1.2 Forms of Music Research
Beyond general definitions, it is also necessary to distinguish sub-disciplines to ensure that rigorous standards are developed within research-creation and that a diverse set of approaches is embraced by the scholarly community. Søren Kjørup argues that this plurality is imperative for the healthy growth of research-creation as a field and will help avoid gatekeeping from those who believe they have found the “one and only real artistic research.”1 Likewise, varied approaches will help avoid the potentially suffocating effects of applying scientific models to artistic practice – a cause for concern for some skeptics. To facilitate this pluralistic thinking, I discuss the categories of music research that Skains and Borgdorff use in their writing (fig. 1-1), grouped together based on the categories’ similarities.
Skains’ first category is practice and research, wherein artists draw from their own creative practice to analyze and criticize others’ work. This relationship could also be inverted to include research-informed practice, such as when musicological and historical research inform present day period performance. Borgdorff’s research on the arts is somewhat less practitioner-focused, in that there is complete separation between the researcher and the object of research. Musicology is an example of this, as creative processes and products are studied but are not part of the results, which are communicated primarily in literary form.
Second, Skains discusses practice-as-research, perhaps the most controversial of approaches to research-creation, where the research is embodied in only the creative process and products with no accompanying critical exegesis. Unsurprisingly, this approach receives the most skepticism regarding to its suitability in academia. Without communicating a clear methodology or discursive results, it is difficult to distinguish practice-as-research from any other creative activity. To paraphrase Bhagwati, if all practice is research, then none of it is research.2 Borgdorff does not include such a category, as he suggests that researchers must contextualize the processes and products of their work to broader scholarly audiences.3
Fig. 1-1: Forms of Research-Creation, as described by Skains and Borgdorff.4
Next, Skains herself admits that the distinction between practice-led-research and other forms of practice-related research can be murky. She says that practice-led research “focuses on the nature of creative practice, leading to new knowledge of operational significance for that practice, in order to advance knowledge about or within practice. The results…may be communicated in a critical exegesis without inclusion of the creative artefact, though the creative practice is an integral part of the research.”5 A book of extended instrumental techniques is a possible example here – creative practice is at the heart of the research, while the final product is a book describing best practices, perhaps with images and audio files used for demonstration, but no explicitly creative product (such as a performance or composition) is necessary to communicate the results. This category bears close resemblance to research for the arts that, according to Borgdorff, “delivers…the tools and the knowledge of materials that are needed during the creative process or in the artistic product.”6
Lastly, Skains suggests that in practice-based-research, the creative artefact itself contributes to knowledge and is accompanied by critical discussion that contextualizes and demonstrates the significance of the research. Full understanding of the research may only be achieved through these elements working in tandem.7 Borgdorff’s definition of research in the arts aligns with Skains’ category in that it assumes no separation between subject and object, nor between the researcher and their practice.8 This is an inherently reflexive approach and seeks to communicate the knowledge embodied in artistic work.
Fig. 1-2 (above left): Music Research Compass. Fig. 1-3 (above right): Music Research Compass with Examples. Click to expand.
While it is possible to imagine examples of research that would fall under each of these categories, academics and artists from different disciplines will undoubtedly categorize examples in divergent ways. This became clear during a workshop9 I gave on research-creation: without consensus on which projects fit what approach, the categories failed to provide much clarity. Consequently, I determined that these categories are, in practice, fluid examples on a spectrum of music research approaches. I have illustrated this spectrum on a “music research compass,” with conventional findings and methods on the top left and artistic knowledge generation and methods on the bottom right (fig. 1-2). This compass highlights the role that creative practice plays in the research, whether in the methodology, the results, or both. Using this diagram can facilitate comparisons between research-creation projects, as well as between research-creation and conventional research. For instance, it would be challenging to evaluate a practice-as-research project alongside a practice-led-research project if their methods and results incorporate creative practice in widely differing ways. Conversely, identifying projects that are similarly situated on the graph invites comparison.
The x-axis represents the type of findings generated, from conventional findings presented in a discursive monograph on the far left, to artistic findings presented in the form of a creative artefact(s) on the far right. The y-axis represents the methods employed: on the top, conventional methods whereby the researcher is studying something completely outside of themselves (distanced object), on the bottom, artistic methods whereby the researcher uses their own creative practice as a mode of inquiry (entwined object). While figure 1-3 shows the same chart with examples within music research, it could be used for examining any field that included practice-based research. The circles represent the categories of research-creation I just discussed and are placed according to how artistic practice is employed within each one. In the top left corner, there is research on music, where the artistic practice of the researcher plays no role in the study, such as in music history. At the bottom right there is practice-as-research, where creative practice and research are one in the same. Neither the placement of the forms of research-creation, nor the examples given for each, are meant to be immovable. For example, music pedagogy research could find a home in numerous spaces on this chart, depending on the centrality of the researcher’s artistic practice. Yet, the current discourse suggests that as music research moves from the top left to the bottom right, that is as it becomes more fully art without any accompanying critical writing, it runs the risk of being labeled unscholarly. The convergent category of practice-based-research/research in the arts is perhaps the most suitable model of research-creation for graduate music programs requiring a thesis.
Where does my feedback saxophone research fit on this compass? As this multi-media thesis combines creative artefacts, scores, and recordings, along with discursive writing meant to analyze and contextualize, it can be categorized as practice-based-research/research in the arts. Being placed in the centre of the music research compass indicates that there is a balance between conventional and practice-based findings, as well as methods. Situating the practice within a scholarly framework is the first step towards meaningful research-creation. Borrowing from the definitions I explored earlier, this practice must also produce critically informed works that make original contributions. The proceeding section on methodology demonstrates how this objective is realized.