Methodological models 63

Having settled on an appropriate methodological approach, it is important to consider the model which provides a framework for the study. Ontologically, the normative hierarchy of value which privileges text over practice has been reversed as scrutiny increasingly falls on performance practice (George, 1996). For example, models from Practice-as-Research (PaR), practice-based research and practice-led research are steadily gaining approval within the academy. While accepting that “the embodied knowledge of the practice is both prior to, and distinct from, the written (symbolic) account after the event” (Nelson, 2006, p.107), it is nonetheless possible to generate new theory which can be of practical value to artists, critics, funding bodies and scholars in the future. For as Nelson further observes, “one way in which creative practice becomes innovative is by being informed by theoretical perspectives, either new in themselves, or perhaps newly explored in a given medium” (2006, p.114).

Numerous collections of artistic reflections have been published in recent years, often in the form of first-person interview transcripts (Delgado and Heritage, 1996; Oddey, 2005), including several collections focused on specific nations, such as Wales (Wooster, 2007) and the wider UK (Giannachi and Luckhurst, 1999; Duggan and Ukaegbu, 2013). As noted in the previous chapter, several anthologies of reflections on TEY practice by European artists have been produced (Schneider,

2009b; Nerattini, 2009a; b; Belloli, 2009; Belloli, Morris and Phinney, 2013), often via the Small Size artists’ network. These collections are valuable as records of various forms of knowledge (tacit, implicit, practical, theoretical, psychological, educational), but they are generally presented simply as raw data, with no deeper investigation carried out. This investigation aims to analyse, question and interrogate similar data drawn from Scottish respondents to move towards a more explicit and cohesive record of practice, and thus produce generalisable theory.

From the data contained within the European TEY volumes, two approaches to performance-making emerge as standard practice, as noted in section 2.3.1: deductive, meaning the overt incorporation of developmental milestones within creative praxis; and inductive, meaning the sharing of work-in-progress at specific points with the target audience, possibly without reference to experts (Knight, 2011; Dartnell, 2009). Many artists combine the two approaches to varying degrees, employing advice from psychologists as well as repeated testing in rehearsal settings (Churchill Dower, 2004).

Deductive artists tend to collaborate with child development specialists, combining their own practice with the researchers’ knowledge of infant developmental milestones. The assistance of a psychologist or educator can reduce rehearsal time by providing ‘shortcuts to knowledge’. Although they may be valuable for other purposes, these schema and milestones lack intrinsic aesthetic value – indeed, a production derived wholly from rigid rules without artistic vision may fail to engage its audience.

By contrast, inductive artists often rely instead on personal research and lengthy periods of testing or piloting with child audiences; for example, Oogly Boogly (2003) restricts its audience to babies between 12 and 18 months and their parents, due to the developmental milestones associated with that age: commonly mobile, but pre-linguistic (Bruce, 2006). The production’s creators explicitly avoided working with educators once these basic milestones had been identified, favouring direct observation of test audiences; however, in an email to me on April 13, 2012, creator Guy Dartnell noted that this led to a nine-month rehearsal process.

Both deductive and inductive approaches produce new knowledge, in the form of validated hypotheses, field-tested practices, phenomenological experience and embodied expertise. However, these differing forms of knowledge are tacit, not explicit. As noted above, even when documented in the form of written records, they can fail to generate generalisable theory of use to others.

One reason for turning “tacit understandings, inferred practices and theoretical assumptions” into explicit knowledge, as Baz Kershaw and Helen Nicholson have noted (2011, p.2), is to provide an opportunity to question and challenge long-held beliefs which have become part of an artist’s practice over time, and thus to innovate. Nelson’s tripartite Dynamic Model (2006) explores this interplay between practitioner knowledge, critical reflection (which could be described as the inductive method) and conceptual framework (or the deductive method) as it outlines the Practice-as-Research (PaR) system:

Figure 12: Robin Nelson's Dynamic Model for Mixed-Mode Research

However, the PaR model is designed for the artist-researcher, rather than the scholar or the practitioner. It is predicated on the artist-researcher’s ability both to reflect meaningfully on their practice and to interpolate academic theory into their

work. Artists may be able to engage with this dynamic process to a considerable degree, but it is debatable how fully their experiential knowledge can be integrated with action research or a theoretical or documentable praxis. In particular, the linkage between practitioner knowledge and conceptual framework can be tenuous, as the specific skills required to combine the two areas may not be part of artist training. Nelson has furthermore suggested that a record of praxis “always inevitably (re)constructs the practice such that the thing itself remains elusive” (2013, p.5), implying that even first-hand testimonies may fail to capture accurately the nuances of individual practice, let alone wider praxes. Indeed, as Susan Melrose (2005) has noted, expert arts practitioners may “theorise in modes and registers of complex practice which operate wholly or in significant part outside of writing”, but their theorising may be internalised as embodied skill, not to be shared more widely with others.

A further step can therefore be taken beyond the documentation of tacit knowledge, in order to develop a more widely applicable framework. As will be detailed in section 3.5.5, the direct application of findings in a practical setting can assist with this assessment of generalisability. Weak concepts which may have little impact can be rejected, while stronger themes will gain in resonance if they can be seen to contribute within a practical process of creative development. This may occur by situating the researcher in a rehearsal context, allowing them to observe practice in order to produce new transmittable knowledge, or it may occur on a more ad hoc basis, as in this study, with artist and researcher engaging in a mixture of informal discussion, sharing of practice via workshops or training events, formal interviews and even collaborative devising of new work (see Chapter 6 for a case study which aims to apply theoretical concepts in practice).

The original deductive mode of practice, where an artist tests their own performative hypotheses in rehearsal to produce new (but tacit) artistic knowledge, remains in place. Each agent serves to ‘fill in the gaps’ for the other – the artist demonstrates their practice and reflects critically upon it in interviews, while the scholar provides theoretical insights as an outcome of research and influences the development of future practice through documentation (Duggan and Ukaegbu, 2013). It can also be argued that this formalised application of findings is comparable to the practice of dramaturgy, or at least one of the modes in which dramaturgy operates today. Just as a dramaturg assists the artistic process by “eradicating

boundaries between critical thinking and creativity…uniting dramaturgs with all theatre artists inside the common bond of process” (Thomson, 2003, p.117), so the scholar works alongside artists to bring together theory and expertise for the intended benefit of practitioners. Participant and researcher act as co-creators synthesising new knowledge, one providing data, the other providing analysis. The model provides a strong foundation for a methodology in which neither claims primacy (that is, a constructivist methodology); hegemonies of reputation or long experience are overturned in favour of a web of action and interaction, (re)linking existing practice to theoretical advancement to reflexive praxis. The model, unlike Nelson’s original PaR version, can also accommodate many artists and many scholars collaborating over time, as the steps within it constitute processes, rather than personal attributes. Agents within a constructivist system, whether artists or researchers, thus “create and maintain meaningful worlds through dialectical processes of conferring meaning on their realities and acting within them” (Charmaz, 2000, p.521). The means of exploration of these realities and created worlds is the focus of the following section.