The Effective and the Evocative: A Spectrum of Creative Practice Research

Abstract

In the expanding literature on creative practice research, art and design are often described as a unified field. They are bracketed together (art-and-design), referred to as interchangeable terms (art/design), and nested together, as if the practices of one domain encompass the other. However it is possible to establish substantial differences in research approaches. In this chapter we argue that core distinctions arise out of the goals of the research, intentions invested in the resulting “artefacts” (creative works, products, events), and the knowledge claims made for the research outcomes. Moreover, these fundamental differences give rise to a number of contingent attributes of the research such as the forming contexts, methodological approaches, and ways of evidencing and reporting new knowledge. We do not strictly ascribe these differences to disciplinary contexts. Rather, we use the terms effective practice research and evocative practice research to describe the spirit of the two distinctive research paradigms we identify. In short, effective practice research (often pursued in design fields) seeks a solution (or resolution) to a problem identified with a particular community, and it produces an artefact that addresses this problem by effecting change (making a situation, product or process more efficient or effective in some way). On the other hand, evocative practice research (often pursued by creative arts fields) is driven by individual pre-occupations, cultural concerns or human experience more broadly. It produces artefacts that evoke affect and resonance, and are poetically irreducible in meaning. We cite recent examples of creative research projects that illustrate the distinctions we identify. We then go on to describe projects that integrate these modes of research. In this way, we map out a creative research spectrum, with distinct poles as well as multiple hybrid possibilities. The hybrid projects we reference are not presented as evidence an undifferentiated field. Instead, we argue that they integrate research modes in deliberate, purposeful and distinctive ways: employing effective practice research methods in the production of evocative artefacts or harnessing evocative (as well as effective) research paradigms to effect change.