This signalled a community of practitioner-researchers who had seen a number of phases in government policy changes, in university restructures, in economic swings, in disciplinary fashions, intellectual and practice innovations; and who had toiled in these changing contexts to expand the creative practice research field.
Whilst this kind of growth and maturity was clearly evident, what was also widely expressed was the way in which these changes (in policy, in leadership) meant an ongoing return to a kind of ‘naive’ or infantile state for the creative practice researcher within the broader context of their institutions.
The experience of needing to make the same foundational arguments to every new head of a department or research office seemed a familiar one.
The maintenance of this kind of defensive stance does not work to progress the overall project of developing mechanisms that enable rigorous, high quality and impactful research.
Whilst, as artists, we often find ourselves arguing for the protection/existence/agency of the ineffable, the intangible, the poetic, the emergent, the invisible, there was also energy in the room for a level of concretisation, standardisation, evidence, and even data in service of evaluating creative practice research fairly, so that we continue to make meaningful contributions with our work.
Given this general and wide-spread experience of the creative practice researcher, we (the authors) have embarked on a new project which we hope will be in service of this conundrum and allow the creative practice research disciplines to continue evolving.
Despite over 20 years of literature in this field, and in Australia the awarding of thousands of creative practice PhDs, one reason we feel we are hampered by uneven foundations, is that there is still a whole body of research about research that has not been undertaken. This research is necessary if we are to respond confidently and effectively to future reviews of creative practice research; if creative disciplines are to evolve; if our success in thinking-making is to develop; if our working conditions are to improve; and if better understanding of creative practice research and its place within both the university and society is to be achieved. In short, we need to evidence that there is evidence so the field can continue to thrive.
We need scoping and systematic literature reviews to map the field to date.
A systematic review is a methodology for sifting through all literature that falls within very specifically defined search criteria. The search criteria are made transparent, the results are collated in an objective and total fashion where the inclusion and exclusion criteria are made known. This type of review is usually defined to answer a very specific question. This type of review, for our disciplines, can help us determine, in a total fashion, what is ‘known’ in the field, what is of interest to the field, the shape of the development of the field, or what kinds of questions have or have not been of interest to the field, what theoretical and conceptual frameworks have influenced the field over time.
We need this kind of picture at this time for multiple reasons: we can proactively direct the development of the field along paths that have not been explored; we can settle on certain established positions that don’t require further argument; we might re-enliven certain debates that have not been developed as far as they can be; we can re-vision debates that need to be addressed in light of changing contexts.
A scoping review is methodologically the same as a systematic review but it leaves room for slightly broader sets of questions. These might include working out what is already in the field (topics, questions, authors), and what emerges as being of interest to authors of the literature.
We envisage that the data we gather will allow us to take a deliberate hand in moving certain debates along.
Some of the data will also be useful for the sake of clarity and specificity, to enable informed critical debate.
In broad brushstrokes, what we have identified so far are key questions we want to pursue with scoping and/or systematic literature reviews depending on the specificity or capaciousness of the question:
- Who has been writing on the subject? Here we look at the profiles of the authors such as: the discipline they come from; geographical location; institutional affiliation; citational records (ie who they have influenced).
- What have been key conceptual and theoretical trends?
- Mapping terminology. Who is using which terms, where and when? Have we arrived/can we arrive at any meaningful consensus?
- What is the concentration of interest areas, for example, books and articles focussing on ‘methodology’, ‘epistemology’ or ‘pedagogy’?
- How much of the creative practice research literature is exegetical, in comparison to the more broadly theoretical material?
- What is the data on output type (books, chapters, journal articles)? And how is the work collected (according to what themes; subject areas)?
- With which other disciplines does creative practice research intersect?
- Map ‘keywords’.
- Numbers of outputs according to discipline. This, then, can serve to map the key concerns of each discipline
We think this kind of mapping (and the above is not an exhaustive list) will allow us to understand the differences and similarities across disciplines, as well as general (and specific) areas of concern for the thinking and practice that happens under the umbrella of ‘creative practice research’ (or other terms used for this kind of work). This will allow us to make more informed decisions around how this type of research might be evaluated; it might help us answer question such as: where is the knowledge to be ‘found’ in this work?; how does one ‘access’ the knowledge contribution in a work of creative practice research?; are there certain disciplinary differences that need to be maintained; what aspects are not discipline-specific and can be applied across the board?
We think it is time to take stock of the history of the field in this way, at this time, as part of the maturation process that is clearly expressed in the community and which meets the kind of expansive potential creative practice research is showing it has.
Craig Batty is Professor and Executive Dean of UniSA Creative, University of South Australia. Craig is also President of the Australian Council of Deans and Directors of Creative Arts (DDCA). Craig is an award-winning educator, researcher and supervisor in the areas of screenwriting, creative writing and screen production, and the broader field of creative practice research, which includes the creative doctorate.
Smiljana Glisovic has more than a decade of experience in the creative practice research field, developing resources for universities that guide researchers in the reporting and assessing of creative practice research; run professional development workshops for creative practice researchers; is included on internal assessment panels for creative practice research works at universities around Australia. She has been the editor of the DDCA’s publication, Creative Matters, since 2023.