Content uploaded by Julian Malins
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Julian Malins on Oct 10, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
© Gray & Malins, 1993 1
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
Research Procedures / Methodology
for
Artists & Designers
This paper attempts to put into context the issues which
surround the endeavours of researchers working in the field of
Art and Design, in particular the philosophy and context of
research procedures / methodologies. The introduction provides
some definitions of methodology and its importance in the
general context of inquiry and research, historically and
actually supranational in essence; characteristics of existing
methodologies in Science (Newtonian and Quantum) and
Social Sciences are examined; characteristics of ‘artistic
method’ are elaborated, especially through an examination of
Fine Art and Design Methodologies in relation to practice;
common factors linking creative, scientific and artistic
procedures are identified; ‘Postmodern Methodology’ is
discussed, in relation to current ‘paradigm shifts’; existing &
new procedures / methodologies and devices / tools are
identified, and future developments proposed.
Abstract
Carole Gray and Julian Malins
The Centre for Research in Art & Design,
Gray's School of Art, Faculty of Design,
The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen,
Scotland, UK.
tel: 01224 263647/8 fax: 01224 263646
email: c.gray@rgu.ac.uk and/or j.malins@rgu.ac.uk
We have made an effort
throughout this paper to
promote the use and
development of Art & Design
‘research terminology’ in an
attempt to establish a common
language of research, vital for
its identity and future
progress. Italicised words are
those normally associated
with established science/
social science languages so
that equivalences can be
understood. The paper tries to
be ‘bilingual !
© Gray & Malins, 1993 2
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
Introduction - Definitions and General Context
‘method:
1. way of proceeding or doing something,
esp. a systematic or regular one.
2. orderliness of thought, action, etc.
3. (often pl.) the techniques or arrangement of work
for a particular field or subject.’
‘methodology:
1. the system of methods and principles used in a
particular discipline.
2. the branch of philosophy concerned with
the science of method.’
If meaningful research is to be carried out in any discipline, a
suitable strategy / methodology for acquiring new knowledge
must be identified. This procedure should be thorough /
rigorous, open / accessible, easy to understand / transparent,
and be useful in other contexts / transferable (in concept at
least). The choice and nature of procedure / methodology is
crucial; if not chosen with care, the resulting research may be
fundamentally flawed and its outcome irrelevant. One might
say that a piece of research is only as good as its methodology!
That is why we believe it is so important to promote work on
methodology for artists and designers, so that funding bodies
and the wider academic and social community can have
confidence in the quality of research produced.
In November 1991 a meeting of the ELIA Research
Network took place at Utrecht School of the Arts; it was
evident from that meeting that one of the most serious
challenges to the Network in particular and to researchers in
Art & Design in general would be the development of
appropriate methodologies. Although this publication has a
strong European dimension, it seems impossible to view
research (and therefore methodology) as bounded by
geography; historically researchers have been eclectic and
supranational. Research, unlike institutionalised postgraduate
‘courses’, has not tended to be as dependent on immediate
culture and custom. It is, by its nature, interdisciplinary,
collaborative and international (in theory, if not practice), and
therefore provides a good model for some aspects of European
co-operation in postgraduate education.
Research in Art & Design is a relatively new endeavour;
research for higher degrees, which incorporate an element of
practice, have only been undertaken within the last twenty
years (Allison, 1992). For this reason there are, as yet, no
well-defined strategies on which researchers can draw. In
scientific disciplines research methodologies have been
Allison, B.,
'Allison Research Index of Art &
Design',
Leicester Expertise, 1992
‘The New Collins Concise
English Dictionary’
London, 1982
European League of Institutes
of the Arts
This paper was first published
in 'Principles & Definitions:
Five Papers by the European
Postgraduate Art & Design
Group', Winchester School of
Art, 1993
© Gray & Malins, 1993 3
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
developed over several centuries; even social science has now a
century old tradition. With this perspective, it is obvious that
the definition and articulation of ‘artistic’ research procedures
will not be accomplished easily or quickly, given the enormity
and complexity of the challenge. The long-term nature of
research means that the development of procedure /
methodology is an evolutionary process: only after repeated and
successful use will a procedure / method be validated and
become accepted as a ’standard’ technique.
The lack of appropriate procedures / methodologies has forced
researchers in Art & Design to use those which have been
established in Science and Social Sciences. Some have been
appropriate (Malins, 1993), others disastrous! The procedures /
methods adopted so far by researchers in Art & Design
appear to have been in danger of falling between two stools: on
the one hand, being forced to adapt (preferably) or (more
commonly) borrow a ‘standard’ methodology, which may
distort the research; or alternatively, taking the risk of
inventing esoteric methodological devices / tools, which may
remain so project-specific to be of little, if any, use when
applied to other situations. (However, at this stage in the
evolution of research in Art & Design, it would be unwise to
completely discount idiosyncratic procedural devices, as in
time they may become validated and eventually ‘classic’). Art
& Design research requires a distinctive approach and the use
of procedures / methodologies which are appropriate and
sympathetic to the nature of the discipline, but no less rigorous,
respectable and accountable than those of the Sciences and
Social Sciences.
Research has been defined as accessible, systematic inquiry
(Allison, 1992), and ‘intentional, procedural, explicit and
publicly accountable’ (Gray, 1993). ‘Inquiry’ has been defined
as ‘the controlled or directed transformation of an
indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its
constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements
of the original situation into a unified whole’ (Dewey, 1938).
Whatever the discipline the processes involved in inquiry and
research are common to all: a question / problem which is
open to inquiry, but as yet ‘fuzzy’; an intentional / procedural
approach; transformation / synthesis / new ‘knowledge’;
public outcome / communication. However, within this
general process of inquiry, the research methodologies adopted
in different disciplines will reflect the specific nature, structure
and intentions of the discipline; it is therefore pertinent at this
point to briefly examine the characteristics of existing
procedures / methodologies in Science and Social Science.
Malins, J.,
‘The Monitoring and Control of
Specialist Ceramic Kiln
Atmospheres and Emissions’
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The
Robert Gordon University,
Aberdeen, 1993
ibid.
Gray, C.,
‘Strategy for Research:
Grays School of Art’
unpublished internal
consultative paper, RGU,
1993
Dewey, J.,
‘Logic: The Theory of Inquiry’
Henry Holt & Co., New York,
1938
© Gray & Malins, 1993 4
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
RESEARCH PROCEDURES / METHODOLOGIES
established / establishing methodologies
developing methodologies
pluralistic
eclectic
anarchic
chaotic
intuitive
inclusive
divergent
postmodern
interactive
multi-media
non-linear
relativistic
idiographic
holistic
expansive
synthesis?
uncertainty
principle
counterinductive
visual / kinetic
deconstructive
rule breaking
subjective
visual communication
organic
interpretetive
"soft"
holistic
self-
directed
heterarchical
choice
chaotic
pluralistic
intuitive
reflective
chance
(multi-
philosophy)
(multi-philosophy)
pluralistic
sensory discursive
private
postmodern
iconoclastic
visionary
debatable
related to: artworks (artificial things), artists / designers (people),
creativity (process & products), culture
absolute
individualistic
antipositivistic
flexible
"
E
n
l
i
g
h
t
e
n
m
e
n
t
"
qualitative
Social
Science
Methodology
ethnomethodological
contextual
educational
populations
cultural
man made
phenomena
qualitative
behavioural
intersubjective
objective
convergent
positivistic
nomothetic
logical
rational
quantitative
reductionist
analysis
inductive
controllable
deterministic
normative
systematic
measurement
universal
replicable
mechanistic
reliable
verifiable
interpretetive
"hard"
experimental
natural/physical
phenomena
(one philosophy)
public
confirmatory
goal oriented
hypothetical
Newtonian
Science
Methodology
(c1650) Quantum
Science
Methodology
(c 1900)
(c1850)
mass media
collaborative
cultural
humanistic
perceptual
phenomenological
?
"Artistic "
Methodology
?
15/20 years
collaborative
experiential
Common concerns of all methodologies ?
intuition
hypothesis / hunch
reason / deliberateness / intention
culture / context / language
empiricism / experiment
consensible / consensual
political / public
fallible / ego
© Carole Gray, 1993
© Gray & Malins, 1993 5
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
Scientific Models: Newtonian Science
The aim of science is to provide explanations for phenomena,
its research strategies being characterised as systematic,
rigorous, controlled, deductive, predictive, positivistic,
empirical and based on logical experimentation. The scientific
model of research has its antecedents in Galileo, Copernicus,
Descartes, Bacon and Newton. The ‘Cartesian division’
between mind and matter lead to the scientific view that matter
was dead and could be considered in isolation from the
scientist, and that the world was a multitude of different,
discrete objects assembled into a huge machine.
This mechanistic view of a ‘clockwork universe’ was held also
by Newton, who developed his laws of motion and mechanics,
which became the foundations of classical physics. The
Newtonian model of the universe dominated scientific thought
right up to the end of the nineteenth century. Descartes’ views
undoubtedly influenced the development of modern physics
and still persist to the present day, manifested, for example, in
Western medicine, which has persistently separated the mind
from the body.
Galileo was largely responsible for the development of
reductionist analysis, which has proved useful for the
development of science in general, but inadequate when
applied, for example, to the study of human behaviour, which
is immensely complex, elusive and intangible. The danger
inherent in the reductionist approach is in the narrow focus on
a particular problem which may lead to an ignorance of the
whole: the specialist knows more and more about less and less
until he knows everything about nothing!
Scientific Models: Quantum Science
At the beginning of this century the limitations of the
reductionist approach were acknowledged by Einstein, Bohr,
Heisenberg and others in the development of quantum theory
(Capra, 1983). The concepts of subjectivity, observer’s
perceptions, simultaneity, relativity, uncertainty, randomness,
indeterminacy, subatomic anarchy, chaos (and more!) are now
influencing scientific and social scientific methodology (Gleick,
1987; Hall, 1992), and will without doubt be influential in Art &
Design research.
Characteristics of existing methodologies *
* refer to diagram.on p 4
Logical Positivism refers to a
school of thought that all
knowledge must be derived
from direct observation or
logical inferences based on
direct observation.
Empiricism refers to a
commitment to obtaining
knowledge through the sense
experience, literally 'based on
experience' (in Greek).
Reductionism refers to the
belief that all complex
phenomena can be understood
by reducing them to their
constituent parts.
Gleick, J.,
‘Chaos: Making a new
science’,
London: Cardinal, 1988
Hall, N. (ed.),
‘The New Scientist Guide
to Chaos’,
London: Penguin, 1992
Capra, F.,
‘The Turning Point:
Science, Society and the
Rising Culture’,
London: Flamingo, 1983
'Harmony of the Universe'
from Mysterium
Cosmographicum, Kepler,
1621
© Gray & Malins, 1993 6
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
Artistic Models
Social Sciences Model
The disciplines of the social sciences - education, sociology,
anthropology, etc., share a belief in the value of context, and the
importance of the perceptions of the researcher as interpreter.
In the past research in these disciplines was problematic and its
progress was hindered by the lack of suitable methodologies.
Initial reliance on established (pre-quantum) scientific
methodologies, largely quantitative in nature, did not provide
suitable ‘tools’ to investigate people, behaviour, culture, etc. It
was not until social science researchers themselves took
responsibility for adapting and/or inventing methodologies,
sympathetic yet rigorous to their particular disciplines, that
research in those fields advanced, encouraged no doubt by
radical changes in quantum science. Qualitative methodologies
(including phenomenological, hermeneutic, axiological,
ethnographic, holistic, naturalistic, descriptive, experiential,
dialectical strategies, etc.) promoted the value of subjectivity,
individuality, complex interaction, involvement, etc., and are
now considered legitimate procedures. They offer researchers
in Art & Design guidance towards more appropriate
procedures for our discipline.
Although research in Art & Design has a relatively short
history, procedures / methodologies in relation to practice in the
visual arts have been articulated (Allison, 1992). In general
terms, art/design history and contemporary critique provide us
with rich, if esoteric and idiosyncratic, sources of information
on artists’ and designers’ working processes. A wealth of
serious research exists on the processes of creativity (identified
by Wallas as having four stages - preparation, incubation,
illumination, verification ), and many popular texts give us step
by step guidance on how to enhance our creativity. A brief
examination of existing procedure / methodologies in Art &
Design practice may help us to formulate strategies in relation
to research (especially practice-led research).
Fine Art Methodologies
One might propose that Fine Art by its very nature is ‘anti
method’, but even ‘anti- method’ (chance, chaos, randomness,
anarchy, etc.) is a methodology! (Watson, 1992). The notion of
having a ‘procedure’ or working process (methodology) is a vital
part of a fine artist’s activity, however chaotic or anarchic it
might appear. Probably the most important work done in this
area, especially related to student learning, is that of Cornock
Dialectical refers to the logical
examination of ideas and the
reconciling of opposite
concepts by question and
answer so as to determine their
validity.
Hermeneutic refers to the
interpretation of texts or data
in order to understand the
context that gives the material
meaning.
Axiological refers to the study of
ethics, values and aesthetics.
ibid.
Wallas, G.,
'The Art of Thought'
Cape, London, 1926
Watson, A.,
‘An Exploration of the Principle
of Chance on the Creative
activity known as Sculpture’
unpublished Ph.D. thesis, RGU/
CNAA, 1992
© Gray & Malins, 1993 7
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
(1978, 1983, 1984). In these papers Cornock sets out the
historical and educational context in which a shift from
technical, practical considerations of method, to a more meta-
physical and intellectual concern for methodology, is apparent.
In relation to student-centred teaching and learning in Art &
Design, the identification and articulation of methodology is
particularly important, where individuality and personal
development are key objectives. From an analysis of Fine Art
students’ working experiences, Cornock identified the
following cyclical pattern of activities - the first three being
‘generative’, and the remaining three being ‘analytical and
reflective’:
1. Generation (manipulation of materials in the studio)
2. Selection (elements of form & pattern identified whilst
engaged in 1.)
3. Synthesis (conceptualisation & planning of a piece of work)
4. Articulation (articulation of problems or concerns emerging
from 1., 2. & 3., contextualising these, where appropriate)
5. Presentation (of 3. & 4. so as to engage critical attention)
6. Critical Discussion (which may generate new ideas, and back
to 1.)
Although Cornock’s research concerned student learning, this
pattern will seem familiar to practitioners in Fine Art (and
probably Design) as a general procedure - practice and
reflection on practice. Within this general procedure lies a
personal one, intimately linked with the artist’s particular
intentions, and reflecting the idiosyncrasies of the individual’s
working process. In education this is sometimes articulated in a
student workprogramme; in professional terms, an artist may
develop a manifesto or more modestly, a statement. This
exteriorisation is also made apparent in catalogues, reviews
and pamphlets associated with exhibitions, events, etc. In
research terms, especially if the project is practice-led, then the
procedure should be shaped in response to the characteristics
and structure of the practice.
Design Procedure / Methodology in relation to Practice
The emergence of the study of ‘Design Methods’ in the 1960’s
grew out of the perceived need to exercise more control over
the process of designing. This was in direct response to a
world-wide dissatisfaction and lack of understanding of the
traditional (implicit) processes employed by designers. Most of
the literature on design methodology (Jones, 1980; Lawson,
1990; Cross, 1984) consolidates the view that it is impossible to
create one definitive approach that would be applicable to all
individuals and situations. What is apparent however, is the
existence of identifiable rigorous procedures of design research
Generation
Selection
Synthesis
Articulation
Presentation
Critical
Discussion
generative
analytical
&
reflective
Statement - a contextual,
intentional text, setting out
personal artistic beliefs, etc.
Manifesto - a public
declaration of intent, especially
artistic or political.
Workprogramme refers to a
procedural / methodological
device encouraging students
(in Art & Design) to make
statements of intention.
Jones, J.C.,
‘Design Methods: seeds of
human futures’,
Wiley, New York, 1980
Lawson, B.,
’How Designers Think:
The Design Process
Demystified’,
2nd edition, Butterworth
Architecture, London,
1980
Cross, N. (ed.),
‘Developments in Design
Methodology’,
Wiley, Chichester, 1984
Cornock, S.:
‘Notes Towards a Methodology
for Students of Fine Art’
Leicester Polytechnic
Monograph, 1978
‘Methodology for Students of
Fine Art’, Journal of Art &
Design Education, Vol.2, No.1,
1983
‘Strategies in Fine Art’
Journal of Art & Design
Education, Vol.3, No.2, 1984
adapted by Gray from Cornock
© Gray & Malins, 1993 8
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
- invention, selection, synthesis, analysis, development,
refinement and resolution - which are quite distinct in character
from those of science. Although design procedures are highly
personalised, there are common core characteristics which
demonstrate some measure of universality. Most design
methods have an inherent structure which at some point deals
with:
• collection of data (visual, written, oral)
• selection
• analysis & synthesis
• testing against known visual and performance norms
• human reactions and responses
• compromise with regard to context, function, ergonomics,
manufacturing & material constraints.
Design methodology is not a prescription for ‘success’ or ‘good
design’; it provides a fairly reliable framework within which
human intuition, emotion and invention must come into play.
Fine Art and Design procedures do share a basic structure for
practice, which may provide a starting point for the
development of research procedures. There are parallels also
between the procedures adopted in the development /
production of art/design work and the methodologies
involved in structuring scientific research (Russell, 1993). When
compared, processes involved in creativity, science, social
science, fine art, and design appear strikingly similar, even
though their contexts can be radically different. Common
factors / activities are set out below:
• hypothesis / ‘felt’ need / urge to create / initial inspiration
• collect data / information gathering / incubation /
generation of ideas / reflection
• definition of problem / selection / classification / analysis
• development / models / sketches / experiments / field
work
• illumination / synthesis / articulation
• refinement / economy / resolution / presentation
• verification / testing / theory building / generalisation
• critical context / human response
• revise hypothesis / improve artwork / alter concepts
Some differences
The concept of generality in science (observing the
particular and being able to apply this to the general) can
not easily be applied to the art research model. The
uniqueness/originality demanded of art is not easily
Common Factors
Russell, G.,
Seminar contributions and
notes, 1993, RGU.
Gillian Russell has a Ph.D in
Biochemistry, and worked as a
post-doc. researcher in
Molecular Biology for three
years. She currently is a final
year Sculpture student at
Gray's School of Art, and finds
strong parallells between
creating sculpture and
conducting scientific research.
She suggests that “... it is
almost (but not quite) as if art
is already research, without
actively having to do 'art
research'”.
© Gray & Malins, 1993 9
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
reconciled with the concept of generality, although a theory
may be general to some extent, and may be derived from
practice. Replicatability also seems completely at odds with
the concept of uniqueness (Silver, 1993), although some art
forms operate entirely through repeated multiples
(printmaking, cast object sculpture, photography,
performance, etc.) In the science model of research
investigation can be confirmed by others, in the art research
model confirmation and verification presents some
difficulties. Confirmation may come from others working
in the same ‘ism’ or ‘group’, which may reinforce the value
of the practice and theory, or may cause the conclusions to
be refuted. The work can be exposed to critical examination
or testing, rechecking and refining. This process may be
cyclical in which conclusions generate debate, which
motivate others to act, which in turn generates new or
different conclusions.
Even though there is a wealth of ‘classical’ and’ modern’
research methodologies (appropriate or not to artists &
designers), no serious contemporary attempt at articulating
research procedures in Art & Design can afford to ignore the
impact and ideas of postmodernism (Appignanesi, 1989,
provides a useful overview). We suggest that postmodern
(research?) methodology is a double voiced discourse, radically
eclectic, which accepts and criticises at the same time
(Rayworth, 1993); traditionalism and futurism are both
honoured and subverted, embraced and eschewed, in a double
process of destroying and preserving that which has gone
before, towards a new synthesis. The departure point for this
discourse is specific, but the final destination is open-ended,
thereby maximising resistance to single explanations.
From a postmodern perspective, the methodologies of the
Newtonian sciences are accepted but refused their previously
preeminent place, and are now seen as special cases of the more
elaborate sciences of complexity (Lewin, 1993). Through the
contesting of Cartesian and Platonic views, as systems of closed
meanings, and the interrogation of the notion of consensus, we
shall be allowed to reweave the recent modern past with local
culture, and further the development of multiple coding with
respect for minorities, difference and otherness. A Postmodern
methodology therefore actively encourages cross-cultural
collaboration. These ideas are supported and expanded upon
by Paul Feyerabend in his book ‘Against Method’ (1988).
Feyerabend suggests that anarchism should now replace
rationalism in the theory of knowledge; the implications of this
Rayworth, A.,
Seminar contributions and
notes, 1993, RGU
Postmodern Methodology
Feyerabend, P.,
‘Against Method’,
Verso, London, 1988
Appignanesi, L. (ed.),
'Postmodernism',
ICA Documents 4,
London: ICA, 1989
Lewin, R.,
'Complexity: Life at the
Edge of Chaos',
Dent, 1993
Rationalism refers to
knowledge derived purely
through thought and
reason
Silver, S.,
‘Originality and
Replicatability’,
unpublished paper, RGU,
1993
© Gray & Malins, 1993 10
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
on research methodology are revolutionary (and too
complex to deal with in detail in this paper): in short, he
suggests that:
“The only principle that does not inhibit progress is:
anything goes .... Without chaos, no knowledge. Without
a frequent dismissal of reason, no progress .... For what
appears as ‘sloppiness’, ‘chaos’ or ‘opportunism’ .... has
a most important function in the development of those
very theories which we today regard as essential parts of
our knowledge .... These ‘deviations’, these ‘errors’, are
preconditions of progress.”
Although the 20th century has brought about dramatic changes
in our perceptions of the world, it is apparent that, even within
the last ten years, there is occurring what Capra (1983) terms a
‘paradigm shift’ - a turning point in all aspects of our culture,
characterised by a more holistic, systems-based approach; such
shifts are evident in physics, ecology, psychology, economics,
political science, medicine, where mechanistic, reductionist
notions are beginning to look obsolete. Mahoney (1990)
supports this view with what he identifies as an ‘axial shift’ - “
... away from a rational objectivism, which asserts that scientific
knowledge is founded on objective empirical truths ... towards
the conception of a more relativistic universe and
‘poststructuralist’ epistemologies.”
The implications of these perceived ‘shifts’, postmodernism,
recent theories of chaos and complexity provide the context for
the development of new procedures in Art & Design. The
progress of this development is also dependent on language
and propaganda: to simply rely on standard research
terminology will only propagate the existing scientific
language bias in Art & Design research - ‘neologisms ‘ (visual
and/or textual) and communication networks must be
created (consider mathematical and musical notation); finally,
all these ideas must be broadcast widely [Galileo’s use of
propaganda was essential, especially in the validation of the
telescope as a methodological instrument (Feyerabend, 1988)];
artists and designers are particularly poor at exteriorising their
processes, leading the rest of the world to believe that we do
not have ‘methodologies’ or are incapable of inventing them.
Bodies such as ELIA and ERASMUS, and other European
networks have an essential role to play in this work.
New Paradigms
ibid.
Neologism - a newly coined
word, or phrase used in a new
sense
ibid.
Mahoney, B., 1990, in:
Rudestram, K. & Newton, L.,
‘How to survive your
dissertation’
Sage, London, 1993
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
© Gray & Malins, 1993 11
Appropriate Existing and New
Procedures / Methodologies and Tools
Allison (1992) outlines seven principle research
procedures which have been applied to Art and Design
research programmes. These are listed below:
• Historical
• Philosophical (theoretical)
• Experimental (pre-, post-testing, ‘control’)
• Comparative (cross-cultural)
• Descriptive (using surveys, causal-comparative methods)
• Naturalistic (interpretative,
phenomenological, qualitative enquiry)
• Practical (creative, expressive / productive)
The first four could be termed ‘classic’ research
methodologies, having gained rigour and acceptance in the
wider context of research; the last three are less reflective of
the ‘scientific method’, and more complementary to the
‘artistic method’. These obviously provide a useful means of
structuring research, provide specific details of method, and
are to some extent validated, if still largely pseudo scientific
/ social scientific. (Specific methodologies are not described
in detail here owing to lack of space to cover the topic
adequately, however forthcoming papers* from Gray's
School of Art will be directed more specifically to research
procedures and their application to Art and Design
research.) This is a starting point but by no means should it
be seen as the ultimate list of possible research
methodologies, there are others which are in the process of
being developed.
One of the most interesting developments in recent years is
the emergence of Multimedia and compact disk (CD)
technology. The CD is capable of storing text, moving and
still images and sound. This makes it particularly useful for
the documentation of visual research (Douglas, 1992). At
present the cost of pressing a CD, which is capable of
storing approximately 100 times the amount of information
which can be stored on a magnetic disk, is in the region of
£100 at time of writing (1993). The average text based Ph.D
thesis could be stored on less than a few mega bites. CD-
ROM technology would allow complete exhibitions/events
to be recorded, and accessed either in a structured way
(authored) or interactively (browsed).
ibid.
See papers -
'"Artistic" Research
Procedure: Research at the
Edge of Chaos?', in: 'Design
Interfaces' Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 3, University
of Salford, 1995
'Developing a Research
Procedures Programme for
Artists & Designers', The
Robert Gordon University,
1995
Douglas, A.,
‘Structure and
Improvisation: The
Making Aspect of
Sculpture’
Unpublished Ph.D,
University of Sunderland,
1992
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
Conclusions
There is as yet no universally accepted approach to research
within Art and Design, so the traditions within other
disiplines should not be ignored. New procedures must be
based on both a cultural, contextual and specific response to
the ‘felt’ need, and the nature of practice. Because of this
relatively malleable state of things it should be possible to
shape a new approach which is responsive to and
incorporates the particular strengths of the various
European approaches to research. These have yet to be
defined in detail (a task perhaps for the ELIA Research
Network, or through a further paper from ourselves).
It is clear that many of the tenets of scientific research have
their equivalent in art and design research. Perhaps the
main divergences lie in notions of generality,
verifiability, replicability and universality. The main
criticisms (from a classic scientific perspective) of artistic
‘method’ focus on the lack of objectivity and the often
idiosyncratic nature of the work, perceived as often lacking
rigour. Artists and designers are not good at exteriorising
what they do. The creative process remains a mystery,
artistic ‘methodology’ remains unarticulated. The aim of art
based research should be to make this process explicit,
taking advantage of contemporary technology. One of the
most challenging and pressing issues for researchers in Art
and Design today is to question and debate the nature of
research, in order to propose an ‘artistic method’, a set of
methodological approaches which are no less rigorous and
respectable than those of the ‘scientific method’, but which
are wholly appropriate to the nature of Art and Design. This
paper offers a philosophical and practical context for this
development.
eclectic
anarchic
chaotic
intuitive
inclusive
divergent
postmodern
interactive
multi-mediaidiographic
holistic
expansive
counterinductive
visual / kinetic
deconstructive
heterarchical
pluralistic
sensory discursive
private
iconoclastic
visionary
debatable
individualistic
antipositivistic
flexible qualitative
mass media
collaborative
cultural perceptual
phenomenological
?
"Artistic "
Methodology
?
?
"Artistic "
Methodology
?collaborative
experiential synthetic
© Gray & Malins, 1993 12
© Gray & Malins, 1993 13
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
Acknowledgements
References / Sources
This paper is a collaborative endeavour, from a team of
researchers based at Grays School of Art, Faculty of Design,
The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen. Apart from the
principal authors, valuable input (in the form of seminar
contributions / unpublished papers) into this paper has been
made by:
Dr Rachel Armstrong, Dr John Berry, Ms Heather Delday,
Ms Julie Ross, Mr Jon Pengelly, Mr Ian Pirie, Mr Anthony
Rayworth, Dr Gillian Russell, Ms Susannah Silver, Dr Allan
Watson. Prof. Olle Anderson, University of Gothenburg,
Sweden, has provided useful comment. These researchers
intend to produce further papers* elaborating on some of the
ideas set out in this paper.
Allison, B.,
‘Allison Research Index of Art & Design’
Leicester: Leicester Expertise, 1992
Appignanesi, L. (ed.),
'Postmodernism'
ICA Documents 4,
London: ICA, 1989
Armstrong, R.,
‘Is Research the Property of the Scientist or Artist?’
unpublished paper, 1993;
‘The New Language of Science’
unpublished paper, 1993
Seminar contributions and notes, 1993, RGU.
(Rachel Armstrong is a medical doctor, with an interest in
Art & Design research.)
Capra, F.,
‘The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture’
London: Flamingo, 1983
Chadwick, A.F.,
‘Historical Research Rediguide No. 15’
University of Nottingham School of Education, 1978
CNAA Committee for Art and Design,
‘Research and Related Activities in Art and Design’
Council For National Academic Awards, London, 1989
* See papers -
'"Artistic" Research
Procedure: Research at the
Edge of Chaos?', in: 'Design
Interfaces' Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 3,
University of Salford, 1995
'Developing a Research
Procedures Programme for
Artists & Designers', The
Robert Gordon University,
1995
Collins,
‘The New Collins Concise English Dictionary’
London, 1982
Cornock, S.,
‘Methodology for Students of Fine Art’
Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol.2, No.1, 1983
Cornock, S.,
‘Strategies in Fine Art’
Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol.3, No.2, 1984
Cornock, S.,
‘Notes Towards a Methodology for Students of Fine Art’
Leicester Polytechnic Monograph, 1978
Cross, N. (ed.),
‘Developments in Design Methodology’
Wiley, Chichester, 1984
Dewey, J.,
‘Logic: The Theory of Inquiry’
Henry Holt & Co., New York, 1938
Douglas, A.,
‘Structure and Improvisation: The Making Aspect of Sculpture’
Unpublished Ph.D, University of Sunderland, 1992
Feyerabend, P.,
‘Against Method’
Verso, London, 1988
Gleick, J.,
‘Chaos: Making a new science’
Cardinal, London, 1988
Gray, C.,
‘Strategy for Research: Grays School of Art’
unpublished internal consultative paper, RGU, 1993
Hall, N. (ed.),
‘The New Scientist Guide to Chaos’
Penguin, London, 1992
Jones, J.C.,
‘Design Methods: seeds of human futures’
Wiley, New York, 1980
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
© Gray & Malins, 1993 14
Research Procedures / Methodology for Artists & Designers
Lawson, B.,
’How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified’
2nd edition, Butterworth Architecture, London, 1980
Lewin, R.,
'Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos'
Dent, 1993
Mahoney, B., 1990, in:
Rudestram, K. & Newton, L.,
‘How to survive your dissertation’
Sage, London, 1993
Malins, J.,
‘The Monitoring and Control of Specialist Ceramic Kiln
Atmospheres and Emissions’
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The Robert Gordon University,
Aberdeen, 1993
Rudestram, K. & Newton, L.,
‘How to survive your dissertation’
Sage, London, 1993
Rayworth, A.,
Seminar contributions and notes, 1993, RGU
Russell, G.,
Seminar contributions and notes, 1993, RGU
Silver, S.,
‘Originality and Replicatability’
unpublished paper, RGU, 1993
Wallas, G.,
'The Art of Thought'
Cape, London, 1926
Watson, A.,
‘An Exploration of the Principle of Chance on the Creative
activity known as Sculpture’
unpublished Ph.D. thesis, RGU/CNAA, 1992
© Gray & Malins, 1993 15
