Research-Creation? Part II

Making Sense of Contemporary Art and Research – Part II

A social experiment? A school in the year 2000 as imagined by an artist in 1900. Public Domain Review.

Why is “research” valued in contemporary art, and why is art valued as research in academia? This is the two-part question I posed in Part I of “Research-Creation?” In that post, I considered the first question; why has “research” become such a valued attribute for contemporary art and artists? I now address the second question by asking, “why is art being adopted as a valued research tool in academia?”

Arts-Based Research, or ABR as its practitioners like to call it, is a relatively new academic research practice actively adopted over the past two decades and primarily used by social scientists.¹ My introduction to this practice came, as I explained in my earlier post, through the discovery of the Handbook of Arts-Based Research. The Handbook provides an introduction to ABR, essays on its philosophical and historical foundations, chapters on methods and evaluation, and chapters on how ABR practitioners utilize the arts including music, dance, film, fiction, visual media and so on. According to the editor and primary author of the handbook, Patricia Leavey, “ABR exists at the intersection of art and science.” (3) While these two disciplines are often seen as “antithetical to each other,” Leavey assures the reader that there are “intrinsic similarities.” (3) Both disciplines aim to “explore, illuminate, and represent aspects of human life and the social and natural worlds of which we are a part.” (3) Scientists have thus taken up this “transdisciplinary approach” in the “belief that the arts and humanities can facilitate social science goals.” (4)

A review of the Handbook suggests that there are at least three ways in which social scientists employ art as a research tool. The first, and most familiar, is when scientists study art and artmaking as a way to understand “the how and why” of artistic practice and art appreciation, or when they study art images to glean knowledge about society and human behaviour. The scientists do not produce artworks but take the artwork (or artmaking practice) of others as their research subject. Research may include historical and archival reviews as well as common qualitative methods such as interviews with practitioners and viewers, observation of art and artmaking, and text and discourse analysis. This form of ABR is not really new if one considers how art and artmaking have been a subject of study for philosophers, art historians, literary scholars, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and ethologists for a very long time. Perhaps, because this sort of study is so common and covers many disciplines, the Handbook does not include any chapters specifically dedicated to this type of ABR.

A second type of ABR utilizes the same qualitative methods as the first type – interviews, observation, etc. – to conduct studies on social issues. The study then includes the making of an artwork by the researcher as a final outcome of the project. The premise is that artworks offer a more accessible way to involve research subjects and disseminate research results to the general public. The approach is often taken up by researchers studying health, education, and disabilities because the experience of art is perceived to have a therapeutic value. The chapter on “installation art” provides a good example. In "Installation Art: The Voyage Never Ends," author Jennifer L. Lapum explains that

the unique features of installation art are that it has the capacity to create an experiential encounter that can be emotional and visceral for viewers. Its evocative nature can disrupt thinking and taken-for-granted assumptions. Viewers are often prompted to critically reflect and engage in dialogue.²

As an example, Lapum cites a project, The 7,024^th Patient, where she interviewed heart transplant patients to better understand the fears and challenges they face before and after their surgery. She partnered with heart specialists, patients, nurses, and social scientists to create a maze-like installation that, through pictures and texts, explained the process and the personal experience of undergoing open-heart surgery. The installation was presented in hospitals and at medical conferences where viewers could wind their way through the installation and learn more about the heart transplant experience. Lapum explains that the “driving force of the design process was to create an installation that immersed viewers in the patient experience, so that they could feel what it was like to undergo heart surgery and recovery.” (382)

Another example is provided by Patricia Leavey in her chapter on Fiction-Based Research or FBR as she coins it. The FBR researcher does not study stories but produces one. For example, the researcher may conduct an ethnographic study on a particular social issue such as abusive relationships, crime, or unemployment. The researcher will often interview human subjects about the social issue. Instead of, or in addition to, relating the results of the study in an academic paper, the researcher uses the interview material to create a fictional story about individuals experiencing and overcoming the same social problem. The finished story or book is then used to relate the research to a broader audience. Academic papers, as Leavey points out several times in the Handbook, are only read by a few people in the academic world. FBR offers a way to reach a much wider audience and the fictional stories can be used as counselling or teaching tools.

The third type of ABR involves scientists (or their study participants) making artworks as a way to understand some of the same questions about art and artmaking as the first method, or understanding social issues through the lived-experience of making art. Much like the artist who conducts research-based art, the scientist takes on the role of both artist and researcher with the objective of self-analyzing the process of making an artwork. Several chapters in the Handbook provide examples of this method. Peter Gouzouasis, who has been a professional musician for more than 50 years, discusses an autoethnography he conducted on his method of creation and how making music and narration are connected. His study includes composing a new musical work inspired by a story. The objective of this project was to better understand how musicians are inspired and apply this knowledge to their compositions.³

In another example, Celeste Snowber, an experienced dancer, discusses how dance can contribute to ABR. She proposes that through dance, the researcher can gain a better understanding of the body's role in developing a sense of self. "Embodied scholarship,"⁴ as she calls it, is especially significant for exploring questions about body image and gender. Again, like Gouzouasis, she uses her dance practice to conduct a self-analysis.

Visual art practices – drawing, painting, collage, comics, photography, video, and so on – are also important tools for ABR researchers working in any one of the three methods. The authors of the chapter, “Arts-Based Visual Research,” explain that arts-based visual research “may include creating and using various forms of visual art as a way to collect data, conduct analyses, and/or represent research.”⁵ The most important aspect of arts-based visual research is the image. Images, the authors contend, are “a dynamic product of our interaction in the world” (312) and they can relate “elusive aspects of knowledge that might otherwise remain hidden or ignored.” (313) The authors cite the example of anthropologists like Margaret Mead (1901-1978) and Zoe Bray. During her fieldwork, Mead photographed her human study subjects as a form of documentation and Bray paints portraits of her study participants as a “way of discovering identities, their social construction and the politics behind them.” (312).

Images are also valued for how they challenge conventions and communicate knowledge. As the authors explain,

Images can break through common resistance and force us to consider new ways of seeing or doing things. Because images are memorable, they are also likely to influence the ways we think and act, and can help us disseminate our research findings to a much wider audience. (313)

As an example, the writers cite a study where researchers asked several groups of Swedish-speaking Finnish teenagers to take photographs of their lived experience so that researchers could learn how they have adapted to being part of a Swedish-speaking minority in Finland. The researchers decided to use photography to “engage” the students in a meaningful way with the idea that photographs would encourage the students to “think deeply about their identifications and experiences.” (321) The researchers then compared the photographs across locations and groups in order to draw conclusions about how well the students adapted to their dual identity situation.

Researchers also utilize images for their significant political dimension. As the writers explain, images

have the potential to provoke action for social justice, which is a central aim in many arts-based visual studies. Images have the power to provoke critical questions, challenge stereotypes, and encourage individual and collective action.(313)

The authors cite examples of projects that were conducted as collaborations with social groups such as sex workers, new immigrants, and people with intellectual disabilities. The projects employed different forms of image-making in order to “raise critical awareness and give voice to marginalized groups and subjugated perspectives” (314).

Images, then, as these researchers emphasize, have at least four important research purposes which reflect the same objectives as ABR as a whole. Images (and/or any art form) can be used as data for gleaning new knowledge about a subject; to illustrate research data and results; to disseminate research and educate the public; and, to promote, and sometimes instigate, social change. In this way, art and artmaking Leavey proposes is “a way of knowing” that provides social scientists with a “holistic” and “transdisciplinary” approach to human studies.⁶

As a practical guide to ABR, the Handbook does not include a critical evaluation of this research practice. I looked elsewhere for a critique of ABR but only found articles that focus on the results of ABR research and on refining the definition and methods of the practice.⁷ In her “Introduction,” Leavey notes how ABR is sometimes viewed as just another qualitative method but she argues it should be considered a distinct methodological paradigm because of its use of art and artmaking. In a chapter on study evaluation, for example, Leavy outlines criteria for assessing research outcomes. She draws on criteria used for evaluating qualitative research and, then adds specific criteria to take into account the aesthetic and communicative aspects of art and artmaking.⁸

While ABR is proposed as a scientific study method, it does share some objectives and values with research-based art. Scientists, like artists, are expected to produce something original. They distinguish themselves by “discovering” new knowledge, whether this is a new vaccine or a new way of understanding a social issue. Scientists are also driven to develop new ways of knowing by devising new research methods. Leavey’s insistence that ABR is a paradigmatic methodology is a good example where the method is proposed as “original.” Each of the researchers included in the Handbook also insist on the “originality” of their particular method by giving it a unique name: “fiction-based research” (Leavey), “a/r/tographic inquiry” (Gouzouasis), “embodied scholarship” (Snowber), and “visual art-based research” (Holm et al).

Both practices, research-based art and ABR, also aim to be “useful.” In fact, one of Leavey’s evaluation criteria is “usefulness” or the “substantive or practical contribution of the research.”⁹ Like research-based contemporary art, the success of an ABR project is measured, in part, by how it contributes to challenging conventional knowledge, educating the public, and affecting social change.

To be valued within the academic field, however, these attributes — originality and usefulness — must be vetted and legitimized within the academic field. In the art world, originality and other attributes are recognized and validated in museum or gallery exhibitions. The academic world also has its rituals of recognition. Publications, tenure, awards, and salary increases acknowledge the originality and significance of a scientist’s research.

With all of these similarities, I cannot help but wonder what is the difference? Objects that are called “art” are being produced in each of these disciplines – research-based art and arts-based research – yet the former is understood as an artistic practice while the latter is a research method. Are the objects the same or not? Can we consider the products of arts-based research as art or the artistic production of research-based art as equivalent to scientific knowledge? These are questions that warrant further pondering and, in the coming weeks, another chapter in this review of research-creation.

1. The term “arts-based research” was coined in 1990 but the practice has developed primarily over the past two decades. This timeline parallels the development of PhD programs in the fine arts and the growth of research-based art. Patricia Leavey, “Introduction to Arts-Based Research” in Handbook of Arts-Based Research, ed., Patricia Leavey (New York: Guilford Press, 2018), 4. Further references to this chapter are noted with page numbers in the text.

2. Jennifer L. Lapum, "Installation Art: The Voyage Never Ends" in Handbook of Arts-Based Research, ed., Patricia Leavey (New York: Guilford Press, 2018), 381.

3. Peter Gouzouasis, “A/r/tographic Inquiry in a New Tonality: The Relationship of Music and Poetry” in Handbook of Arts-Based Research, ed., Patricia Leavey (New York: Guilford Press, 2018), 233-246.

4. Celeste Snowber, “Living, Moving, and Dancing: Embodied Ways of Inquiry,” in Handbook of Arts-Based Research, ed., Patricia Leavey (New York: Guilford Press, 2018), 247.

5. Gunilla Holm, Fritjof Sahlström, and Harriet Zilliacus, “Arts-Based Visual Research” in Handbook of Arts-Based Research, ed., Patricia Leavey(New York: Guilford Press, 2018), 312. Further references to this chapter are noted with page numbers in the text.

6. Leavey, “Introduction,” 4.

7. A recent example of evaluating ABR is this special issue of the International Review of Qualitative Research Journal which provides papers from the 16th International Congress of Qualitative Research. The editorial provides a summary. Nancy Gerber and Richard Siegesmund, “Innovations in Arts-Based Research: ABR Provocations from the 16th International Congress of Qualitative Research,” International Review of Qualitative Research, 15, no. 2 (2022), 147-167.

8. Patricia Leavey, “On Realizing the Promise of Arts-Based Research,” in Handbook of Arts-Based Research, ed., Patricia Leavey (New York: Guilford Press, 2018), 707-710 and Patricia Leavey, “Criteria for Evaluation Arts-Based Research,” in Handbook of Arts-Based Research, ed., Patricia Leavey (New York: Guilford Press, 2018), 575-586.

9. Leavey, “Criteria for Evaluation,” 577.