Chapter 3 — Methodology: The Iterative Feedback Model for Collaborative Composition
Chapter 3 presents the methodological foundation of the dissertation and outlines how artistic research, qualitative analysis, and compositional practice intersect throughout this project. It introduces the Iterative Feedback Model for Collaborative Composition (IFMCC) in detail and explains how the model structures the collaboration between composer and performers across all three case studies. Rather than separating artistic creation from research design, the chapter argues for a methodology in which making, documenting, analysing, and reflecting form a recursive and interdependent process.
The chapter begins by situating the work within established approaches in artistic research: knowledge is produced through practice, through sustained engagement with materials, collaborators, and situated decisions. This epistemic position justifies the inclusion of workshops, rehearsals, sketches, audio–video documentation, and reflective conversations as core research materials. These materials are understood not as supplements to the work but as constitutive elements of the inquiry itself.
A second methodological layer involves Grounded Theory–inspired qualitative analysis, including coding and memo-writing. These methods are deployed not to enforce positivist rigor but to enable structured reflection on the complex, dynamic interactions observed across the case studies. The chapter explains how coding categories emerge inductively from the collaborative process and how they help reveal patterns in communication, agency, and decision-making.
The central part of the chapter introduces the Iterative Feedback Model for Collaborative Composition (IFMCC) as the dissertation’s primary methodological tool. The model is presented as a four-phase cycle:
– Proposal: compositional ideas, sketches, or provocations initiated by the composer;
– Response: performers engage with these materials, often experimentally or improvisatorily;
– Reflection: shared discussion and evaluation of artistic, technical, and conceptual outcomes;
– Integration: revision, restructuring, or rethinking of the material based on this exchange.
These phases may occur in sequence, overlap, or repeat multiple times. The chapter explains how the IFMCC accommodates different levels of expertise, various rehearsal structures, and both in-person and remote collaboration. It is not designed as a prescriptive formula, but as a flexible scaffold that supports dialogic development, responsiveness, and shared authorship.
Additional methodological concerns are addressed, including documentation strategies, ethical considerations (consent, crediting, role clarity), and criteria for validity in artistic research. Instead of relying on generalizability, the dissertation follows the artistic research principle of thick description, in which insight arises from sustained engagement and dense, situated accounts of artistic processes.
Finally, Chapter 3 clarifies how these methodological principles guide the analysis of the three case studies. Each case study becomes both an experiment and an evaluative environment for the IFMCC—testing the model’s adaptability across diverse collaborative contexts, ensemble structures, and institutional settings. The chapter lays the methodological groundwork for interpreting the artistic, social, and technological dynamics explored in Chapters 5–7, positioning method not as a fixed protocol but as a living, iterative companion to creative practice.
