AccScience Publishing / AC / Volume 2 / Issue 2 / DOI: 10.36922/ac.1807
Cite this article
59
Download
612
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
PERSPECTIVE ARTICLE

Reflections from the field: Exploration of differences between art-based and academic research by a practitioner-researcher on Henrik Ibsen and beyond

Agnete G. Haaland1*
Show Less
1 Centre for Ibsen Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Submitted: 12 September 2023 | Accepted: 12 December 2023 | Published: 24 April 2024
© 2024 by the Author (s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

As an experienced actor and artistic director from Norway, I argue that autoethnography can be a valuable method for conducting academic research on a performer’s own practice. The art is enabling the latter, and the latter is fueling the former. I also explore the difference between academic research and art-based research, particularly since the Bologna Declaration of June 19, 1999, which intensified the work of art academies and higher education to find a place for art-based research within the university system. While dialog and cooperation between the two fields are already resulting in new perspectives, I observe that the exchange remains somewhat limited. Drawing from my experiences at the Centre for Ibsen studies at the University of Oslo, Norway, along with my academic research on Henrik Ibsen and my practice and experience as a performer, I compare these two approaches to research. A main difference is that academic research involves “thinking in print,” whereas art-based research involves “thinking in and through art.” The article argues that there are more aspects that unite than divide the two approaches.

Keywords
Art-based research
Academic research
Henrik Ibsen
Digital humanities
Practitioner-researcher
Autoethnography
Centre for Ibsen Studies
Funding
None.
References
  1. Veselá L. Artistic research as academic borderlands. J Artistic Res. 2021. doi: 10.22501/jarnet.0043

 

  1. Nelson R. Practice as Research in the Arts (and Beyond). 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2022.

 

  1. Booth WC, Colomb GG, Bizup J, Williams JM, Fitzgerald WT. The Craft of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2016.

 

  1. Haaland AG. My Nora in Wu Xiaojiang’s A Doll’s house (1998): Aesthetic transmission and political context. Ibsen Stud. 2022b;22(2):138-170. doi: 10.1080/15021866.2022.2125213

 

  1. Bergdorff H. The production of knowledge in artistic research. In: Biggs M, Karlsson H, editors. The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts. London: Routledge; 2011. p. 44-63.

 

  1. UNESCO; 2023. Available from: https://uis.unesco.org/en/ glossary-term/research-and-experimental-development-rd [Last accessed on 2023 Nov 25.

 

  1. Merleau-Ponty M. In: Lefort C, editor. The Visible and the Invisible. Translated by Lingis A. Evanston: Northwestern University Press; 1968.

 

  1. Holt T. Preface. Ibsen Stud. 2022;22(2):105-106. doi: 10.1080/15021866.2022.2125211

 

  1. Haaland AG. A historiographical study of the development of acting seen through the portrayal of Nora. In: Teatervitenskapelige Studier. Vol. 6. Bergen: University of Bergen; 2022a. p. 49-72. doi: 10.15845/tvs.vi6

 

  1. Haaland AG. My job is to create art, not validate facts. In: DRAMA. Vol. 58. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; 2023a. p. 24-31. doi: 10.18261/drama.60.2.7

 

  1. Haaland AG. Artistic freedom and privacy-challenges in the use of biographical material in three productions at the National Stage. In: Teatervitenskapelig Studier. Vol. 7. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen; 2023b. p. 3-21. doi: 10.15845/tvs.v

 

  1. Leitch V. Introduction to theory and criticism. In: Leitch VB, editor. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W. W. Norton and Company; 2018. p. 1-33.

 

  1. Adams TE, Jones SH, Ellis C. Handbook of Autoethnography. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2021. doi: 10.4324/9780429431760

 

  1. Jackson M. Things as they are. New Directions in Phenomenological Anthropology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1996.

 

  1. Ellis C, Bochner A. Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2000. p. 733-768.

 

  1. Ibsen H. Letter to Harald Holst; 1878. Available from: https:// www.ibsen.uio.no/brev_1871-1879ht%7cb18781121hhol. xhtml [Last accessed on 2023 Jan 03].

 

  1. McAuley G. Not Magic but Work: An Ethnographic Account of a Rehearsal Process. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 2012.

 

  1. Adams T, Jones SH, Ellis C. Autoethnography. Oxford: Oxford University; 2015.

 

  1. KHIO. Available from: https://khio.no/en/research/phd-in-artistic-research [Last accessed on 2023 Jan 01].

 

  1. Arteaga A, Cocker E. Practices of phenomenological and artistic research. Phenomenol Pract. 2022;17(1):9-56. doi: 10.29173/pandpr29522

 

  1. Arlander A. How should I write about my work? Notes on publishing artistic research. J Artistic Res. 2022. doi: 10.22501/jarnet.0059

 

  1. Himanka J. Phenomenological and artistic research practices. Phenomenol Pract. 2022;17(1):5760. doi: 10.29173/pandpr29519

 

  1. Hovland E. Artistic research and the need for a paradigmatic shift in art research. J Artistic Res. 2022. doi: 10.22501/jarnet.0060

 

  1. Klein J. What is artistic research? J Artistic Res. 2017. doi: 10.22501/jarnet.0004

 

  1. Lie LC. [PHD at KHIO]; 2023. Available from: https://khio. no/events/1594 [Last accessed on 2024 Apr 23].

 

  1. Norment C. Available from: https://www.norment.net [Last accessed on 2023 Feb 05].

 

  1. Johnson M. Embodied knowing through art. In: Biggs M, Karlsson H, editor. The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts. London: Routledge; 2011. p. 141-151.

 

  1. Bartleet BL. Artistic autoethnography. Exploring the interface between autoethnography and artistic research. In: Adams TE, Jones SH, Ellis C, editors. Handbook of Autoethnography. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2021. doi: 10.4324/9780429431760

 

  1. Knowles R. Theatre and Interculturism. USA: Palgrave Macmillian; 2010.

 

  1. Brook P. The Empty Space. England: Penguin Modern Classics; 1968.

 

  1. Bharucha R. Theatre and the World: Performance and the Politics of Culture. London: Routledge; 1993.

 

  1. Bharucha R. Peter Brook’s “Mahabharata”: A view from India. Econ Polit Wkly. 1988;23(32):1642-1647.

 

  1. Shore Z. Grad School Essentials. A Crash Course in Scholarly Skills. Oakland: University of California Press; 2006.

 

  1. Holledge J, Joanne T, editors. Women’s Intercultural Performance. Oxon: Routledge; 2000.

 

  1. Holledge J, Bollen J, Helland F, Tompkins J. A Global Doll’s House. London: Palmgrave Macmillan; 2016.

 

  1. Tomkins J, Holledge J, Bollen J, Xia L. Visualising Lost Theatres. Virtual Praxice and the Recovery of Performance Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022.

 

  1. Caplan D. Notes from the frontier: Digital scholarship and the future of theatre studies. Theatre J. 2015;67(2):347-359. doi: 10.1353/tj.2015.0059

 

  1. Bay-Cheng S. Pixelated memories: Performance, media, and digital technology. Contemp Theatre Rev. 2017;27(3):324-339. doi: 10.1080/10486801.2017.1343242
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Share
Back to top
Arts & Communication, Electronic ISSN: 2972-4090 Published by AccScience Publishing