Finding Resonances: Practice-Research Methodologies for Artistic and Social Sciences Researchers (3cr)

Evaluation scale

H-5

Objective

This course aims to examine artistic research and practice-led research methods, and to give students the tools to navigate discussions on the value and place of artistic and practice-led research within academia and within society at large. The course is aimed at students actively using artistic and practice-led research methods (such as those doing artistic research PhDs), as well as students aiming to include creative elements (such as sketches, poetry or other forms of creative writing) within more traditional forms of PhD research.

After completing the course the student is able to:

- Understand some of the differences between making art and doing artistic research
- Appreciate the value of practice-led research within non-artistic research projects
- Reflect on how tacit knowledge can be presented in different research contexts
- Feel confident about using critical self-reflection to support practice-led research
- Be able to address the common questions/discussions about artistic research and practice-led research in academic contexts

Accomplishment methods

The course has two mandatory assignments:

One pre-assignment based on each student’s own research pathway.

With reference to any of the preparatory readings, the pre-assignment consists of a short essay (approx. 500 words) in which the student can describe their interest in artistic research/ practice-led research methods, the challenges or uncertainties they have encountered when using artistic research/ practice-led research, and their own personal motivation to take part in the course.

Content

The course has a hands-on approach with a focus on practice-research sharing within academic contexts.

Following a short pre-assignment, the main activity takes place during a 3-day seminar/workshop, where different approaches to practice, reflexivity, and critical self-commentary will be explored. Focus is placed on finding “resonances” within other fields, working on concrete approaches that make tacit new knowledge explicit to audiences, and on the practice of documenting and reflecting on insights that emerge through the process of practice. Together we will look at some of the relevant literature and form personal strategies for addressing some of the common questions that tend to emerge when artistic research or practice-led research methods are used in academic contexts.

Location and time

The pre-assignment is due on 17. January, 2025.

The final assignment consists of a presentation or sharing of practice during the course workshop/seminar days (5. February 13:00-16:00, 6. February 13:00 – 16:00, and 7. February 13:00 – 16:00), accompanied by a critical self-reflective essay on the process of practice (1500 words).

The final assignment critical self-reflective essay is due on 28. February, 2025.

Materials

Selected extracts from:

Barrett, Estelle & Barbara Bolt (eds.). Practice as Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd, London & New York, 2010.

Crewe, J. “Creative writing as a research methodology” in New Vistas 7(2), 2021. pp. 26-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.36828/newvistas.150

Collins, Harry. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2010.

Leavy, Patricia. Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practice. The Guilford Press, New York, 2009.

Nelson, R (eds.) Practice as Research in the Arts (and Beyond). Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2022 doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90542-2

Teaching methods

Pre-material including readings and pre-assignment essay, 3-day workshop/seminar (12:00 – 16:00 each day) which includes a reflection on pre-materials and a short presentation of research practice, followed by a 1500-word self-critical commentary essay.
The workshop takes place on campus in Rovaniemi.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Fail: Performance is highly deficient or erroneous. The work may be based on serious misunderstandings.

Sufficient & satisfactory (1-2): Performance is lacking in scope, superficial, or corresponds poorly to the assignment. The author merely lists things out of context or addresses them one-sidedly. The work may contain errors or obscurities.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Good and very good (3-4): Performance corresponds to the assignment, manifesting comprehension and a skill to analyse and justify. The author has addressed the issue comprehensively. The work may still contain some deficiencies.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Excellent (5): Performance delineates an extensive whole and the author can apply knowledge in a multifaceted way or place it in various contexts. The work manifests independence and insight, and it is a flawless entity that involves justified thinking or critical contemplation. The work is well written and implemented.