Theory and Practice in Creative Practitioner Research

Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL

Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015

1

Theory and Practice in

Creative Practitioner Research

Linda Candy

Creativity & Cognition Studios, School of Software

Faculty of Engineering and IT

University of Technology, Sydney

Abstract

This paper is about theory in practice and practice in theory and how, by understanding how

each can alter the other, we can learn to advance both. Theory and practice operate together in

creative practice but often the role of theory is perceived as quite separate. The paper will focus

on the theory-practice axis and will argue that there is a reflexive relationship between them

that shapes our notions of the utility of theory in creative work. The discussion begins with a

consideration of what the term 'theory means in different contexts: theory in general, theory in

science, theory in critiquing and theory in creativity. It helps to understand the differentiation

in order to consider what categories of theory are relevant to creative practice.

Introduction

This paper is about theory in practice and practice in theory and how, by understanding how

each can alter the other, we can learn to advance both. Theory and practice operate together in

creative practice but often the role of theory is perceived as quite separate. The case presented

here for treating theory and practice as reflexive activities arises from experience in practice-

based research over a number of years. From that we learnt that by paying attention to the way

theory informs practice, we can enhance practice; conversely, by bringing practice into the

process of theory generation, it becomes possible to generate a new kind of theory that is derived directly from practitioner knowledge.

I believe that there is a great deal to gain from looking at theory and practice as equal partners

in the creative process whether in design, art, engineering or any other domain where these

things matter. The paper will focus on the theory-practice axis and will argue that there is a

reflexive relationship between them that shapes our notions of the utility of theory in creative

work. I will draw upon recent examples of practitioner researchers in art, music and interaction

design from which a trajectory model of theory, practice and evaluation has been derived.



2

The differentiation between the role of theory in practice and the role of practice in theory is

central to the argument presented. The discussion begins with a consideration of what the term

'theory means in different contexts: theory in general, theory in science, theory in critiquing and

theory in creativity. It helps to understand the differentiation in order to consider what categories of theory are relevant to creative practice.

Theories, Generalisations and Swans

In the English language, the word 'theory' was first coined in 1592, when it was used to mean a

concept or mental scheme from the Greek, 'theoria': contemplation, speculation, a looking at,

things looked at. Today, 'theory' is used differently, depending on the context. The term is often

used in every day language to mean a hunch or supposition. You may even hear people dismiss

certain information because it is "only a theory". In other words, people often use theory to

mean unproven ideas. The ordinary use of theory sometimes suggests 'speculation' of a kind based on some kind of information, but it is not a synonym for 'guess'.

Theories are also generalisations formulated on the basis of individual cases. Inference from

individual cases to a universal statement is termed ‘induction’ whilst ‘deduction’ is the opposite,

that is to infer individual cases from a generalization. In order to speak of ‘accurate’ or

‘inaccurate’ theories, they must bear close scrutiny in light of reality, or can at least be checked

against reality. However, arriving at verified knowledge is a problem and we cannot be certain

whether a generalization, truly applies in all cases. For example, ‘All swans are white’. Even if

you have seen thousands of swans and all of them were in fact white, you can ultimately never

be certain that a black swan does not exist. Until the first sighting of black swans in Western

Australia, this was often used as an absolute truth. The Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh

made the first European record of sighting a black swan in 1697 when he sailed into the Swan

River on the western coast of Australia (then New Holland). His sighting was, however,

insufficient to convince everyone and in 1726, two birds were captured near Dirk Hartog Island,

and taken to Batavia (present day Jakarta) as proof of their existence. Thus evidence was

required and it was not enough to merely assert the existence of a new theory. This is a fundamental aspect of scientific theory and differentiates it from the everyday use of the term.

Theories as predictive descriptions of the natural world Theories are nets cast to catch what we call ‘the world’: to rationalize, to explain, and to master it. We endeavour to make the mesh ever finer and finer. (Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 59)

A theory in science is quite different from the ordinary use of the term. In science, the word

theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by a

body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such

fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.



3

Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. The

term theoretical is sometimes informally used in place of hypothetical to describe a result that is

predicted, but has not yet been adequately tested by observation or experiment. A hypothesis is

the application of a theory or theories to new conditions, which has yet to be tested while a

theory is a prediction based on previous observations or experiments of the same or similar

circumstances. A scientific theory is, therefore, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect

of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through

observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable

accounts of the real world. The theory of evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an

explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our

understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like

evolution, is an accepted fact. Theories can, therefore, only ever be described as ‘provisionally

warranted’ from a scientific point of view. Even now existing theories about inheritance and

genetics are being transformed by the new science of epigenetics. Our DNA is not so much a

'blueprint' that determines all that we are, but rather a ‘script’ that explains why identical gene

structures can give rise to different outcomes and in which the interplay between genes and environment is the key to understanding how we evolve (Carey, 2011).

Theory as critique

Critical theory is an examination and critique of society and culture, drawing from knowledge

across the social sciences and humanities. Theorists inspire multiple ideological discourses that

represent divergent perspectives on society, politics and culture. The term has two different

meanings with different origins and histories: one originating in sociology and the other in

literary criticism. The term 'critical theory' is now used as an umbrella term to describe any

theory founded upon critique. There are too many forms of theory as critique to address fully in

this article. I will, therefore, focus on the theorists who have informed the paper's main theme of

theory and practice in the context of practice-based research. As a student of English literature

in the late 1960s, I was introduced to the critique of Frank Leavis as a giant of literary theory,

but when later I became a teacher researcher, this form of critical theory provided insufficient

help to my efforts to understand how to advance the English curriculum. I turned instead to a new kind of theoretical discourse that addressed the role of developing knowledge in practice.

The period leading up to World War II and afterwards was a time when new theories of learning

and experience were emerging, driven in part by a desire for change in society and education (or

training as it was referred to then), and also, by a growing awareness of the limitations of

knowledge generated by traditional forms of research, for taking action and improving practice.

The initial impetus for the new thinking about the nature of research came principally from



4

education and social psychology and was later extended to organisational learning and professional practice by Donald Schön and Chris Argyris (Schön and Argyris, 1978).

Whilst it is generally acknowledged that Donald Schön’s first introduced the term ‘reflection in

action’ and proposed a relationship between this and the development of practitioner knowledge

(Schön, 1983), the underlying concepts go back further to John Dewey. Dewey's exploration of

reflection and thinking through experience provided the foundations of a new theory of

experiential learning (Dewey, 1933). His theories about experience, interaction and reflection

were taken further by Kurt Lewin. Lewin, best known for his development of ‘field theory’,

coined the term ‘action research’ to describe a process where the research uses: “a spiral of

steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result

of the action” (Lewin, 1946). This process relies on taking action in order to understand how to change a given situation from which the insights derived may be used to make improvements.

Donald Schön made a profound contribution to our understanding of the theory and practice of

learning. His innovative thinking around notions such as ‘the learning society’, ‘double-loop

learning’ and ‘reflection-in-action’ has become part of the language of education. Action

research has been successfully used to underpin a stream of research dedicated to improving

practice (Elliott, 1991) and has, in combination with Schön’s concepts of reflective practice

(Schön’s, 1983), become an invaluable feature of practitioner research.

The basic concepts of action research and reflective practice bring an action-based form of

research together with a focus on practitioner knowledge. These ideas have endured into the

21st century and continue to be explored and extended further in a range of disciplines.

Moreover, they have proven to be critical in the development of practice-based research methodologies.

Theories as creative agents

Currently, in design and other creative fields such as art, the term theory is more loosely applied

than in science. It is often used to refer to non-practical aspects of the making of works. That

can be a problem when it comes to developing new contributions to knowledge borne of

practitioner experience. Theory perceived as a wrap up concept for everything not to do with

making an artefact or artwork, is in danger of being perceived as peripheral to the core business

of creative work. This is evident in those kinds of exegetical tracts from practitioner post-

graduate research that sit side by side with making and exhibiting works but appear to have an

incidental relationship to the creative process or at best provide a jumping off point for the

thinking behind the research. There is, however, a greater value in seeing theory in practice in a

more integral sense where not only does the theory informs practice but the practice informs the theory. For that to happen, we need an appropriate critical discourse.



5

Theory in practice can inform and shape new constructs and processes and show us what the

world can be, not just what it already is. Founded on the action-reflection-experiential

theoretical discourse established by Dewey, Lewin, Schön and others, we can characterise theory

as an agent within practice that creators may use to guide actions in the making of new products

and artefacts. In all categories, theory is the underpinning of knowledge, but theory as creative

agent is most directly relevant to practice because it is concerned with creating new forms not

just critiquing what already exists. In design and other creative fields such as art, this meaning

of theory has more potential for development. It is, I believe, possible to advance theory further

by considering directly how theory informs practice- in other words, to ask what is its value in

making and evaluating what we have made? The reciprocal question- how does practice inform theory- is a necessary counterpart to the first and will be addressed later in this article.

Applying Theory in Practice

So why should we worry about theory in creative fields such as design and art? Let's look at the

question: how is theory applied in practice? Here, the emphasis is on the practice itself and the

place of theory within it. The implied question is does that theory have a value for practice and if

so what is it? Theoretical knowledge is important, indeed essential, in certain contexts for

taking action in our practice. In one particular respect, without sound theoretical knowledge we

can make mistakes that lead to catastrophic results: e.g. if we do not follow the laws of Physics for building bridges and tall buildings, this can have disastrous consequences.

One example of a theory that might have implications for design is the' theory of choice. The

theory of choice is that there is psychological benefit to having plenty of choice and that humans

have a capacity to handle that multiplicity. The belief that our capacity to manage choice is

unbounded stems from decades of psychological theory and research that has repeatedly

demonstrated, across many domains, a link between the provision of choice and increases in

intrinsic motivation, perceived control, task performance, and life satisfaction. This has led to

providing multiple options in retail without really considering whether or not it promotes consumption.

The theory of 'too much choice' came about through research that examined the difference

between people’s expressed wish for more choice and what actually happens when they are

confronted with the decision to buy. Social psychologists Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper were

the first to demonstrate the problem of too much choice. They showed that when shoppers are

given the option of choosing among smaller and larger assortments of jam, they show more

interest in the larger assortment. However, when it comes time to pick just one, they are ten

times more likely to make a purchase if they choose among six rather than among twenty-four types of jam (Iyengar and Lepper, 2000).



6

The theory of choice was overturned by research in which the frame of reference was altered

from psychological preferences to consumer behaviour. Now we understand that more choice is

not always beneficial psychologically and can lead to panic and inaction as this quotation

indicates:

Look at this peanut butter! There must be three sizes of five brands of four consistencies! Who

demands this much choice? I know! I'll quit my job and devote my life to choosing peanut butter! Is

"chunky" chunky enough or do I need EXTRA chunky? I'll compare ingredients! I'll compare brands!

I'll compare sizes and prices! Maybe I'll drive around and see what other stores have! So much selection, and so little time! (Watterson, 1996).

Many examples can be cited to support the point about the necessity and value of theory to

practice. Theory in these kinds of situations allows us to eliminate choices that are impossible to

execute or can lead to misunderstandings and failures. For Interaction Design, being aware of

Gestalt theory is important to avoid making errors in relation to perceptual groupings, which

have implications for the choice of colours, layout relationships between objects on a screen and

size and quantity of text. Psychological theory about memory is important for understanding the

limits of working memory when deciding how many items to place on a list. There is a sound

theoretical basis for the three clicks principle for getting to your desired object, a principle

developed long before Apple designed it into the iPod. Knowledge of theory can be important

when it comes to reducing the number and range of options open to the designer. It is therefore an important feature of design education that theory applied to practice is studied.

Not Theory applied to Practice but Theory derived from Practice

Let’s now go to the question: “What is theory in practice?

I want here to make a distinction between theory that is applied to practice and theory that is

derived from practice. The perspective I am adopting stems from research into the way

practitioners use theory, and is founded principally in work into experiential thinking and

action-based methodologies of Dewey, Lewin, Schön and others as mentioned previously. I

don’t intend to cover this rich source of understanding about practice and action in any detail

here but will focus on ideas that are relevant to the question of theory that arises within practice

and the key problem of how that theory can be accessed and thereby shared. See Candy 2011, for

further discussion about the contribution of Dewey, Lewin, Schön to our understanding of

practice and the role of theory

There is an important difference between theory that is applied to practice (as described above)

and theory that is derived from practice. In creative practice, practitioners do more than draw

upon an existing repository of theoretical knowledge: they make new works through

experimentation and evaluation and, in doing so, come to new understandings about what



7

works well. Graeme Sullivan points out that reflective practice viewed as a form of problem

solving that involves a cyclical process of learning from actions, may in fact lead to an awareness

of the limitations of existing approaches to providing solutions. (Sullivan, 2010:67). For the

most part, that kind of practitioner knowledge is implicit in the artefacts and works that ensue.

Tapping that implicit understanding is hard to achieve. And yet it is a critical part of practice-based knowledge and has the potential to change the nature of theory in practice.

In order to explore this question further, we might consider the differences between what people

say they do and what they actually do when it comes to taking action in practice. There are two

kinds of theories of practice): what Argyris calls 'espoused theories' versus 'theories-in-use'

(Argyris et al, 1986). According to this view, there are two kinds of theories of action (in

practice): espoused v theories-in -use. Espoused theories are those that (when asked) a person

claims to follow: eg. "my theory rests on the principle that design should always meet client’s

requirements", but these are not necessarily what they actually do. He argues however that

although people often do different things to what they claim to do, there is, nevertheless, theory

that is consistent with what they do – a 'theory in use'. For example: meeting the client’s

requirements might mean bending them to match those needs as perceived by the designer. The

consistency of theories in use (even though not consistent with the espoused theories), is

because people do not just happen to act in a particular way but act in a 'designed' way. These

theories are often tacit 'cognitive maps' by which they design their actions. However, such

theories are note usually made explicit in such a way as to be understood and shared by other people. This raises the question as to whether or not making such theories explicit is possible.

“ theories in use can be made explicit by reflection in action but reflection itself is governed by theories in use" (Argyris et al. 1985 chapter 3 Theories of action: pp 82-83).

To move beyond a 'theory in use', the practitioner has to make explicit the theories that govern

their actions. The question then arises as to how the practitioner can move beyond personal

reflections in such a way as to make them explicit and thereby open to interrogation and

scrutiny. For the practitioner researcher, theory related to a particular practice is under constant

evolution through reflection in action and, as a result, revised or even new theory is being generated...but this is normally inaccessible to any sharable theoretical knowledge base.

Schon argued that the most helpful in understanding theory in action, are “people for whom

research functions not as a distraction from practice but as a development of it (Schon, 1983,

introduction). But in order to communicate such understanding, more is needed and that more

can be a documented research process in which there is articulation of the contribution that the

work makes to the domain or field. Reflective practice can be of benefit to the individual

practitioner at a personal level but this process in itself is not one that distinguishes good



8

practice from research. To make tacit understandings, explicit there needs to be an articulated

reflection in action that is an integral part of a documented research process. This form of

research is different to the traditional model. Research-led practice is not carried out in advance

of the practice but as an integral part of it.

Research is needed in order to make explicit theories in use. However, there are particular views

as to what research actually consists of and whether the role of the artefact is critical. Moreover,

whether the artefact (designs, buildings, artworks, performances etc.) has a role within the

research itself as a finished product or as an integral part of the creative process, makes a considerable difference to the nature of the knowledge generated from the research.

Barriers to practice (design) as research

Lawson grapples with the problem of reconciling 'design' (practice) and 'research' in his paper

'Design as Research' (Lawson, 2002). He characterise the main difference between designing

and research in terms of one being 'descriptive' (research) and the other being 'prescriptive

(design practice). This differentiation is at the heart of the problem in that "design concerns

itself, not with the way the world is or was, but the way it might be or should be" (Lawson, 2002,

p2). It is not hard to see why a view of research emanating from traditional science (but without

the predictive elements) is difficult to reconcile with design practice characterised in this way.

Definitions of what is research, however, he finds are more useful where they focus on necessary

outcomes, principally, new knowledge or understandings that can be shared or communicated.

Another barrier to design as research comes in the place of the finished artefact (designs), which

Lawson believes can provide an understanding of the nature of originality but which has no

acceptance as 'research' anymore than a publication. Seen this way, the role of the artefact in

research is limited by what can be revealed about it in terms of a contribution to knowledge that can be shared, contested or agreed.

Don Norman’s paper 'Act first and research later' also considers the role of research in practice.

He advocates making research integral to working practice as a living part of the creative

process. Whilst he begins with caution about the role of research in action (practice), he ends

with the point that research should not be carried out at the start of a design project: it can be done before, afterwards- or even during the process (Norman, 2005). As he says:

"Good designers should always be engaged in observation, in mentally reviewing and creating artefacts, in sketching, writing, planning and thinking..

As a result, when the time comes to act, they can do so without appearing to need research, but only because of the accumulated wisdom they draw upon” (Norman, 2005)



9

My own view is that to achieve this state of wisdom, practitioners need to embed the research

ethos into their practice as an integral part of the way they think and act. This is the challenge

for education in design, engineering and other creative fields where the outcomes from creative

processes must go beyond nice novel products. It is not enough to exhibit your product alone

without also contributing an understanding of how you got there and why it matters.

Contributing to the knowledge base is equally important for the spread of creativity and innovation

There is, too, the problem of how to justify the artefacts resulting from creative practice as

contributions to research knowledge. This has been recognised in Scrivener's paper 'The Art

Object does not embody a form of Knowledge' (Scrivener, 2002). Any designed object has

multiple meanings and although it is possible to deploy it in the search for understanding

through empirical means, this does not suggest that it embodies a particular kind of knowledge.

This is an unresolved issue in the discourse that continues around the role of research in art and design.

Is there a way of accessing theories in use and artefact embedded knowledge? I believe that a

promising way forward lies in the possibilities offered by embedding research in the practitioner process- in what I will refer to here as 'practice-based research' (Candy, 2006).

Practice-based Research

Practice-Based Research (PBR) has been characterised in different ways. I define it for the purposes of this discussion in the following ways:

1. An original investigation undertaken in order to gain new knowledge partly by means of

practice and the outcomes of that practice.

2. Claims of originality and contribution to knowledge may be demonstrated through

outcomes in the form of designs, music, digital media, performances and exhibitions.

3. Whilst the significance and context of the claims are described in words, a full understanding can only be obtained with direct reference to the creative outcomes.

PBR addresses some of the problems Lawson identifies, especially how to include artefacts, and

the process of creating them, in research. The designs that he sees as fundamental to studying

design and that are not easily incorporated into traditional research models are at the heart of

practitioner research. Here the phrase 'practitioner research' means research carried out by

practitioners themselves, as distinct from research into what practitioners do, a more familiar

form of research in the field of design research. In both cases, there remains the problem of how to carry out research that generates new theoretical knowledge.



10

Can practitioners do 'real' research?

What are the essential elements of practice-based research that qualify it as genuine research?

Practice-based research is conducted through making and evaluating an artefact, a process that

cannot remain known solely to the practitioner researcher. There needs to be an accompanying

articulation, interpretation or discourse that reveals the internal workings of the process to a

broader constituency. The process revealed as it unfolds through articulation and

documentation can lead to understandings that the finished object does not offer. This is the

crucial difference from researching the process after the fact when so much of the decision-

making and changes of direction in thought and action has already taken place. This is not to say

that post event research does not have value but rather that there is a different kind of value in

knowing more about the 'theories in use' and how they are developed and changed from the practitioner perspective.

Systematic Research and Creative Practice

Research within creative practice is inextricably bound up with creating works and investigating

the implications of them. How to find out what matters in terms of the way an interactive

system functions often requires more than intermittent, casual observation. The practitioner

may be searching for deeper insights into the nature of experience that can only be achieved by

studying the interactive experiences at length. This might require learning new methods for

gathering information and analysing its significance. Where this work is taking place in formal

research such as a PhD, it is also necessary to make the new knowledge available to the community at large.

For the practitioner researcher, creating a work and then reflecting on the process and outcome,

is a pathway to understanding some of the underlying theories in use that have not been

articulated beforehand. The process of making something can facilitate a form of 'thinking-in-

action' that is needed in order to move towards a clearer understanding. The role of ‘reflection-

in-action’, first proposed by Donald Schön (Schön, 1983), has proven to be effective in

supporting this personal process.

Research is sometimes seen as the business of acquiring information in response to a particular

need at a given time in the design process: for example, identifying what materials are available.

This is information seeking rather than research in the sense I refer to.

Bringing creative practice and research together has reciprocal effects and usually implies

changes in perception about both. The research is likely to demand new knowledge and skills

either on the part of the individual concerned or by way of collaboration with experts. Practice

that depends upon research for its innovative outcomes is in itself changed by that research.



11

Practitioner research is primarily directed towards understanding and improving an individual’s

practice and its outcomes. What is learnt is not necessarily intended for wider applicability in

the sense of confirming or challenging existing theories or principles. In that sense, practitioner

research differs from what might be termed ‘professional’ research. This term is not ideal but is

used here in order to differentiate research that is carried out from a disinterested (in the sense

of impartial or neutral) standpoint. The professional researcher typically adopts an external or

independent position in relation to the domain of concern and carries out investigations

designed to contribute to the general corpus of knowledge. Within certain domains, a

professional researcher who seeks a closer involvement with the subjects may adopt a participatory or embedded stance.

The artefact in practice-based research

The role of the artefact in practice-based research is critical in several ways: first, the making

process provides the action based context whereby the practitioner explores ideas and generates

new questions; second, prototypes or stages of development of the artefact provide interim

opportunities for reflection and systematic evaluation that can bring about changes of direction

and new designs or features; third, the finished product can be exhibited, assessed and

evaluated by others besides the creator and in this way becomes a sharable entity. In summary,

the artefact in research may perform a number of different roles:

• Making Prototypes as experiments towards a finished outcome

• Externalising and documenting ideas and decisions

• Tracing the design rationale

• Generating ideas and new questions

• Documenting reflection in action • Evaluating through observational studies

The finished artefact is likely to embody many aspects of the initial concepts but more often

many new ideas are realised during the process: for this reason it is vital that there is

documentation that records the reflections that have shaped the final outcome. Where observational studies are conducted, they will of necessity, be documented.

Can practice-based research contribute to theoretical knowledge?

Research in its different manifestations is usually expected to lead, at one end of the spectrum to

better information, and at the other, to new knowledge that challenges existing theories and

assumptions. Researchers everywhere seek to verify hypotheses or prove that existing theories

are wrong. However, research in creative practice has particular characteristics that do not necessarily conform to traditional norms about the nature of knowledge and how it is generated.



12

For one thing the practice that is so central to practice-based research is primarily directed

towards making things, whether they be visual or sound objects or installations, exhibitions or

performances. Nevertheless, for many practitioner researchers, whilst the ‘works’ are at the

centre of the research, there are also other kinds of outcomes.

What is important to understand about the creation of works within practice-based research is

that the practitioner is typically investigating new artistic forms and that they are likely to make

their claim to novelty explicit, often in textual form. This goes well beyond creating new content

for old forms. This second kind of outcome, running in parallel with the artworks, is a vital part

of any claims of novelty for practice-based research. These outcomes fall into three main categories:

1. Models, taxonomies, frameworks

2. Strategies, criteria for action/design

3. Exemplars, case studies.

Most outcomes are based on the results of studies carried out using socio-technical

methodologies drawn from HCI and Social Science. They are made possible by the considered

use of documented reflective practice as well as different types of observational studies, questionnaires and interviews.

For those wishing to explore the rich source of practitioner-generated knowledge, theoretical

and practical outcomes from practitioner research are documented in Candy and Edmonds

(2011). For example, Andrew Johnston, who made virtual instruments for live performances,

also developed a model of interaction that contributes to the field of HCI and strategies for

designing conversational interactive systems (Johnston, 2009). Brigid Costello created art

systems for playful interaction and, from her research into audience behaviour, developed

design strategies and a model for classifying different kinds of play that contributes to Games

and HCI fields (Costello, 2009). Both used observational data and interviews collected using

video cued recall and analysed using grounded theory methods. If there is a difference between

these examples of practice led research outcomes, it is that in Andrew Johnston's case, the

outcomes are both works and theory: the virtual instruments continue to be evolved, performed

and extended using the modes of interaction identified from the empirical research. In these

cases, designing and creating with a research ethic has become an integral part of professional practice.

Dave Burraston, who created experimental music, also made a contribution to the field of

generative processes using Cellular Automata (CA). Andrew Johnston, who made virtual

instruments for live performances, also developed a model of interaction that contributes to the



13

field of HCI and strategies for designing conversational interactive systems. Brigid Costello

created art systems for playful interaction and, from her research into audience behaviour,

developed design strategies and a model for classifying different kinds of play that contributes to

Games and HCI fields. Jen Seevinck created interactive art systems, as well as devising a

theoretical taxonomy of emergence in interactive art and from her audience studies, was able to

validate her approach and derive understandings about emergence and interactive experience.

Zafer Bilda’s drive to understand the general characteristics of audience engagement led him to

observe different forms in action from which he was able to derive a model of creative

engagement. Not content with modelling the phenomena he observed, he also took what he

learnt a step further by drawing out principles for interaction design from the results of his studies.

Whilst the above examples, were mainly based upon empirical studies of audiences and art

systems, others were more speculative and exploratory in their way of working. Ernest

Edmonds, for example, devised a framework for proposing new interactive forms, and a

taxonomy for classifying interactive art well in advance of these ideas being realised in future

works. Chris Bowman’s visual explorations were inspired by the relationship between video

images of the natural world and Kenji Miyazawa’s poem, Spring and Asura and the influences of

ancient Buddhist sutras. Ian Gwilt explored the history and potential of mixed reality for

creating augmented art forms and exhibited works that exemplify this. Mike Leggett created a

new interactive video form and explored its implications prior to actually making works with the ideas that arose from the making and exploring (Candy and Edmonds, 2011).

These outcomes from research in creative practice represent a wide variety of contributions to

culture and knowledge. The artworks and interactive art systems stand for themselves of course,

but also in practice-based research, they are placed in context through written theses and

disseminated in published papers. Some artworks will continue to be exhibited whilst others will

rest in personal and museum archives until the art historians of the future uncover and

reinterpret them. Inevitably, what is perceived as novel today in the artworks that have been so

painstakingly created, will in a relatively short time lose their sense of novelty as newer works

emerge and command attention. Some interactive systems will act as inspiration to others and

become transformed again in new forms. Other practitioners, as well as researchers in different

fields, may also find the models of interaction and creative engagement enlightening whilst the

strategies and criteria for design may be applied in different contexts. Moreover, it is worth

remembering that this research, with its focus on personal practice, plays a role in documenting

the individual creative process and interpreting the insights gained from it. In that way too,

research in creative practice can influence the ideas and actions of others who come afterwards and inform the general area of creativity research.



14

Modelling Practitioner Research and Theory

A crucial aspect of any model of practice-based research is the presence of theory building.

Without an attempt to contribute to new understandings, the process is pure practice and

cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called 'research'. The derivation of a unified theory

of design from early attempts by Jane Darke and others to represent the different stages of the

creative design process has been an ongoing, but still unresolved, quest in design research

(Darke, 1978). Part of the problem lies in the fact that whilst there a many case studies of

designing, there has not been any outstanding attempt to draw out the common and differentiating elements across a range of cases.

Trajectory models of theory, practice and evaluation

The trajectory model of theory, practice and evaluation is an attempt to move in the direction of

a general model. The model is based upon ten cases of practitioner researchers undertaking

doctoral research. The three common elements that were present in all cases were: theory,

practice and evaluation but as these trajectories indicate there are multiple pathways towards

achieving the outcomes. The relationship between practice, theory and evaluation in practice-

based research can be represented as a model in which the practitioner follows a ‘trajectory’ or route, influenced by individual goals and intentions (see Figure 1).



15

Figure 1: Trajectory Model of Practice, Theory and Evaluation

Table 1: Trajectory Model: Elements, Activities and Outcomes

WORKS

DESIGNCRITERIA

CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORKS

EVALUATIONRESULTS

Practice

Theory

Evaluation

Elements Activities Outcomes Practice create, exhibit,

reflect Works: consisting of physical artefacts, musical compositions, software systems, installations, exhibitions, collaborations

Theory read, think, write,

develop Frameworks: comprising questions, criteria, issues

Evaluation observe, record,

analyse, reflect Evaluation: findings leading to new/modified Works and Frameworks



16

Each of the three elements: practice, theory and evaluation involves activities undertaken by the

practitioner in the process of making artefacts, developing conceptual frameworks and performing evaluation studies. In summary:

Practice is a primary element in the trajectory providing as it does the activities of creating

artworks, exhibitions, installations, musical compositions and creative software systems, which provide the basis for conducting research.

Theory, as it is understood in the context of practice-based research, is likely to consist of

different ways of examining, critiquing and applying areas of knowledge that are considered

relevant to the individual’s practice. Practitioner theory may consist of a working assumption

that the artwork will elicit certain emotions or qualities of experience in an audience; this will

remain a personal theory until it is subject to a more rigorous form of study that involves investigation as to whether or not the opinion has any truth beyond an individual viewpoint.

Evaluation has a particular role that is defined by practitioners in order to facilitate reflections

on practice and a broader understanding of audience experience of artworks. It usually involves

direct observation, monitoring, recording, analyzing and reflection as part of a semi-formal

approach to generating understandings that go further than informal reflections on personal

practice.

The patterns or pathways which were traversed between these elements by practitioners were,

however, variable and driven by differing motivations, goals and methods. The variants shown

illustrate the degree of flexibility required of models of practice-based research to the extent that

the model is closer to a framework than a fixed representation of general features. The error of

earlier models was to adopt a flow diagram representation of the pathways through elements of

the design process giving an impression that this was the way it should be done, a prescription that even arrows of iteration could not dispense of entirely.

The trajectory model shows what proved to matter in practice-based research where the goal

was to develop new understandings that could be shared with or communicated to others. It is

similar to a QA checklist which lists what has to be included, but not the order in which you have

to achieve them. This is a way of arriving at a language with which we can make connections between what appear to be variable processes but which have underlying common elements.

The point of developing models like this is so that others can examine their own processes in the

light of the model and identify the differences and similarities. More cases of practice-based research will inevitably lead to the further evolution of the model.



17

The trajectories of practice and research can work in a number of different ways. Where the

primary driver is theory, a framework is developed that draws on theoretical knowledge and is

used to shape the Evaluation process and the creation of works. A second type of trajectory is

one where the practice drives the development of theory. In this case, research questions and

design criteria are derived through the creation of works and this leads to the development of a

theoretical framework which is used in the evaluation of the results of practice. In both cases,

the process is cyclical, and there is often a tighter iterative sub-process in which the framework

and practice develop together. This model represents how research and practice interrelate in

the process of developing practitioner frameworks. The trajectories represent different kinds of

relationships between theory, practice and evaluation as exemplified in the cases described in

Edmonds and Candy (2010). In each case, the interplay between practice, theory and evaluation

involved many iterations and much interaction between the elements as the creative process drove a continuous process of change.

The trajectories of practice and research can work in a number of different ways. Where the

primary driver is theory, a framework is developed that draws on theoretical knowledge and is used to shape the Evaluation process and the creation of works.

Model Variant 1 Theory drives practice: knowledge

Example 1: Julien Phalip: Creative Communication in Film Scoring

Julien is a software engineer and practising musician, who combined his passions for Web

technologies and film music composition in his research. His research trajectory involved

identifying a theoretical problem from studying the domain context (film scoring) and then

building prototype tools to address the gap in knowledge. The prototypes were then evaluated

with people and from the results of his studies he derived design guidelines for the future

development of creative communication tools. His approach is problem led rather than artefact

led and a more typical way that HCI/ interaction design research takes place. The artefacts are central to the process of developing outcomes but not an end in themselves.

The next example is different in that the research questions were not identified in advanced but

came out of the artefact creation and the exploration and evaluation that the process involved. in other words there was no theory in advance.

Model Variant 2 Practice drives the0ry: knowledge

Example 2 Brigid Costello: Practice and Theory: a framework for interactive play experience

This example combines art practice and qualitative research methods in a cyclical process of

artefact creation and evaluation. Brigid Costello is a practising multimedia artist with expertise

in interaction design, programming and visual design. Brigid has developed ways to enable



18

playful experiences for audiences when interacting with her artworks– Elysian Fields, Sprung! and Just a Bit of Spin (Costello, 2009)

Her trajectory of practice and research takes this practitioner through several stages of creation

and evaluation: from making artworks from which questions were formulated and then

generating design strategies that are tested with existing artefacts, to the creation of new works using the tested (and modified) strategies:

Figure 2: Practice-Theory Reflexive Variant

1. Practice: Brigid created a number of interactive works that enabled her to explore audience

experience using design strategies (Criteria), to shape her works so that they engendered or

encouraged play. These Criteria arose from reflections about her earlier work, as well as that of other interactive artists.

2. Theory: from an exploration of theoretical literature about play and related phenomena, she developed a Framework of play based on of thirteen pleasure categories.

3. Evaluation: the Works created using the modified Criteria, were studied in which the

Framework was used to support the evaluation of observational data gathered from audience experience studies.



19

4. Theory: from the Results of the audience studies, new understandings about the capability of interactive works for play experience were derived and the Framework was refined.

5. Theory: a relationship between the refined Criteria and the final version of the Framework

was established. The ‘play framework’ of thirteen pleasure categories provides a structure both

for creation and evaluation of works. It is not intended to be an exhaustive set of categories of playful experience and makes no claims to be so (Costello, 2007; Costello and Edmonds, 2007).

The practitioner Framework here provided new ways of thinking about creating works in terms

of different qualities of audience experience. Such experiences might be the pleasure derived

from creating something during interaction or difficulty encountered which poses a challenge

and provides pleasure in overcoming. Its main purpose was to create a common language

between artist and audience for communicating about play experiences. Although the

Framework has a crucial role in evaluating audience experience, it was intended primarily to be

a way of framing the creative thinking in terms of the kind of experience the artist wanted the

work to create: “When designing you have to imagine the audience response. You create

interaction possibilities with the hope that they will have a certain kind of effect.” (Costello,

2009). The framework provided this artist with an invaluable thinking tool. Ultimately, it became an outcome of her doctoral research and as such, was made available to other people.

Creative practice that generates the interactive artworks was the central driving activity

throughout the practice and research of this artist and, on the face of it, her approach could be

said to fall within a trajectory in which practice primarily influenced theory. However, this

example provides us with a strong variant of that trajectory in which theory and practice at first

operate independently but eventually become entwined. The research trajectory in which

practice and theory initially took separate paths, contributed to evaluation in a two way feed.

This was followed by a change where the theoretical framework influenced practice and

evaluation. The practice and results of evaluation then led to revisions in the theoretical framework and led to a rethinking of the practice.

Model Variant 3 Practice drives the0ry: knowledge with artefacts

Example Variant 3 Practice drives Theory

The outcomes are works and theoretical model of interaction design for conversational

interactive systems. There are also new works being created after the formal research which are intended for performances in public music venues.

Andrew Johnston is a musician and software developer living in Sydney, Australia. He has

tertiary qualifications in music performance and has performed professionally in a number of

contexts including symphony orchestras and music theatre. In 2004 he commenced work on a



20

PhD investigating the design and use of software to support an experimental, exploratory

approach to live music-making. The resulting audio-visual performance work for trombone and

'virtual musical instruments', Partial Reflections, co-created with Ben Marks, was premiered at

the Sydney Opera House Studio in 2006 (Johnston, 2009).

An analysis of Andrew’s research process indicates that his creative practice is the main driver of

the research, although it has to be noted that theory with respect to knowledge about sound

synthesis and physical modelling was important to his approach to the design of his works. His process is encapsulated in a trajectory in which practice drives theory development.

Figure 3: Practice Driven Theory Variant

The practice and research trajectory is represented in Figure 4 and can be summarised as follows:

1. Practice: Andrew designed and implemented software called ‘virtual instruments’ that

allow musicians to ‘play’ using the sound of their familiar acoustic instruments. The instrument making process was in collaboration with a composer, Ben Marks.

2. Theory: as part of this collaborative process, he generated initial Criteria for design through a web log diary that recorded his reflections on the activities as they evolved.



21

3. Practice: the Criteria that emerged from this consciously documented reflective practice

were used to guide the next iteration of the design of new works so as to ensure that the

instruments would be usable with a variety of conventional musical instruments and have

attributes that were perceived as natural, consistent, interesting and motivating from a player’s

point of view. The Criteria were intended to help the practitioner achieve qualities in the instruments that would have particular effects upon the players.

4. Evaluation: once the virtual instruments were at a stage when they could be confidently

handed over to other musicians, it was then possible to carry out a user experience study in

which the instruments were evaluated against the initial criteria. The instruments were played

and evaluated by other experienced musicians, a process which was observed and recorded by

the practitioner with other observers. The study examined what happened when the

instruments were played in real practice: were the initial criteria satisfied? What else happened that was unexpected and relevant to satisfying the criteria?

5. Theory: based on Results from the study, the Criteria were refined and extended. More

significantly, new understandings emerged in the form of a theoretical Framework for

interaction that contributed to new knowledge in the domain. In addition, the relationship between the Criteria and the Framework was established more clearly.

From this example we can see how a practitioner framework was made more focused and

strengthened for future use in practice. First, the practitioner criteria drove the design that, in

turn, raised questions about the knowledge being used; in order to make progress, this required

further exploration of theoretical knowledge. The instruments were modified and then given to

musicians to use under observation and the design criteria were tested and modified where

appropriate. Finally, a new conceptual structure, a Framework for interpreting user interaction

was derived. The Framework consisting of three modes of interaction: instrumental, ornamental

and conversational; these modes provided further insight into how certain forms of desirable

interaction could be achieved. The ‘conversational’ mode of interaction was, from the

practitioner’s point of view, the most interesting, but at the same time, posed the biggest

challenge. Finding a balance between controllability and complexity is, he argued, a key issue in

facilitating ‘conversational’ interaction (Johnston, Candy and Edmonds, 2008). The practitioner

went on to design and create new virtual instruments and put his theoretical outcomes into the public domain in the form of a PhD thesis and published journal papers.

In summary, the patterns or pathways which were traversed between these elements by

practitioners were driven by differing motivations, goals and methods. This illustrates the

degree of flexibility required of models of practice-based research to the extent that the model is

closer to a framework than a fixed representation of general features. The trajectory model



22

shows what proved to matter in practice-based research where the goal was to develop new

understandings that could be shared with or communicated to others. It is similar to a QA

checklist which lists what has to be included but not the order in which you have to achieve

them. This is a way of arriving at a language with which we can make connections between what

appear to be variable processes but which have underlying common elements. The point of

developing models like this is so that others can examine their own processes in the light of the

model and identify the differences and similarities. More cases of practice-based research will inevitably lead to the further evolution of the model.

Conclusions

This paper has explored the relationship of theory to practice and conversely the way practice

can inform theory. I believe that there is a great deal to gain from looking at theory and practice

as equal partners in the creative process whether in design, art, engineering or any other

domain where these things matter. However, to achieve successful reciprocal benefit between

theory and practice, there is a crucial element - practice-based research. I believe that

practitioners, especially those engaged in creative work, need to make 'research' an integral part

of the designing and making process. In creative practice whether by an individual or a team or

an organisation, the empirical research route to new understandings is essential if new

knowledge is to be developed and shared. In practitioner research, theory and practice have a

reflexive relationship centred on the creation of artefacts and their evaluation. The paper has

described how trajectories of practice, theory and evaluation vary according the specific context

and the motivation of the practitioner. By understanding how theory and practice work together

we can enrich our knowledge of both. Theoretical knowledge and the generation of new theories

derived from practice are too important to be left to the theorists alone. We can of course ignore

theory generation through practice altogether and learn through the design, build, test, evaluate

and rebuild method until we come to know what works and what does not and use our

repertoire of examples to take us forward. This approach can work but there is always a danger

that the repository will run dry or will be found wanting without an injection of new thinking.

This is where the role of research in practice can offer a way forward. Indeed, in the creative

industries, I would contend that without a research based approach to theory and practice, we

are in danger of failing to capitalise on the value of knowledge derived from practice and at the

same time miss out on opportunities to advance theoretical understanding by testing existing theories through practice.

Author

Professor Linda Candy is a researcher in creativity in the arts and sciences with many years

experience in teaching and research. She is currently adjunct professor in the School of



23

Software, Faculty of Engineering and IT, University of Technology, Sydney and an associate of

the Creativity and Cognition Research Studios. Her work includes PhD programmes in creative

practice and the development of methods for combining research with practice. She has written

many papers and articles about the creative process, collaborative work, the role of computer

support and the methodologies for investigating these areas of research and is co editor of the

recent book, “Interacting: Art, Research and the Creative Practitioner” published by Libri. She is

a co-founder of the ACM Creativity and Cognition conference series and active in promoting awareness about creativity and technology in the arts, computing and design communities.

References

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris C, Putnam R. & McLain Smith D. (1985), Action Science. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Candy, L. (2011). Research and Creative Practice. In Candy, L. and Edmonds, E.A. (eds)

Interacting: Art, Research and the Creative Practitioner, Libri Publishing Ltd: Faringdon, UK: 33-59.

Candy, L. (2014). Evaluation and Experience in Art. In Candy, L. and Ferguson, S. (2014).

Interactive Experience in the Digital Age: Evaluating New Art Practice, Springer Cultural Computing Series, Ch 3, pp 25-48.

Candy, L. and Edmonds, E.A. (2002). Explorations in Art and Technology, Springer-Verlag, London. ISBN 1-85233-545-9

Candy, L. and Edmonds, E.A. (2011a). Interacting: Art, Research and the Creative Practitioner, Libri Publications Ltd, UK ISBN 978 1 907471 48 3

Candy, L. and Edmonds, E.A. (2011b) The Role of the Artefact and Frameworks for Practice-based

Research. The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts, M. Biggs and H. Larsson (eds), Routledge, pp 120-137.

Carey, N. (2011). The Epigenetics Revolution, Icon Books, UK.

Costello, B. (2009) Gestural Interfaces that Stimulate Creative Play. PhD Thesis. Creativity and Cognition Studios, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.

Darke, J. (1978) The Primary Generator and the Design Process, in Environmental Design Research Association 9 Proceedings, pp 325-337.

Darley, G. (2011) Vesuvius: the most famous volcano in the world, Profile Books Lts, London.



24

Davy, H. (1829). Consolations in Travel or, the Last Days of a Philosopher, The Project Gutenberg

eBook, Consolations in Travel, by Humphrey Davy, edited by Henry Morley, Transcribed from the 1889 Cassell & Company edition by David Price.

Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Revised edn.), Boston: D. C. Heath.

Edmonds, E.A and Candy, L. (2010) Relating Theory, Practice and Evaluation in Practitioner Research, Leonardo Journal 43 (5) 470–476.

Iyengar, S.S and Lepper, M.R. (2000). When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79, No. 6, 995-1006

Johnston, A. (2009) Interfaces for Musical Expression Based on Simulated Physical Models, PhD Thesis. Creativity and Cognition Studios, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.

Lawson, B. R. (2002). Design as Research. Architectural Research Quarterly, 6(2), 109-114.

Lewin, K. (1951) Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. D. Cartwright (ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Norman, D. Act First, do the research later. http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/act_first_do_the_research_later_20051.asp

Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, New York.

Schön, D. A. (1973) Beyond the Stable State. Public and private learning in a changing society, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books: New York.

Scrivener, S.A.R (2002a). ‘The Art Object Does Not Embody a Form of Knowledge’, Working

Papers in Art and Design, http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/research/papers/wpades/vol2/scrivenerfull.htm

Sullivan, G. (2010). Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts, Sage Publications: 2nd Edition, California.

Watterson, B. (1996). It's a magical world. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel.

Theory and Practice in Creative Practitioner Research

Documents