The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts

navigating in heterogeneity

discourse theory, and performance is a powerful way to make statements. again, this
means that the hierarchy between theory and practice are levelled; and conceptual
frameworks are generated not only by philosophers of science, but through artistic
activity as well.
The recognition of heterogeneity and the performative, staging and modelling
interplays with a situation, brings about possibilities for abR to take on a stronger
critical position, compared to ‘ordinary’ discursive, analytical or argumentative research
approaches. The combination of critical positioning and invention, inherent in abR,
with the ability to communicate in multimodal ways, can develop a new integrity of
academic research. The search for general evidence is being eclipsed by good examples,
convincing analyses (design- based or otherwise scientific) and critically reflective
arguments (artistic and/or rhetorical) to form both the goals and the processes for
abR. setting architectural or other research situations into relevant scenarios and
research configurations then becomes fundamental to qualified problem definitions in
heterogeneity. modelling builds a basis for research methodology, and heterogeneity is
not merely a point of departure and precondition for research, but also the driving force
in the searching and exchange of knowledge.

theme 6: constructing the assemblage

With an analogy to ‘systems of formation’ the construct of the research topic can be
understood as a way to gradually form a relevant open system, an assemblage made up
from three main kinds of components: key points, links and relationships. Key points
can act as knowledge nodes, points of diffraction, ‘trigger points’ of special interest
or strategic agents for different actions to be taken. although they often evolve over
time, architectural- spatial thinking is helpful for identifying important key points.
Between key points, or from key points to various aspects related to them, links can
be explored and established, temporarily or with permanence. Relationships can be
defined as specific qualities of these links, qualities that can be investigated and, in
turn, this may affect the identification of key points and links. Reference material
from various relevant and reliable sources can be directly connected to different key
points or links, and the research process can be understood as an active, investigative
choreography in a ‘landscape’, where the hegemony of verbal language is replaced by
multi- modal communicative actions. Thus, the assemblage is a kind of constructed
and successively updated mindmap for navigation. it is both a composition of relevance
(identifying important questions as aspects) and a relevant composition (it provides a
useful instrument for the research process). again, the research abstract as a rhetorical
tool can be of assistance in the construction of assemblages, and the basic research
questions – what, where, when, for whom and how – reappear in a new role, to redefine
positions or trigger changes within the assemblage.
There are several advantages of constructing assemblages for the research situation
instead of speaking of problem context. First, while context is inclusive and covers an
area in which the problem is inscribed, the assemblage is a composition. Thinking in
terms of context may lead to extensive, unspecific areas being connected to the research
situation, making it extremely difficult to handle. in contrast, as the assemblage is
a continuous composition- mapping- recomposition; it is a tool more in accordance