5

CommuniTies, Values,

ConVenTions and

aCTions

Michael Biggs and Daniela Büchler

Chapter overview

This chapter sets out a theoretical framework that addresses dissatisfaction in re-
search in the arts. This dissatisfaction is related to the emergence of something called
‘practice- based research’. There are different names for this kind of research, and some
communities are very sensitive about the different nuances that these names connote.
Finding a good name to describe the field has proven to be difficult, and the list of
names used by others is very long. For example, terms like ‘artistic research’ are re-
jected by the design community; ‘creative research’ suggests that other research is not
creative; ‘practice- based’ does not clarify what kind of practice, e.g. arts, education,
healthcare, nor does the term clarify how practices leading to research outcomes dif-
fer from practices leading to professional outcomes. We intend our use of the term
‘practice- based’ to include the visual and performing arts, music, and those aspects of
architecture and design that emphasize aesthetic rather than technical values. Broadly
speaking they all present the same problem and that is: what it is to undertake research
in a practice- based area. in particular, there is an interest in research that is not histori-
cally led or to do with technology, but instead is to do with the actual production of
the stuff itself. We think that the problem arises when these professional activities are
pushed into the academic context.
We began writing this chapter from the simple observation that many well- informed
people in the creative and performing arts in academia have disagreed for a long time
about the concept of research in their field. The various communities have plenty of
experience of both the professional and academic worlds, the needs of doctoral students
and research funding agencies, etc. so how is it that there are so many different, yet
strongly advocated, models of what constitutes valid research in the arts? it seemed to
us unlikely that it was simply the case that one side was right and one side was wrong.
But we were also reluctant to conclude that the matter was just discretionary, or a
matter of personal opinion, because that would not help to develop general policy
or guide research councils and others in the allocation of funds and the evaluation