Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL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.
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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.
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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.
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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).
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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)
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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.
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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.
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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.
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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.
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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).
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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.
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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.
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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.
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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.
Unpublished paper based on Keynote Talk to DESIRE2011 conference Eindhoven NL
Linda Candy April 2012 v1 revised January 2015
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.