Abstract
Practice as research and performance as research are methods that have developed significantly over the past decade and have subsequently caused debate within the creative arts industry and in university culture. During a research seminar at Goldsmiths University in 2011, Professor Dan Rebellato proposed the question: ‘What if there is no such thing as practice as research?’ In an attempt to unpack the connotations of the term, Rebellato further provoked, ‘Can we learn from an artwork in the way we can learn from an academic book?’ This paper is a systematic response to some of the key arguments surrounding this dialogue, as well an investigation as to how practice or performance as research may function in a performing arts context as research degree level.
‘If you cannot say it,’ wrote the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, ‘point to it.’ ‘In the midst of frightening uncertainty, I try to lean into the moment and point clearly’ (Bogart, 2001: 48). Bogart’s comment is focused on the complexity of approaching rehearsal and performance as a theatre director. Her suggestion, however, reinforced by Wittgenstein, has a clear message for this essay. For ideas to flourish when words become impotent the central concern must reside in clarity.
From the perspective of a performing arts PhD student the application of the correct methodology for investigating a thesis has remained problematic from the very start. This paper will provide a systematic response to the ongoing concerns within this field, with specific reference to Brad Haseman’s argument for a third paradigm of research. The field of creative arts research has remained nebulous through the inconsistencies in language and lack of clear guidelines addressing what actually constitutes practice as a research outcome in a university context. Although there is also argument against the value of practice as a research outcome entirely, it is now widely recognised, through research assessment exercises, as a process for academic research.
Suzanne Little’s comments in her 2011 paper are central in addressing the anxieties surrounding this topic. She suggests that, ‘Over the last couple of decades a new trend has emerged in research…. It has come under intense scrutiny in academia’ (Little, 2011: 1). Little acknowledges that ‘performance-based research is still in a state of flux, growth and acceptance; it has yet to secure a universally agreed language, assessment system or consistent criteria for its nomination as research’ (2011: 1). These complexities are felt across a variety of creative practices but in this paper, Little’s claims will be addressed in the context of theatre studies. Drawing on my own doctoral research, which investigates a number of writers, directors and plays in order to contextualise the position of theatre directing as a practice in contemporary European performance, the problematic nature of practice as research will be illustrated. Imperative to acknowledge in this doctoral thesis is the practical process of directing, as well as the theoretical and cultural history of its position in theatre production. In establishing the attributes of practice or performance as or as a basis for research, it is fundamental to unpack and deconstruct these specific terms, although it soon becomes apparent there are a variety of combinations and labels involved in doing so.
Defining practice led research
Brad Haseman clearly highlights several terms in his 2007 paper. Practice as research Practice-based research Practice integrated research Studio research Practice led research (Haseman, 2007: 147)
Notably, one term not discussed in Haseman’s paper is PARIP (Practice as Research in Performance), a project set up in 2006 devoted to challenging the complexities of practice as research. The overlapping dates of Hasman and PARIP’s research projects indicate these processes were happening simultaneously. Haseman’s study firstly attempts to clarify the distinction between practice as and practice led research by citing Carole Gray’s definition. Gray states that practice led research can be identified thus: Firstly, research which is initiated in practice, where questions, problems, challenges are identified and formed by the needs of practice and practitioners; and secondly, that the research strategy is carried out through practice, using predominantly methodologies and specific methods familiar to us as practitioners. (Gray, 1996; cited in Haseman, 2007: 147)
The distinction between practice as and practice led is further illustrated by Haseman’s application of J. L. Austin’s theory of performativity, which can be clearly linked to Gray’s use of the term ‘initiated’. Austin describes the notion of so called ‘performative utterances’ by stating, ‘to utter one of these sentences in appropriate circumstances is not just to “say” something, but rather to perform a certain kind of action’ (Austin, 1975: 5). Haseman adopts this term to argue in favour of a third paradigm of research which he coins Performative Research. In this instance Haseman explains that ‘once fully theorised’ these considerations will ‘have applications beyond the arts and across the creative and cultural industries generally’ (Haseman, 2006: 1). Both manifestos cited throughout this essay (Haseman, 2006, 2007) outline a key issue in contextualising research methods associated with practice led research: ‘How can presentational forms be understood as research? What makes a dance, a novel, contemporary performance, the outcome of research?’ (Haseman, 2007: 152). Haseman suggests that ‘practice-led research can not merely be subsumed under the qualitative research framework’ (2006: 6). Therefore, the response provided by his thesis is to call for the recognition of the Performative Research paradigm, which ‘not only expresses the research, but in that expression becomes the research itself (Haseman, 2007: 150). Conceptually, Haseman’s manifesto suggests that sensation and intuition form the origination of the research process and in referring to Austin’s theory implies that research is intuitive in practice and therefore absorbed wholly in the creative mind. This arguably implies the taking for granted of existing knowledge such as the cultural history in the process of making or devising the artifact or performance. This is then reinforced by the comment, ‘It is not qualitative research; it is itself (Haseman, 2006: 6). Consequently, in implementing Austin’s terminology, Haseman’s definition appears reductive of the original performative theory, as there is no inclusion of the vast critique the concept encountered. Judith Butler’s ‘Critically Queer’ article (1993) notably takes issue with Austin’s definitions of performativity and the implications of the term. She details the rejection of ‘the idea that performative utterances are not singular events but, rather, the effects of “citational doubling”’ (Lloyd, 1999: 197), therefore reinforcing the danger in advocating the spontaneity of the intuitive research. Haseman’s distinctions between these paradigms are made clear in the table laid out in his paper (Table 1).
The case study for Performative Research follows this table and details a theatre director whose research data were collated from a survey undertaken by audience members. The research, therefore, was expressed partially in numeric data. By Haseman’s own admission, ‘it would be foolish to argue for a water-tight separation of qualitative research from Performative Research as they share many principal orientations’ (Haseman, 2006: 7). The table, however, outlines a clear segregation which arguably isolates the aesthetic from the cognitive process. The subjective nature of viewing performance indicates the complexity in providing measurable or retrievable data required for doctoral analysis. Traditionally, research is born from a problem, an inquiry or investigation, which is carried out and formulated in a written or oral argument or thesis.
Cognitive and aesthetic
Rebellato offers a suggestion for this dilemma. ‘In practice-as-research the cognitive value must – for the sake of our discipline – be inextricably linked to aesthetic value, but that in itself is an argument against practice having research value’ (Rebellato, 2011). Rebellato’s key point is that traditional methods of research are vital in order to deconstruct and describe the aesthetic sensation, and this by no means privileges theory over practice; rather it reinforces the requirement for coherence between the two in order to successfully produce a doctoral thesis through practice. Conceptually, recognising practice as a component of the research process and as an outcome of the investigation can be successful, especially when contextualised with the conditions of an exegesis. This component is a supporting document to the artifact which is read ‘in conjunction’ (Little, 2011: 152) with the piece or performance. From experience, this is a rigorous process in which the framework of the qualitative paradigm is invaluable.
The ‘memory machine’ and citational doubling
In approaching the first practice piece of my PhD, the production of Uncle Vanya served as both a methodology and outcome. The purpose of the project was to interrogate questions of fidelity, adaptation and assumptions made in approaching Chekhovian Naturalism. Investigating the role of the director in approaching Chekhov’s text was addressed by indicating the complexity of signs, signifiers and scenography in creating and producing a historical text. A significant outcome of this research was identifying the embedded codes, conventions and traditions in adapting the text, which are presented theoretically in Marvin Carlson’s The Haunted Stage (2003). Carlson discusses interpretation and adaptation as he describes theatre as a ‘memory machine’ (2003: 1) and asserts the view that whether consciously or sub-consciously, actor, director and performance are ‘ghosted’ from the past. When describing the nature of these ‘ghosts’ in performance, Carlson states, ‘No one writes, acts, designs, directs, produces, or observes in a vacuum, as if for the first time’ (Postlewait, 2009: 15). Central to this process was the preparatory establishing of a cultural history of the text as well as a theoretical analysis of Chekhovian mise en scene. This prior understanding was crucial in informing the production process, thus indicating the research was not ‘initiated’ in practice but was fulfilled through practice. Just as this project argued that the system of Chekhovian signifiers ‘haunted’ the process of production and performance, it is evident that cultural codes and prior understanding ‘haunt’ each research experience. This, therefore, undermines the suggestion that research can be initiated or created wholly in the creative mind, as the use of ‘performative’ by Haseman’s definition would suggest. Although the project was successful in addressing the research questions outlined, the issue of documentation for assessment still remained problematic.
Retrievable data as research
The documentation of practice as research was actively addressed by the work of PARIP and significant developments were made. The outcome of the project was presented as a ‘Book-DVD’ combination which ‘presents a gallery of largely non-discursive documentation from over forty practitioner-researchers [and] also wonders at the forever-widening gap between “event” and “document”’ (Kershaw, 2009: 3). Kershaw also suggests that: the ‘as’ in the phrase functions to problematize conventional notions of theatre and work that leads into a production or an event. The actors research their role in, or directors the ‘background’ of, a play. But the ‘as’ makes a claim that the performance or theatre event itself may be a form of research. (Kershaw, 2009: 107)
Although these provocations have been successful in developing new methods for creative minds, in art research the complications lie in whether a performance or an artifact can be critically contextualised, analysed and more importantly, assessed as a research outcome in its own right. A notable concern in the description of this methodology is the documentation of the ‘work’ or ‘event’. Similar to the issues evident in Haseman’s approach, providing evidence of the live event through still or recorded image problematises the discourse evolved in theatre theory that argues organic production conditions and the subjective nature of live theatre cannot successfully translate to screen. Playwright and director Howard Barker asserts the use of his exordium, which is ‘an opening mystification of sound and image’ (cited in Smith, 2006: 41) created to transport the audience to an altered state of consciousness when entering the theatre. The function is essential to Barker’s intricate creation of his theatre although his logic can also be applied here. When outlining what constitutes live performance as a theatrical event, Peggy Phelan’s view is fundamental to acknowledge. She states: Performance’s only life is in the present. Performance cannot be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise participate in the circulation of representations of representations: once it does so, it becomes something other than performance. To the degree that performance attempts to enter the economy of reproduction it betrays and lessens the promise of its own ontology. (Phelan, 1993: 146)
Highlighted here is one of many underlying concerns that continue to complicate our understanding of applying practice as research in a university context to theatre studies. The way in which live performance is constructed by the theatricalisation of an event is defined by a shared space between spectator and performer; hence when recording the ‘event’, ‘work’ or ‘data’, the performance event is retrieved as something else entirely. The co-existence of performer and spectator is reinforced in Erica Fischer-Lichte’s definition: Performance, then, requires two groups of people, one acting and the other observing, to gather the same time and place for a given period of shared lifetime. Their encounter – interactive and confrontational – produces the event of performance. […] The spectators perceive their actions and respond to them. (Fischer-Lichte, 2008: 38)
Kershaw’s project in part addresses the problem of retrievable data: in the documentation of PARIP’s Book-DVD there are individual cases successful in asserting this method. The consistency of applying these methods across a variety of disciplines remains a larger problem to interrogate.
Conclusion
Continuing developments in this area offer an opportunity for research practitioners and students in theatre studies to discover new methods of inquiry, as sensation and intuition are certainly a valuable element of the knowledge making process and consequently contribute theoretically to contemporary theatre research. Doctoral research in theatre and performance, however, must consider sensation and intuition along with rationale and cognitive thinking in order to be assessed in a process of self-reflection, peer review and validation, through both a viva and a written thesis. When faced with the constraints from university structures and existing paradigms Haseman’s suggestion to develop a method of assessment criteria based wholly in practice seems appropriate. The problem with the rationale for Performative Research remains in its clarity in relation to the rigour and scrutiny required at doctoral level. If, as Scrivener states, we develop our understating of research from the Oxford English Dictionary, the first definition is ‘systematic investigation’ (Scrivener, 2009: 1; cited in Little, 2011). And thus far there is no clear system for analysis that is consistent and universal. Artists and practitioners undertake a creative process which some may argue is impossible to govern by restraints and requirements; this has been problematic since the development of art schools, as Scrivener’s article articulates: If an individual cannot read an artwork then there is unlikely to be consistency of interpretation between individuals. Since this is a proposed prerequisite of shared knowing, it is unlikely that artworks function as a means of shared knowledge. (Scrivener, 2009; cited in Little, 2011: 6)
Contributing to shared knowledge is one of the fundamental learning outcomes and objectives of PhD practice. Therefore, as Scrivener’s statement conveys, the format in which we present that shared knowledge is crucial in defining its submission as research.
The progression made within this field over the recent decade must be acknowledged and the continuation of this discourse in academia is vital. With measureable and consistent outcomes yet to be fully determined and the processes in which we discuss these methods varying institutionally, the evidence indicates that practice as and practice led research should remain subsumed within the qualitative framework. Simultaneously, the importance of advocating the intrinsic relationship between theory and practice is crucial in encouraging a proper rigour in practice as research in theatre and performance studies.