FVPA 3B WSOA 3017 2020

MEDIUM, PROCESS, CRITICALITY

Interdisciplinary investigations into research methods in the
arts and creative industries.

LECTURE II: Mapping the field: Research in the Arts and Creative Industries (20-24 July)

As we enter the second week of lectures in this course on research methods in the arts and creative
industries, it is important that you have a good understanding of some key terms:

Research is ‘an original investigation undertaken to gain knowledge and/or enhance

understanding … a process of investigation leading to new insights, effectively shared’.

Knowledge is awareness, understanding and insight; human beings have the capacity to
generate knowledge by developing insight and understanding of certain phenomena.

One of the most important purposes of this course is to introduce you to different ways in which
knowledge can be generated in the arts and creative industries. We can say that this process is
guided by three questions:

1. What do we investigate?

This question has to do with our objects of study, the objects about which we want to
generate knowledge. Take a moment now to think what objects of study you can identify in
your own field: a musician may study performance, instrument-building, reception history
(for example); a theatre-maker may study the implications of site-specific work, or teaching
strategies for new movement vocabularies. The possibilities are, actually, endless. Try to
describe, in one sentence, at least one object of study that you think you might want to do
research on – this is a first step in any research process.

2. How do we investigate?

This question relates to methodology – the method that can best be used to investigate
certain phenomena or objects of study. The first part of this question that you will need to
answer is, what kind of knowledge applies to this particular phenomenon – one outcome of
this lecture is to introduce you to different types of knowledge, and to investigate which
 types of knowledge best connect to different areas in or aspects of the arts and creative
industries.

3. How do we share our discoveries?

It is important to remember that doing research is really only the first step in a process of
knowledge generation – unless we find convincing ways to share the research we have done,
that research cannot contribute to the store of knowledge that shapes and helps develop
our society. Traditionally, research in the humanities was shared in the form of textual
output: journal articles (in accredited journals, at least in the context of academia – we will
deal with that aspect in more detail later), chapters in books, and conference proceedings.
Research in the arts, however, has increasingly been offered in alternative ways where not
only text but also evidence of artistic work is disseminated (shared, made available). When
we discuss the article from the Journal for Artistic Research later in this course, you will have
the opportunity to engage with some of these alternative formats. Very important to
remember: in any format, your writing skills have to be well enough developed that you can
present arguments, information and points of view in such ways that readers can
understand, access and engage with your research. You always have to ask yourself: did I
present my argument clearly, so that it can be understood; did I present the argument well
(no spelling mistakes or language errors); did I structure my writing well, so that the
argument is supported by evidence; did I include the necessary referencing.

i) Mapping

This lecture is developed around an ‘activity’ – the mapping of the field of research that we are
engaged with in this course. Let’s take a moment to properly understand this term, ‘mapping’. A
map is a graphic representation of a procedure, process, structure, or system that shows the
arrangement of and relationships between its different components. The term ‘mapping’ is
commonly used to create depictions of geographical regions; in this lecture, however, I will attempt
to expose and then discuss some of the arrangements of and relationships between the different
areas of research in the arts and creative industries. We will try to create a ‘map’ of how research in
our field is structured, what types of research our field is constituted by (made up of). To answer this
question, we will need to determine what types of knowledge most readily apply to the different
areas in our field.
Before we begin working towards a possible ’map’ of research in the arts and creative industries, I
would begin by suggesting two main groupings on the broader ‘map’ of research: the humanities,
and the sciences. These groups should be easy to understand: the first has to do with any knowledge
about how humans navigate or process human experience (own experiences, and the experiences of
other humans); the humanities includes fields like philosophy, literature, language, history, religion
and of course the arts. The sciences focus on nature and natural phenomena: it is predicated on
testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Mathematics, biology, astronomy,
medicine, chemistry, physics are all part of the sciences. The Social Sciences are also sometimes
included under this grouping, because their methods of study often include empirical evidence
(evidence generated from data). However, many universities have faculties for the ‘Humanities and
Social Sciences’, including the social sciences in the field of study that relate to human experience.

In the ‘hard sciences’ like chemistry, physics and biology, the most typical research methods use are
quantitative methods, whereas in the humanities qualitative research methods are more common.

The first lecture introduced you to the terms ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ research. The text by
Hilary Collins (Understanding Research Philosophies pp. 10-11; 36-43) will hopefully have provided
you with a good understanding of these terms - take a moment to review the short discussion on
page 10 of Lecture 1:

‘Qualitative’ refers to research into human behaviour; it deals with the ‘qualities’ connected to
certain areas of human behaviour. The second term connects with positivism, a philosophical
system that relies on that which can be scientifically verified and is capable of logical or
mathematical proof – research that works with elements that can be quantified. Qualitative
research generates textual, non-numerical data; quantitative research produces numerical
data.

It should be clear from the readings and lecture notes that most of the research done in the arts and
creative industries fall under ‘qualitative’ research. Art is created by human beings – it therefore
makes sense that qualitative research, which studies human behaviour and the qualities connected
to certain areas of human behaviour will be more applicable in this field than quantitative research,
which deals with matters that can be scientifically verified and consists of research that produces
numerical data.

Of course, quantitative data can also be used in certain studies in the field of arts. For example, in
2014 a group of art scholars published an article titled A quantitative approach to painting styles
(Vieira et al, 2014). Their approach was to extract certain characteristic features in groups of
paintings from the Baroque and Modern eras, and to compare them according to their geometrical
properties – they suggest, in other words, a study of arts according to geometrical measures. (The
article can be accessed here for those who are interested; you do not need to study this in detail):
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0378437114007961?token=B76FACB11F273380CC48D1
5427573382D5F2CEC1E1B41B683244145D7E979F5B4F545FA8D84D5C00278113C37390BAFA

Some studies use a combination of the two approaches – this is called the ‘mixed methods’
approach. Imagine, for example, that someone wants to study the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic
on the Standard Bank Virtual National Arts Festival in Grahamstown in 2020. Such a study could
analyse financial data – how much revenue was lost or gained with the ‘virtual festival approach’, for
example. This quantitative data could be collected via the festival’s financial reporting; it is
scientifically verifiable, and it is an example of numerical data. Qualitative data could be generated
through questionnaires and interviews with artists who participated in the festival, and through
analyses of the virtual theatre projects – this is qualitative data, because it is neither scientifically
verifiable nor numerical. The two methods (qualitative and quantitative) or both used, so we refer to
this approach as ‘mixed methods’.

There is an argument to be made that the quantitative data referred to in the example above
(Virtual National Arts Festival) can be more easily connected to management or business science
fields than to the arts or creative industries – the object of knowledge is financial revenue, not the
art being produced or showcased at the festival. The next step in the creation of our ‘map’ is to focus
specifically on research where the arts is the object of knowledge. For this purpose, we rely on
Borgdorff’s and Frayling’s distinction of research in the arts, which you will have encountered in last
week’s reading 9Borgdorff 2006):

- research on art
- research for art
- research through art

ii) Practical and Theoretical Knowledge

We can now start ‘zooming in’ on our ‘map’ of knowledge in the arts. We are remaining in the
‘Humanities’ section, and we begin by travelling back in time to Ancient Greece, and the writings of
Plato. Western knowledge – which is the paradigm (framework) this course is situated in – has its
origins in the philosophies of the ancient Greeks like Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. Plato, who was a
student of Socrates, made an important distinction between two types of knowledge: theoretical,
and practical. Robin Nelson articulates it as follows (Nelson 2006: 105):
 As part of a hierarchy in which he installed knowledge above reasoning, belief and illusion
respectively, Plato located the animal drives, passions, emotions and desires in the lowest part
of the soul and intellect in the highest part. Plato also opened up a divide between theory and
practice.

(This passage is from your readings for this week).

Not only does Plato distinguish between these two types of knowledge (practical and theoretical), he
positions them in a hierarchy (order of importance): in his thinking, theoretical knowledge is more
important and valuable than practical knowledge. Nelson also quotes the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu
(1990: 28):

… ‘Practice’ was not helped by Plato who offered intellectuals . . . a justificatory discourse
which, in its most extreme forms, defines action [one might say practice] as the ‘inability to
contemplate’.

This ‘division’ and hierarchy suggested by Plato have significant implications for people doing
research in the arts. Let’s think for a moment about the objects of knowledge that we work with in
the arts: art is made or created, so there is always some form of action involved. Practical knowledge
is therefore intrinsic (essential, fundamental) to all the categories in the arts (performing, visual,
literary). Even when we study or research art made by others (like what could be the case with
research in the creative industries), we are still engaging with a practice, even if we ourselves are not
practitioners (or, if we do not make art ourselves). Plato’s philosophy, which is followed on by the
seventeenth century European Enlightenment thinkers such as Descartes (have you all heard the
phrase ‘I think therefore I am’?) privileges ‘mind over body’ (Nelson 2006: 105) – what does this
mean for research in the arts, where objects of knowledge are created through practical (we can
also say ‘bodily’) processes?

Nelson (2006: 105) describes the importance of practice and practical knowledge by referring to the
philosopher David Pears (1971: 29):

But in the production of knowledge, as philosopher David Pears points out, ‘practice nearly
always comes first, and it is only later that people theorize about practice’.

What Nelson suggests, following on Pears, is that practice is an essential part of generating
knowledge. This is true on multiple levels, but certainly in the arts: there is nothing to theorise about
before practice (making, doing, creating artworks, performances, designs) has occurred. In addition,
Nelson argues that not only the ‘act’ of practice is essential for generating knowledge, but also that
knowledge can be generated through practice.

I will use an example to explain this idea. A designer – let’s call her Lindelwa - first makes a design, of
a city park for example. It’s an innovative urban design, based on paradigms of sustainability, access
and inclusivity and paying particular attention to accessibility for people with disabilities. This design
can be studied or investigated by others; research can be done on the design and its efficacy in
terms of accessibility for people with disabilities; and this could lead to new knowledge about the
specific design but also about urban design approaches in general. Lindelwa herself can also use the
design process as a method of investigation – she can learn more about urban design by doing the
design. In either of these scenarios, practice is an essential element of new knowledge.

Plato’s distinction and hierarchical positioning of types of knowledge has shaped much of Western
thinking, and it has also impacted on the position of quantitative and qualitative knowledge in the
Western knowledge economy (next week’s reading by Denzin and Lincoln (2013) further outlines the
debates regarding quantitative versus qualitative research). For now, we can accept that the division
of theoretical and practical knowledge is no longer generally accepted, and especially in the
humanities (where research in the arts is located) practical and theoretical knowledge are now
considered to be equally important. It is also generally accepted that practical and theoretical
knowledge can be seen as mutually informative, and integrated – we will explore this idea further
when we examine ‘artistic research’.

This division between practical and theoretical knowledge is germane to (typical of) Western
knowledge systems, but it is important to note that African philosophy (speaking very generally) has
not, historically, share this philosophical paradigm (framework/point of view): in much of African
thinking, practice and theory are assumed to be integrated, not separated. A detailed look at African
philosophy does not form part of this course – we simply do not have the time. But it is important to
remember that, even though we speak here from a Western philosophy perspective, other ways of
knowing are just as important and could open up important avenues for discussion.

iii) Knowledge ‘in’, ‘through’ and ‘for’ the arts

Once we have accepted, then, that practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge do not exist in a
hierarchy of importance, and once we’ve ascertained the importance of practical knowledge in the
field of arts and creative industries, we can begin to further refine our map of knowledge. In last
week’s reading by Henk Borgdorff (2006), you will have encountered his suggestion of three
‘categories’ of knowledge in the arts: knowledge on art, knowledge for art, and knowledge through
art. We will now look at these categories more closely, and relate them also to different types of
knowledge. First we will look more closely at three types of knowledge suggested by David Pears in
his influential 1971 publication, What is knowledge?.
Pears suggests the following division of types of knowledge (Pears 1971:5, quoted in Nelson 2006:
105):

- Knowledge of facts: articulated or described as testable propositions; rational argument

provides justification for assertions;
- Knowledge how to do things
- Knowledge of acquaintance

The first two types are fairly easy to understand. Knowledge of facts is knowledge of things that can
be shown or proven to be true – language is used to describe factual things, and knowledge of facts
is established through arguments, theories and laws.

Let’s use our example again: while designing the city park, Lindelwa has to have knowledge
of certain facts, like the need in urban spaces for green spaces such as parks; the amount of
disabled people living in the area; what types of designs have been shown to benefit
disabled people; even the kind of soil available in the area are all facts she will need to have
access to before beginning her design.

The second type of knowledge is easy to relate to ‘practical knowledge’, or ‘know-how’ (see Nelson
2006: 107).

Lindelwa needs to know how to apply design principles effectively in order to design a city
park that is functional and sustainable, as well as attractive for its users, especially those
with disabilities. A person with no design experience will not have the ‘know-how’ to
effectively design a city park or any urban space.

Take a moment now to think about your own field of study. What facts will you need to have
knowledge of in order to effectively investigate your chosen topic? What practical knowledge or
‘know-how’ do you think will apply to your topic?

The third type of knowledge is more complicated. Nelson refers to the work of Bertrand Russell, a
British philosopher from the early twentieth century, to explain ‘knowledge of acquaintance’: this
type of knowledge is not knowledge of facts, but knowledge gained from the senses. Russell refers
to this is ‘raw’ data. Nelson argues that this type of knowledge is not the same as ‘experiential’
knowledge, but one could argue that they are closely related. Experiential knowledge is developed
through the senses: it is information that we gain access to through our senses, through
experiencing phenomena through our senses.
 Lindelwa walks through the area that has been earmarked for the new city park. She hears
urban sounds, and very few birds. She stumbles on the rough terrain. There are unpleasant
smells from nearby sewage pipes. Some of the surrounding buildings are derelict and in
need of maintenance. Lindelwa incorporates all these experiences into her design: the
design includes the planting of indigenous trees to encourage a bird population to settle
there; pathways are built to enable easy wheelchair access and in certain parts railings are
installed to help with assisted walking. The sewage pipes are covered and diverted. The park
is designed to be an attractive feature of the inner city, and this encourages city managers to
improve the state of the neglected buildings.

Knowledge of acquaintance is strongly connected to ‘phenomenology’, a theory of knowledge

articulated (described, developed) by Western thinkers such as Edmund Husserl and Martin
Heidegger, and especially the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Without delving too
deeply into the intricacies of these philosophers’ theories, we can say that ‘phenomenology’ has to
do with knowledge generated from experience; it relies on a first-person point of view; a person’s
subjective understanding. In other words, a person’s own first-hand experience of phenomena
(‘things’, in a basic definition) is the source of new knowledge about those phenomena. Lindelwa’s
first-hand, personal experience of the space, her subjective understanding of the space which she
will use to design a city park becomes a source of knowledge about that space; she will incorporate
this knowledge into her design.

Do you see how strongly these three categories connect to Borgdorff’s three categories that you
encountered in last week’s reading?

- Knowledge on art relates to knowledge of facts: facts about phenomena that exist in the
field of arts. Such phenomena could be (to name only a few examples) Ingoma Zulu dancing,
Impasto painting techniques or the plays of Wole Soyinka. These topics can all be studied in
terms of facts: the cultural significance of Ingoma can be studied by consulting historical
sources, for example, or doing interview with practitioners; Soyinka’s characterisation
techniques can be studied, or the reception history of the plays can be analysed according
social, cultural and political factors. There is a separation between the researcher and the
research object.
- Knowledge for art relates to knowledge how to do things. Imagine studying outdoor lighting
design, live-stream technologies for theatre or the dance vocabulary of Ingoma by learning
how to do these things: by practically understanding how these processes work and
function, and by then developing the results of your investigations into a shareable medium
 (like an article, book chapter or conference presentation) you can share the practical
knowledge you’ve gained through practice. Art, as Borgdorff puts it, is the objective rather
than the object. It is not art itself which is being studied, rather ‘the research provides
insights and instruments that may find their way into concrete practices in some way or
other’ (Borgdorff 2006: 6). This is research that applies directly to art practices: how to ‘do
them’, how to better understand them.
- Knowledge through art relates to knowledge of acquaintance. Knowledge is generated in
this scenario by self-reflexively engaging with your own practice. This type of research
assumes that there is no separation between the researcher and the object of research: an
artist investigates art through doing and through making art. This final type also has art as its
result – in other words, the result of a research process becomes ‘embodied’ (embedded,
integrated with, contained in) an artistic product.

This third category of research in the arts, as Borgdorff explains it, applies most strongly in the area
of Artistic Research, a type of research that we will examine in more detail later in this course. It is
very important to be aware of his type of research, because it is becoming more and more important
in the field of research in the arts. Think through the research topic you are considering in your own
field – do you think Artistic Research could be a good approach for you to explore? Can you think of
ways to use your own art-making or art-doing as a way to generate knowledge?

iv) Conclusion

Our map has now been populated with terms such as theoretical and practical knowledge;
quantitative and qualitative research; knowledge of facts, how-to and acquaintance; research on, for
and through art. In Week 4 we will look at research methods that connect most convincingly with
these types of knowledge.

The two readings for this week – by Robin Nelson and Graeme Sullivan – both provide more depth
and detail to this discussion. Try to work through these texts before Friday, and please bring any
questions to our weekly Q&A Forum. Both these texts raise important points about knowledge and
research in the arts (with Sullivan’s text focusing specifically on the visual arts, but applicable to
other arts practices too).
Our map begins with the distinction between:

SCIENCES and HUMANTIES.

We locate the arts in the Humanities.

The next step shows the categories of knowledge:

THEORETICAL KNOWLEGDE and PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE

Both these categories can apply to the arts, but we know that practical knowledge is essential for
investigating art, which is a practical activity.

We further identify three types of knowledge, which apply generally (and not only in the arts):

Knowledge of FACTS, knowledge HOW TO, and knowledge of ACQUAINTANCE

Finally, we identify three types of knowledge IN THE ARTS:

Knowledge ON, knowledge FOR and knowledge THROUGH art.

Do remember that this map is only one way to categorise, group or arrange knowledge in the arts
and creative industries. I am offering one possibility, but other configurations (arrangements) are
also possible. At the conclusion of this lecture, you should be able to situate your own practice or
field within these knowledge groupings; in Week 4, we will investigate which methods will be most
appropriate and effective for you to investigate your chosen topic, and help you to generate new
knowledge in your own part of the field of arts.

Mareli Stolp, Wits School of Arts