; what decisions are made; what workflow results; and what outcome is achieved. In order to record the details of my practice – my findings, descriptions or reflections of my experience or processes – planned mediums to record are to be: written journals, mindmaps, blogs, audio recordings, video recordings or blogs, prose, lyrics, doodles, graphics and images. As noted previously, I expect I will be experimenting in Project 1 to determine what mediums work effectively in my context, with my workflow, at any particular point in time. Then, at regular intervals, I have scheduled (see proposed project plan and visual timeline in the section below) critical reflective practice stops – planned sessions to stop my practice and consider my practice, and where appropriate, the cultural artefact, critically. I will consider the relationship of the six elements during my practice of cultural production, maintaining a range of mediums of all observations and distinctions made [see Appendix IV].
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 practice workflow. In a world with a developing DIY intent, it 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. It is critical that I demonstrate academic virtue, rigour and transparency of researcher as subject to avoid bias. As a researcher, I subscribe to Griffith’s view that irrespective of what research methodologies one utilises – quantitative, qualitative ethnographic or auto-ethnographic – the researcher must illuminate their “relationships, circumstances, perspectives and reactions”, making these clear to the reader (Griffiths 2011, 184). One way of addressing the separation of the self, is to ensure there are a diverse range of reflective devices and mediums in order to capture the data, so that these mixed-methods can then be used to distil the true data about my self and processes, in order to crystalize the outcomes and conclusions. It is a goal of mine to showcase the benefits and merits of such a qualitative study, particularly within a creative arts field, and therefore to have demonstrated academic virtue (Bridges 2003 in Griffiths, 2011, 183), be considered to have rigour, and guarded against bias, is a primary goal of mine for this Doctorate of Creative Industries research study.
This blog series is planned to continue next month with Now.  It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.
References
Anderson, C, Carolyn Carattini, Heather Clarke, Gail Hewton, David Page 2015 QUT KKP623 Reflective Practice in Action Group Presentation submission Accessed October 24, 2015.
Archer, Margaret S. 2007. Making our way through the world: human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, Margaret S. 2010. Conversations about reflexivity, Ontological Explorations. New York: Routledge.
Blom, Diana, Dawn Bennett and David Wright. 2011. “How artists working in academia view artistic practice as research: Implications for tertiary music education.” International Journal of Music Education: 0255761411421088.
Brookfield, Stephen D. 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Brookfield, Stephen D. 2002. Using the lenses of critically reflective teaching in the community college classroom. New Directions for Community Colleges 2002 (118): 31-38.
Burrell, Gibson and Gareth Morgan. 1992. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.
De Carvalho, Alice Tomaz. 2012. The discourse of home recording: authority of pros and the sovereignty of big studios. Journal of the Art of Record Production 7.
Ellis, Carolyn. 1997. Evocative autoethnography: Writing emotionally about our lives. Communication Faculty Publications Paper 304.
Ellis, Carolyn S and Arthur Bochner. 2000. Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject. In The Handbook of Qualitative Rsearch, edited by Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, 733-768. New York: Sage.
Finlay, Linda. 2008. Reflecting on reflective practice. Practice-based Professional Learning Centre paper 52 29 (August 12th, 2015). www.open.ac.uk/pbpl.
Franz, Jill M. 2010. Arts-based research. Researching Practice: A Discourse on Qualitative Methodologies 2: 217-226.
Grace, S and R Ajjawi. 2010. Phenomenological research: Understanding human phenomena. Researcing practice: A discussion on qualitative methodologies. Rotterdam: Sense.
Griffiths, Morweena. 2010. Research and the self. In The Routledge companion to research in the arts, edited by M Biggs and H Karlsson, 167-185. London: Routledge.
Lawrence-Wilkes, L and A Chapman. 2015. Reflective Practice. Accessed June 2, 2015. http://www.businessballs.com/reflective-practice.htm.
Lyons, N. 2010. Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry. Vol. 1 New York: Springer.
Mykhalovsky, Eric. 1996. Reconsidering Table Talk. Qualitative Sociology 19 (1).
Pace, Steven. 2012. Writing the self into research using grounded theory analytic strategies in auto ethnography. TEXT Special Issue Website Series 13.
Page, David 2015 QUT KKP603 Project Development in the Creative Industries submission draft Accessed October 24, 2015.
Pascal, J and N Thompson. 2012. Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 13(2) 311-325. Accessed June 12, 2015. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2012.657795.
Robson, C. 1993. Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ryan, Mary Elizabeth. 2014. Reflective practice in the arts. In Literacy in the Arts, edited by G Barton, 77-90. London: Springer.
Schön, Donald A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Aldershot, England: Arena.
Wright, David George, Dawn Bennett and Diana Blom. 2010. The interface between arts practice and research: attitudes and perceptions of Australian artist‐academics. Higher Education Research & Development 29 (4): 461-473.
QUT image courtesy of:  Queensland University of Technology   Accessed 24th October 2015
– ©David L Page 10/11/2015
Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

Music Practitioner Part 8

This blog is a continuation of a series. See here for the previous blog.

Music-making

Music-making is not a choice for me; it is a necessity. I have made music over many decades, in any different forms. I have practiced music for over four decades in multiple social and cultural contexts, and in significantly contrasting creative locations, such as a church choir singer, musician, songwriter, band member, teacher, project manager, engineer, solo artist, musician for hire, producer, and most recently an electronic music producer and educator. Over this time, I have engaged a (vast) range of technologies, using countless variations of workflow. Having commenced my music-making practice with acoustic and analogue technology, I then progressed to digital technologies, and finally to digital virtual technologies. I found moving to digital and digital virtual technologies in recent decades, difficult. The vastly different technologies and associated workflows that lend themselves to creative locations and music styles impacted my music-making practice, hindering the realisation of my creative productions, my EPs.
~DLP Pro Image Fun 5b small.20141020

Self

Observing new music production technologies and associated workflows impacted my music-making practice and the realisation of my creative productions. I observed this phenomenon had an effect on the concept of my self, which then in turn had an effect on my motive to practice music. Ryan considers it essential for a creative arts practitioner to look deeper into self: “Self-awareness and identity are significant both in the study of the arts and in becoming an artist, as aesthetic inquiry and performance are constituted by subjective self-expression in relation to objective conditions” (Ryan 2014,77).
Music is acknowledged as being particularly important in terms of the development of the self: Hargreaves et al (2002) discuss how music facilitates self expression and development, allowing the self to transform, and construct new identities. Frith (1996,124) argues that “Music constructs our sense of identity through the direct experiences it offers of the body, time and sociability, experiences which enable us to place ourselves in imaginative cultural narratives.” While Bennett (2000, ii) concludes that “music is produced and consumed by young people in ways that both inform their sense of self and also serve to construct the social world in which their identities operate”. For many decades I have asked questions of my self, though always in isolation of my music practice. Velosa and Carvalho’s (2013) “Music Composition as a way of learning: emotions and the situated self” and Taylor’s (2008) “Pink Noise: Queer Identity and Musical Performance in a local context” both stressed the importance of situating the self within the context of interest, in order to study it. There are a number of studies where this is done, from example Taylor’s (2012) and Peraino’s (2006) studies of gender. However, whilst an increasing number of music practice discussions include the element of self, however, few exist outside of academic-based articles or texts (DeNora 1999; MacDonald et al 2002; DeNora 2005; Peraino 2006; Taylor 2012).
During my Doctoral Research Project 1, I will examine the praxis of music-making practice (see figure I below): how the creation of EP’s are negotiated and articulated through: self, motive, technology, music style, workflow and the creative location. I will critically reflect on how my music practice can be considered a performance of the self, and how this performance is governed by motive, and mediated through technology, creative location, style and processes of workflow. The ways that I achieve such integration represent personal expressions and negotiations of the self through the technology and within my sites of practice, the particular music style, and my workflow of DIY music practice (Emmerson 2007).
dlp-music-praxis-v3-20151203-p1
Figure I – Praxis version 3 (Page 2015)
In terms of my practitioner self, the following specific questions require consideration:
  • what are my motivations to practice music?
  • how does my music practice contribute to the concept of my self?
  • how does my self-concept shape my music practice?
Given my dual primary role for my research study of both the subject as music practitioner and the researcher, and the necessity to include the perspective of me as practitioner self, I have selected the mixed-method qualitative methodologies of: practice-led research, evocative auto-ethnography, reflective practice, critical thinking and reflexive practice (see figure II below).

my-research-study-project_3-points_no-self-p0

Figure II – Research Study Approach (Page 2015a)
This blog series is planned to continue next month with Doctoral Research Study – Part 4 (Page 2015b). It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.
References
Bennett, Andy. 2000. Popular music and youth culture: music, identity and place. New York: Palgrave.
DeNora, Tia. 1999. Music as a technology of the self. Poetics 27 (1): 31-56.
DeNora, Tia. 2005. The pebble in the pond: Musicing, therapy, community. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy 14 (1): 57-66.
Emmerson, Simon. 2007. Living electronic music. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Frith, Simon. 1992. The industrialization of popular music. Popular Music and Communication 2: 49-74.
Hargreaves, DJ, D Miell and RAR MacDonald. 2002. What are musical identities, and why are they important? In Musical Identities, edited by RAR MacDonald, DJ Hargreaves and D Miell, 1-20. Oxford Oxford University Press.
MacDonald, Raymond A. R., David J. Hargreaves and Dorothy Miell. 2002. Musical identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press..
Page, David L. 2015b. Doctoral Research Study – Part 4 Accessed 10th November, 2015
Page, David L. 2015a. QUT KKP603 Project Development in the Creative Industries submission draft Accessed October 4, 2015.
Page, David L image courtesy of David L Page. Accessed 6th October, 2015
Ryan, Mary Elizabeth. 2014. Reflective practice in the arts. In Literacy in the Arts, edited by G Barton, 77-90. London: Springer.
Peraino, Judith Ann. 2006. Listening to the sirens: musical technologies of queer identity from Homer to Hedwig. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Taylor, Jodie. 2012. Playing it queer: popular music, identity and queer world-making. Bern: Peter Lang.
Taylor, Jodie. 2008. Pink Noise: Queer identity and musical performance in a local context. Paper presented at the Music on the Edge: selected refereed papers from the 2007 IASPM-ANZ Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand. jaspm.org..au.
Veloso, Ana Luísa and Sara Carvalho. 2013. Music composition as a way of learning: emotions and the situated self.  In Musical Creativity: Insights from Music Education Research: Insights from Music Education Research: 73
– ©David L Page 06/10/2015
-updated ©David L Page 10/11/2015
Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSave