Contextsart practice qualifies as research if its purpose is to expand our knowledge
and understanding by conducting an original investigation in and through art
objects and creative processes. art research begins by addressing questions
that are pertinent in the research context and in the art world. Researchers
employ experimental and hermeneutic methods that reveal and articulate the
tacit knowledge that is situated and embodied in specific artworks and artistic
processes. Research processes and outcomes are documented and disseminated
in an appropriate manner to the research community and the wider public.
(Borgdorff 2006)This is a rigorous and scholarly account of best practice in institutions, which we
describe as a hybrid approach and results in a range of models that see arts practice and
academic research merged together to varying degrees. unfortunately, this approach
brings with it certain problems, or perhaps leaves certain issues untouched, in response
to which we will later propose an alternative ‘new paradigm’ approach.
But first, going back to the account of research as offered by Borgdorff, one of the
advantages of accounts of this kind (and there are several usable ones on offer including
for example oeCd 2002; pBRF 2006; Rae 2006; ahRC 2009; eRa 2010; Fapesp
2010) is that they are based on a consideration of the fundamental characteristics of
research, leaning primarily on the requirements of the academy. For the term ‘research’
to have any meaning in the academic world, it must partake to some extent of the
values of originality and of making a contribution to knowledge based on systematic
processes, etc. that would be recognizable to other academics outside the arts. We
contrast this to what we regard as a less satisfactory approach to defining research
based on case studies. The problem of this latter approach is that the cases cited are
usually completed doctoral studies. such cases suffer from the disadvantage that they
were judged as successful during the time in which robust definitions of research were
not available, hence our present inquiry. Therefore the mere fact that these studies
were successfully awarded a doctoral degree cannot be used as a defence of them being
successful research projects. This would be an example of the problem of ‘circular cause
and consequence’(Biggs et al. 2008a).
one disadvantage of the ‘hybrid’ approach is mentioned in Chapter 5. There may be,
subject to further research, criteria in the academic world that are incompatible with
criteria in the professional arts world, e.g. the value of rigour in the former (associated
to methodological approaches that avoid bias in Chapter 10) and an emphasis on the
singular experience in the latter (associated to Baumgarten’s aesthetics in Chapter 2).
if it is the case that there are some criteria that cannot be hybridized then one has a
requirement, if not a duty, to be explicit about which criteria are to be included and
which excluded. We do not think this classification of criteria has yet been undertaken,
and perhaps it represents an opportunity for further research by proponents of the
hybrid position.
The alternative ‘new paradigm’ approach that we mentioned above is a reference
to so- called ‘new paradigm research’ in the social sciences. since the 1980s there
has been a well- documented change in the usa regarding the role of data in social
sciences. one change has been from a sceptical stance towards qualitative data,
to an acceptance of it. however, this fundamental change from a hard- line largely