Research-Creation in Music and the Arts

Towards a Collaborative Interdiscipline

Sophie Stévance, Serge Lacasse

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317065616
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medien & darstellende Kunst
• Subtopic: Musik

Since the 1970s, the landscape of higher education and research has been considerably altered by the integration of the arts within the university environment. Even though a form of research is inherent to artistic creation, the creative process is not comparable to the established procedures involved in academic research. As such, how can the imperatives of intellectual (and sometimes restrictive) rigour characteristic of scholarly endeavours be reconciled with the more explorative and intuitive approach of artistic creation? The concept of 'research-creation' allows artists and scholars to collaborate on a common project, acknowledging each participant's expertise in the production of an artistic work that either generates theoretical reflections or has emerged from academic research. This fully revised and updated translation of Sophie Stévance and Serge Lacasse's original French book offers an overview of the historical, political, social, cultural and academic contexts within which research-creation has emerged in Quebec and Canada, before similar (yet often divergent) conceptions appeared elsewhere in the world. Focussing primarily on the case of music, the book goes on to explore the pedagogical potential of research-creation within a university-based environment and proposes a clear and encompassing definition, as well as a theoretical model, of research-creation supported by concrete examples. By underscoring the reciprocal nature of this approach and the potential benefits of collaborative relationships, the authors' vision of research-creation extends far beyond the field of music and art alone: rather, it has the potential to integrate all approaches and disciplines that seek to combine practice and research.

1 Art, culture and creation in the university

Social issues

Introduction

In 1970, Michel de Certeau (1997, 45) argued that “cultural heterogeneity” would be a challenge for the university—an institution accessible only to a relatively small population of students. After WWII, the policies of several countries, including the province of Québec and France, supported a form of cultural democracy that sought to relieve art and artistic practice from their torpor after the adverse effects of various forms of ideological dictatorships. These policies also sought to disseminate art amongst a population that had benefitted little, if at all, from access to artistic culture.

The USA was one of the first countries to integrate artistic practice into the university setting (Deschênes Pradet 2011). Following the Bologna Process in 1999 (Ethis 2010), other countries, including Canada,¹ Australia (Marginson 1997), the UK (Cook 2015), France—and elsewhere across Europe in general, followed the USA’s lead. These countries seized upon the opportunity to have their universities become an important venue for the production, diffusion and communication of cultural knowledge and expertise. Their objective was to introduce new resources to students from a variety of cultural, social and geographical backgrounds and develop a strong academic identity. Politically speaking, the stakes were, and still are, very high: governments encourage universities to become cultural ambassadors for their country, while at the same time contributing to the country’s reputation at both national and international levels. Culture now plays a crucial role not only in policy, but also in the development of a university’s community and identity. Beyond its essential contribution to shaping human thought, integrating culture into the university setting has fulfilled strategic functions as well: politicians, for example, depend on the production and consumption of culture, as it is motivated by questions of profitability (Elkins 2009a, 112) and recognition on an international stage.

Yet, when we consider the role of culture in “knowledge production” (an expression used in university rhetoric), an artist’s role in this setting remains unclear. Not only do artists often find it challenging to define their place within the university, but university administration also seems unable to understand or to clearly identify the artist’s role within this community. What role do artists fill in universities? How can artists employed by the university contribute to research-creation? We present here possible avenues for collaboration. We also consider the role of the university: what is the university’s role in a time when cultural exchanges seem more than ever to have the potential to become significant issues? Has the university’s mission always been to produce peer-evaluated knowledge from the results of research projects it promotes, in the laboratories it hosts or to which it is associated? Grey areas remain—areas that often render it difficult for researchers and creators to cohabitate. Through a series of observations, we seek to clarify the ambiguities and confusion between these two distinct epistemologies that have been forced to coexist, for reasons that go far beyond research in the arts or artistic practice. Although this environment has allowed for research-creation in music to evolve, it remains crucial to define what constitutes research and creation individually, their respective functions in the university, their connection to one another and even their codetermination.

In the 19th century, the university—a guarantor of the quality of academic research and knowledge and products—established the foundation of applied science, practical theory and action knowledge. From their liberal arts roots in classical antiquity to the current structure of contemporary universities, the organization of the disciplines has indeed evolved in relation to what might be called the reality of their respective eras. For us, the theorisation of research-creation has played an important, if not crucial, role in the current emergence of a reorganization of knowledge (both theoretical and practical): indeed, disciplinary organization in universities is now facing a movement of interdisciplinarisation that corresponds to a profound transformation in our field (Repko and Szostak 2017). New questions and problems that cannot be attributed or reduced to ontology, semantics or the practice of an established discipline have arisen. Research-creation represents, in our opinion, the nerve centre of this transformation—at least within the arts and humanities. Despite the number of proven disciplinary fusions (biochemistry, for example), the scientific model (and method, in particular) and its dominance over all else was challenged following the arrival of artistic disciplines in universities in the early 1970s. Rather than adopt this model, artistic disciplines established their own ontology, semantics and practice with a set of languages and novel academic procedures, which at the same time gradually assimilated and adapted a number of characteristics from the scientific model and its general concept of method. Research-creation emerged from this environment—an artistic version of the model—as an answer to the scientific method in this academic context. Yet, as artistic disciplines integrated into the university setting, new problems gradually surfaced within the system of post-secondary education—problems that require a deeper reflection on the epistemological foundations of research-creation, an examination of its artistic and academic roots, so to speak. From this perspective (and that of this volume), research-creation can be considered an interdisciplinary method of the arts and humanities.²

Research-creation encourages the university to redefine its mission to one that is forward-looking. The issues at the core of this discussion are epistemological, for both research and creation: forcing creation into a university setting runs the risk of standardizing creation or a discipline that is, above all, formed through practice. Indeed, attempting to insert creation into the academic model, or to incorporate one cultural practice into another, could result in a rift between members of the university community—many of whom could be potential participants in research-creation. The example of the Bologna Process in Europe (Davidenkoff and Kahn 2006), which regulated teaching, university responsibilities and music education, has led to a number of questions about a system based on a traditional academic model of standardized diplomas.³ If the university is now conceived as a cultural institution generating knowledge and artefacts instead of as an institution of higher learning, should we not fear that the standardization of artistic training would result in a practice that is no longer representative of the diversity, unpredictability and freedom inherent in artistic creation? Or, on the contrary, should we instead view the university as an open and welcoming environment that provides a space for different and complementary ideas about society and shaping human thought? Does the integration of culture and art in the university allow for a “collective construction amongst individuals who live and interpret the world?” (Fleury 2002, 21). What are the responsibilities of musical practice in a university? What are the pedagogical and ethical issues? This chapter addresses these questions, focussing on the issues that impact a music faculty and the development of research-creation projects. By reflecting on the integration of arts in the university setting (in Québec and in other locations with similar university structures), the university’s role with respect to education, continuing education for upgrading skills, music researchers, researcher-creators and musicians studying at the university, this discussion allows for a better understanding of the university today.

Observations

Pinson (2009) and McNamara (2012) have identified a number of misconceptions in certain positions on research-creation that they felt has to be addressed: 1) the creation of music is not synonymous with theoretical research, 2) a music concert is not synonymous with academic publication, 3) research-creation is not a solipsistic description of an inner world and 4) research-creation projects can be pursued by a group of collaborators and not just individual researchers. We wish to elaborate on these observations here.

Observation 1: musical creation is not synonymous with theoretical research

It should be noted from the outset that the processes of artistic creation and academic research are inherently different and are therefore not comparable. Without research-creation or research, all creation necessarily involves a series of experiments aimed at the realization of an original approach to creation, specifically, or the renewal of artistic practice, more generally. The problem inherent in this discussion is that surrounding the concept and meaning of the term research. An example might help better illustrate the issues at play here. The Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec (CALQ), an organisation that provides funding for professional artists, speaks of “exploratory research” in their description of its “Research and creation” programme in music. The distinction between research and creation becomes more evident when one considers the eligibility criteria for projects:

Writing and composition of a musical work, whether opera or another musical form; musical arrangements; exploratory research in directing, in acting, stage or sound design; the recording of a demo for non-commercial purposes (a maximum of four pieces).

Given the name of the programme, one might assume that academic research would be included within the programme criteria; however, the organization indicates specifically that “projects conducting research for the purpose of writing articles, criticism and educational or pedagogical documents” or “essays on music” are actually considered “ineligible.”⁴ Thus, despite the terminological confusion, “academic research” and “creation” are clearly distinct in this context: for this organization (CALQ), creation comprises an exploratory research approach, or, rather, a form of research that leads to creation. Unpacking this example here clearly demonstrates how the term research seems to take on new meanings in different contexts. We will return to this idea in Chapter 2, but for the moment, we will consider academic or scientific research as a generalized approach that draws on various methods and devices for a critical examination of a question. Although preliminary, this brief definition allows us to distinguish “academic” research from “exploratory” research within the context of creation.

Within the context of creation, research is a quest (a search) in which an artist looks for something (in search of) that will be materialized in a predetermined or chosen form that the artist will personalize. In an academic researcher’s quest (inquiry), he/she conducts research (to do research) with the goal of producing general, reliable knowledge that will be made available in some reusable form. In absolute terms, any act of creation should be (and usually is) subject to inherent reflexive analysis (on the part of its author), but the reality is different from that of academic research, which develops a systematic investigative process, assumptions and methods to solve a predefined problem in a proven theoretical framework.⁵ Despite not having produced general knowledge through a rigorous scientific process, or having training in research, some musicians, performers and composers consider themselves to be, or are considered by others to be, researchers. Where does this ambiguity come from?

The graduated artist

Let’s start with the institutions in question. Universities integrate culture into their mission to renew, to develop or to acquire prestige and participate in promoting the country on an international stage. Musicians, performers and composers benefit from a system that recruits artists lacking the proper university credentials, under the pretext that they are, a priori, good technicians of the arts. Interestingly, many institutions hire creators lacking academic credentials and then fund their Doctorate of Music (a DMus., a professional degree that is equivalent to the American DMA, but different from a PhD in music). Ironically, not only are these degrees fully funded by their own institution and awarded by competing universities (which is, of course, a good thing), but these new university professors, expected to train the elite of tomorrow, are recruited and trained by counterparts at other institutions who have not themselves received adequate training in academic research. Further compounding the ludicrousness of the situation, these professor-creators are then called upon to supervise doctoral students (DMus.)—all while pursuing their own doctoral programme. There have also been a number of recent appointments in which equivalencies were applied for practicing artists: for example, institutions have evaluated an artist’s professional dossier as “equivalent” to a professor-creator’s profile by taking into consideration the number of years a musician actively participated in the field. Gilles Marcotte’s (2000, 43) anecdote seems pertinent in this context: “our universities are fairly liberal: I even knew a professor whose work as a personal psychoanalyst was recognized as research! A system of equivalencies has been established here.” But, these inconsistencies demonstrate that artistic practice does not require the validation of a university degree to be taught (or to teach). Indeed, creation is “a style of work, essentially artistic in nature, that was not intended to lead to teaching” (Alferi et al. 2015, 29). On the part of the institution, the motivation for integrating creation into a university setting is clear: it allows them to offer practical training in the arts. But what motivates artist-professors or artist-students to integrate into the foreign structure of the university? Or even to seek a position at a university or in an art school and gain job security (which is understandable)? Or is it to benefit from a structure that allows time for creative practice? The motivations, of course, are numerous.

This is, without a doubt, one of the perverse effects of the neoliberalism of universities, in Québec specifically and North America more generally, which has increased significantly over the decades, and resulted in standardization of university education. In this logic of profitability, the public sector’s absorption of the private sector (i.e. the university’s inclusion of private music schools or art schools), training and research in arts and humanities, academic and professional training, are all often put on the same level regardless of the profound differences that distinguish them.

Be that as it may, these university-employed creators, future graduates, will have at least benefited from training within the university setting—which is not the case for most performance and composition professors recruited by the u...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures and tables
• Series editors’ preface
• Introduction
• 1 Art, culture and creation in the university: social issues
• 2 University training in research-creation
• 3 Definition and scope of research-creation
• General conclusion
• References
• Index