Research through professional practice is often called practice-based research or practitioner research. Over the last three decades, concepts underpinning practice- related research have become widespread in a variety of disciplines, yet, there are differences in its uses (Candy & Edmonds, 2018). Different terms, such as practice- based (Frayling, 1993; Candlin, 2000; Nelson R. , 2013), design-based (Schön, 1983; Barab & Squire, 2004), arts-based (Barone & Eisner, 1997; McNiff, 1998), arts- informed (Cole, Neilson, Knowles, & Luciani, 2004), practice-led (Mäkelä, 2007; Smith & Dean, 2009), studio-based (Stewart, 2001), artistic (Hannula, Suoranta, & Vadén, 2014), or applied (OECD, 2015; Krueger & Casey, 2014), have been used to refer to this type of research. While such concepts often tend to be used interchangeably, they have also given rise to an increasing debate about the role of the practitioner, the practitioner’s creative processes and produced artefacts in research. For instance, Rust, Mottram and Till (2007) defined practitioner’s research as:
“research in which the professional and/or creative practices of art, design or architecture play an instrumental part in an inquiry”.
This suggests that creative practice can be explicitly leveraged within research inquiry; however, they do not clarify the role of the artefact in this process. In fields such as engineering, design, or education, research involving practitioner’s professional practice is often called applied research. The definition from the Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development from the OECD’s Frascati Manual (2015) defines applied research as the “original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge …, directed towards a specific practical aim or objective”. This definition also emphasises the value of practice, either as method or instrument, for exploring and answering research questions. Such definitions initiate a compelling discussion on the relationship between practice and research (Smith & Dean, 2009), professions and academia (Nelson R. , 2013). Practical material is noted as being used either as an instrument, device, or as an outcome of the research which, together with practitioner’s creative processes, can be seen as the driving force behind the research. We now look at different types of practice-related research.
4.2.1 Different Types of Practice-related Research
Practitioners in art and design often imply that research is a fundamental part of their professional practice (Rust, Mottram, & Till, 2007; Hannula, Suoranta, & Vadén, 2014), which, in turn, supports the motivation for using practice within research. Describing different ways of thinking about research, Frayling (1993) identified three types of research: for practice, through practice, or into practice. In research for practice, the aim of the research is to serve practice; in research through practice, practice serves the purpose of the research; and research into practice aims to observe the working processes of others. We now describe each one in more detail.
Research into practice does not necessarily involve a researcher’s practical competence, which is crucial for the other two types of research (Frayling, 1993; Mäkelä, 2007). Therefore, this type of research into practice can be conducted by a fellow non- practitioner researcher by observing, documenting and analysing practitioners’ activities. While such research uses practitioners, along with their activities and artefacts for research purposes, the investigator plays the role of an outside observer (for example, as an art historian or curator), and does not apply his/her competence and practical expertise in the process of “the making and the products of making” (Mäkelä, 2007). In contrast with research into practice, both research for practice and through practice relate to a researcher’s competence both as artist/practitioner and researcher (Frayling, (1993). Frequently, research for practice tends to be labelled as: artistic, design-based, arts-informed, arts-based, creative practice, studio-based or, more generally, practice-based research, while research through practice is labelled as practice-led, design-led, applied research or research-led practice (Candy & Edmonds, 2018; Smith & Dean, 2009). While research for practice emphasises the creative practice in itself along with the produced artworks and their aesthetic and artistic qualities, research through practice advocates a form of practical procedure that may lead artists/researchers to scientific understandings through the process of reflecting on their own creative processes and produced artefacts (Schön, 1983).
Several practice-based doctoral theses report that their created artworks are of high artistic value and that the body of produced artworks is their main academic contribution (Smith & Dean, 2009). For example, in the visual arts, most theses contain two main components: 1) a body of artworks of artistic or aesthetic value presented in the form of an exhibition, and 2) a critical explanation or interpretation of the study
problem relevant directly to the artist practice and exhibited artwork. A contrasting perspective (Newbury, 1996; Scrivener & Chapman, 2004) claims that the creative processes, new techniques of producing artefacts, along with the produced artefacts, are the main contribution, where practice and the artefacts are used in the research as instruments. To differentiate them, Mäkelä (2007) highlighted the need to articulate the research methodology (Jones & Benachour, 2018). Based on its qualities, research for practice, which tackles the problem of artworks and their creation, is a form of practice- based research, while research through practice emphasises practice and its produced artefacts (Jones & Benachour, 2018). In an effort to bring clarity to the differences between these related concepts, Linda Candy (2006) categorised practice-related research into practice-based and practice-led:
1. If a creative artefact is the basis of the contribution to knowledge, the research is practice-based, and
2. If the research leads primarily to new understandings about practice, it is practice-led.