Lyle Skains (2024) Designing and Conducting Practice-based Research Projects. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. <https://www.intellectbooks.com/designing-and-conducting-practice-based-research-projects>

 

So often we read about the exciting ground-breaking ‘new knowledge’, the intriguing ‘know how’ in contrast to ‘know that’, and the type of experiential knowledge only practitioners can unlock in practice-based research (henceforth PBR). And while many universities and schools world-wide have formed strong curriculums and produced a generation of impressive students, many practitioners are still left without guidance from their very own institutions.

A book which does not beat around the bush is Designing and Conducting Practice-based Research Projects by Prof. Dr. Lyle Skains, which is intentionally designed to address undergraduate practitioners of any discipline who wish to engage in this still cutting-edge research. ‘Practitioner’ can mean a person engaged in performances, musical recordings, fiction, scripts, digital media, games, film, poetry, translation, sculptures, paintings, journalism, tattoos, dance, architecture, graphic design, costume design, or textile arts, etc. By following the guidance suggested in this volume, students will be able to satisfy rigorous Bachelor programs, especially those that ask for critical academic written theses and not ‘just’ a creative artefact. Thus, the book is less relevant to those whose practice is doing all the talking, with no written thesis or document accompanying the creative artefact or performance. That is, whereas in some traditional forms of PBR one is only evaluated on the product (the performance); more commonly, in PBR one is evaluated partly on the artistic product and partly on the analyses and contextualization of the process of its production. I hope that this review also will be useful for academic instructors of PBR whose students have to write and submit a thesis containing a critical exegesis.

The book is in eight chapters which fall into two sections, Part I: Practice and Knowledge and Part II: Doing Your Research Project. Part II is especially helpful for practitioners as it guides students through Designing Your Research Project (Ch 5), Conducting Your Research (Ch 6), and Writing Your Exegesis (Ch 7). Along the way, Skains addresses how to write well and structure the writing effectively, how to read closely and with focus, how to write a literature review, and what makes for a usable source. In addition, Skains shows how to ‘manage’ every possible resource, from time to human beings involved in a thesis (not only the supervisor!).

Prof. Skains begins with a definition in two steps: “Research means undertaking activities to answer a question, contribute to, or form new knowledge on a subject”; while PBR is defined as: “An approach to research where the explorative activity of a creative practice gives us the empirical data we need in order to answer the question, contribute to, or form new knowledge on a subject” (p 11). It could be noted here that strictly speaking there could be PBR about any possible practice; the type of practices that Skains is interested in, however, are artistic practices broadly conceived; in Skains’s view this can be creative practices that are traditionally viewed as art practice (like painting) but also those like creative writing and video game creation.

And because sceptics are everywhere in academia, questioning how practice can yield ‘research’, Skains explains: “The creative artefact (or performance or whatever artistic practice) is the basis of the contribution to knowledge. This method is applied to original investigations seeking new knowledge through practice and its outcomes. Claims of originality are demonstrated through the creative artefacts. […]. The creative artefact is accompanied by a critical discussion of the significance and context of the claims, and a full understanding can only be achieved through the cohesive presentation of the creative artefact and the accompanying exegesis [thesis write-up]” (p 15).

Working now in a Health and Science Communication environment but coming from a digital media background, Skains is used to justifying PBR. Skains inspires PBR sceptics to acknowledge things such as, for example, the ‘many worlds picture’ of quantum mechanics. According to this phenomenon, a particle such as a cat “is in a superposition of two states, both dead and alive at once, until it interacts with the outside world.”1A similar thing could be said about creative artefacts and performances: a different level of ‘existence’ happens when the viewer interacts with someone’s artefact or performance. Indeed, the ‘observer effect’ from the realm of physics posits that observing or measuring something requires interacting with what’s being measured or observed, thereby affecting its properties through the interaction. The artist and writer Marcel Duchamp, put it eloquently by arguing that the artwork “is completed by the viewer” (Marcel Duchamp, The Creative Act, 1957).

Skains offers a rigorous idea of what PBR is. Art practice and reflection on, and analysis of ,one’s practice must ‘really’ come together to elicit that desired new knowledge. Just like at many well-established artistic research centers, Skains insists that if the ‘new knowledge’ can be arrived at without nuanced and developed practice, then the project is not practice-based. Practice and reflection/theory/research must feed into each other with that often-cited feedback loop, creating a deep intertwinement, in order for something to qualify as PBR, in Skains’ intended sense.

Another key element in Skains’ PBR method is the role of ‘serendipity’. Skains writes that “This is it! The creative practice is collecting empirical data responding to your research question. […] This is where PBR is at its most unpredictable: as any creative practitioner knows, how you envision the creative work can be radically different from how it turns out”. She goes on to argue that “Maybe the project will turn out differently due to time tools, materials or inspiration (or lack thereof); or your skill level is radically different than expected (for better or worse); or a pandemic happens and disrupts your life …” (p. 88). By emphasizing the importance of staying open and following the creative process while keeping meticulous ‘research logs’ (auto-ethnographic records, dated, responding to prompts to which I return below), Skains helps especially those who come to PBR without at least some background in social science methods.

In what follows, I would like to focus on a few aspects of Lyle Skains’ book, which, in my eyes, are the most helpful for practice-based research students: 1) the role of background research; 2) the need to contextualize the ‘internal thought processes and cognitive activities’ that yield conceptual knowledge about “how practitioners think” (p. 23); 3) the ‘collect your data’ phase – this is where students make their creative artefact/prepare their performance; 4) how to keep efficient research logs; and 5) how to tackle the ‘analysis’ section in a written thesis or document.

The role of background research

Skains makes a strong distinction between background research preceding artistic research and the actual artistic research itself. Accordingly, a difference between the way PBR is practiced at many European institutions and Skains’s envisioned approach is that for Skains the creative practice is officially started only after the background research has reached a level of ‘saturation’. Skains recommends this order of doing things because knowledge of the literature and conventions of a domain allows a PBR practitioner to form a research question, which will allow them to position themselves within that domain, while adding to it with original research. The goal is to be “accepted” in the field (p. 34). Skains puts her finger on one of the biggest problems in PBR at large: the lack of embedding oneself in a (research) network. In my opinion, an alternative way to beginning with the background research and then forming the question, could be to start the PBR process with a question or fascination that emerges from the practice and then begin the background research phase, allowing the two to impact upon each other.

The meaning of ‘creative work’ and: what is PBR knowledge?

Having gone through the process of a PhD in practice-based research herself, Lyle Skains has found ways to conceptualize methodologically what ‘creative work’ means and what practice-based research knowledge amounts to. PBR knowledge is:

[…] explicit [‘explicit knowledge is easily conveyed or transmitted’ (p 20)]

[…] tacit [‘tacit knowledge is something we “just know” … and is embedded in individual experience and involves intangible factors such as personal belief, perspective, and value system’ (p 20)].

[…] theoretical [‘In seeking theoretical knowledge through PBR, we are looking into research issues and problems specifically about creative practice as a form of research. If that description feels circular, it is, a little bit. Theoretical knowledge is central to any particular subject area of study: we need to understand that subject, its qualities, its conventions, and even its history.’ (pp 21–22)].

[…] dialectical [‘dialectical practice is how we communicate with each other as artists and practitioners through our creative work … we are drawing on and using dialectical knowledge we have developed from experiencing other creative artefacts’ (p 22)].

[…] contextual [‘contextual practice is an effort to bring about social change’ (p 22)].

[…] conceptual [‘in Sullivan’s (2009:50) category of conceptual knowledge, “artists give form to thoughts in creating artefacts that become part of the research process”. … The Practitioner Model is based on the combination of several theories: Linda Flower and John Hayes’s Cognitive Process Model (1981:365), which they developed from observing university students carrying out writing projects; Ronald A. Finke’s Geneplore Model (1996: 381) of idea generation and exploration; S. Makri and Ann Blandford’s notion of serendipity (2012: 684; 2012: 706), a concept that maps out how we generate and recognize important insights; and Mikhaly Csikszentmihalyi’s System Model of Creativity (2006), which outlines how new work and knowledge is recognized and accepted (or not) by our peers.’” (p. 23)]. This passage is quoted at length here because it illustrates the systematic approach to PBR that Skains offers in her book.

Other approaches to PBR are possible, of course – this is not the only one – but systematicity is somewhat rare in PBR. Importantly, practices of the sort(s) that PBR more generally could focus on need not necessarily be creative. In my view, however, part of what is nice about Skains’s book is that it helps to give structure to PBR projects that are about creative work/processes. Skains offers a very clear way of teaching PBR to students and practitioners in creative fields, which they can actually understand.

The ‘collect your empirical data’ phase

In this phase – the most important phase in the PBR process – practitioners will conduct the empirical research by doing the creative project and keep a research log about it, while being open to serendipity; taking the project in various unforeseen directions.

Basically, the practitioners collect/create what will amount to their “primary sources”, namely, the “empirical evidence” (p 37), “first-hand data, usually that you have collected yourself”, including the “original creative practice, such as film, performance, or short story; letters, official records, eyewitness accounts; unanalyzed statistical data survey/questionnaire results; interviews; ethnographic observations (i.e., observing people); your own experiences” (p 38).

Skains gives useful tips including not “dragging it [the research] out to be ‘perfect’”, being proactive with “creative blocks”, keeping the creative project manageable in size, being realistic in terms of the skillset and time needed to accomplish a creative technique, and worrying too much about the “critical element” – the analysis – before we have even started the practice. Skains elaborates: “A lot of undergraduate thesis milestones are based on non-practice-related projects and ask you to submit critical writing very early in the process. RESIST: Do your creative practice. You don’t have a thesis unless you do the creative practice first” (p 118).  Skains warns students by emphasizing the raison d’être of PBR: the practice should not illustrate atextual analysis or critical theory, but the practice should be empirical research (serving as primary sources) with an uncertain outcome, which is analyzed and placed within a critical theoretical framework later (secondary sources).

How to keep efficient research logs

Skains recommends using research logs from day one, in order to keep records of all activities, including “background research, ideas, my evolving research question, etc.” In addition to date and time and the “status” of the artefact at the beginning and end of the session, Skains also notes down other things that may or may not have an impact on that day, such as reading of that day (“R”), writing (“W”) playing (“P”) and listening (“L”) (p. 119). Skains’s research log entries are short:

[22 Jan 2023 — got 3 new chickens today; Europa mission launched. R: Beloved, Toni Morrison; What is your quest?, Antonia Salter. W: Killjoys, Ms. Marvel. P: Portal. Again. L: Barns Courtney playlist].

Skains also recommends taking notes about session goals when working on the creative part, as well as difficulties, actionable improvement steps, what impacted the work (people, environment, equipment, tools, and materials?), what insights “stumbles” and “failures” yielded, feelings before, during and after, questions that arose, and what a useful action for the next creative session would be (p 120).

Skains makes an important distinction between activities where one can take notes within the creative project – such as when writing a novel and using the “comment function” to make observations – and other types of practice where “note taking” isn’t so easy. She suggests that for the activities of “dancing, painting, filmmaking, sculpting … you’ll need to make your in-process notes more explicit. In addition to noting the date and whatever occurrences or media might be influencing your process, you need to note what you’re doing in your process that session. You might use photograph frame numbers, noting them in your research log as the sequence you shot that day. Or describe the section of a painting or drawing you’re completing, a sequence of music or dance you’re composing, or the stage of your sculpture you’re working on. It’s important that you’re able to map your notes to your process; if it can’t be done in the creative work itself, it will have to be done in the research log” (pp 119-120).

In short, Skains’ impressive expertise in advising practice-based doctoral students has shown her that research logs are critical. Her advice is tried and tested.

How to tackle the ‘analysis’ section in a thesis or accompanying document

Lastly, Skains’ ideas about how to write the ‘analysis’ section deserve closer attention.

“It isn’t enough to just collect your data [e.g., do a creative project and collect notes etc.], you have to analyze it, too” (p 139). Depending on the project and domain, the method of analysis will differ. But regardless of analytical methods, four components will always need to be analyzed in one way or another:

1) The creative artefact

2) Contextual creative works

3) Your research logs

4) (Possibly) discourse on your subject, relevant creative works, responses to these works, etc. For instance, if you are making a film, you might conduct a discourse analysis of reviews and social media posts responding to contextual works in your genre. Not all projects require discourse analysis.

Skains recommends choosing the analysis method that best fits with “what is accepted and frequently practiced in your domain” (p 95). This media-specific analysis can be augmented with qualitative analysis methods from the social sciences, which Skains introduces. The book also includes an “outline your methodology” exercise (p 105).

In conclusion, I recommend this book to students and scholars in the humanities who are interested in recent discussions on knowledge types or the ‘performative turn’ in the last decades of the 20th century. There are, of course, formal university programs where one can receive training in practice-based research. But for those looking to learn from books, this book offers fundamentals and a good place to start. Due to its systematic and introductory approach, the book is most suitable for undergraduates. Nevertheless, for those who are doing doctorates in artistic research and have not done extensive artistic research before, this book would offer a useful and easy-to-learn methodology to be aware of even if one chooses another avenue. For this reviewer – a musical performer, research instructor, and PBR aficionada – Skains’ book was helpful because of the step-by-step guidance, which helps breaking down barriers and opens the door to acting as an artistic research practitioner. Many PBR publications discuss PBR from a meta-perspective, without producing concrete first-order artistic research themselves. This type of how-to guide is therefore needed in this field.

 

Biography

Katharina Uhde, PhD (2014), Doctor of Musical Arts (2009) is an Associate Professor of Violin and Musicology at Valparaiso University, IN (USA) and Akademische Oberrätin at LMU Munich. She runs a Youtube Channel on practice-based research for which she is always looking for interviewees.