Screen production research is the study of the creation of audio-visual work that is disseminated on/with screens and can include theory-driven practices that use the screen to âdoâ research (e.g., research-led practice), and systematic reflection upon a production to gain rigorous insights into how a work was made (e.g., practice-led research ). The term âscreen productionâ has emerged through Australian scholarshipâelsewhereâ for example, it is known as screen or media practice, filmmaking or video productionâand its antecedence comes about through a combination of the film and television industry and the academy.
In line with technological developments that made it possible to create and distribute work online and via mobile media, the Australian industry embraced the term âscreenâ in 2008 with the establishment of Screen Australia, the national funding body for screen work. The Screen Australia Act 2008 defines screen production as âan aggregate of images, or of images and sounds, embodied in any material that can be viewed on a screen (including, for example, a film)â. The term âresearchâ comes, of course, from the academy, and research that is conducted about/for/through screen production should comply with the philosophical, intellectual and ethical rigour that all universities uphold in their research processes and quest for new knowledge .
Bringing together screen production and research, under the umbrella of what is widely known as creative practice research, this collection offers a range of insights into and case studies of screen production research, arguing for its place in the academy as not only a legitimate but also an innovate mode of enquiry. The subsequent thirteen chapters of this book use screenwriting , filmmaking, television production, digital media, mobile media and distribution as forms and genres through which the rich and diverse landscape of screen production can be understood andâimportantlyâpracticed. The collection is thus an attempt to put screen production research firmly on the map or in the archive, drawing on new and experienced researchers from around the world to define and defend its territory.
As in other creative disciplines, screen production draws on creative practice research enquiries that are described in a number of different ways, including practice-led research , practice-as-research, practice-based research and research-led practice. But unlike these disciplines, which have undertaken much work to define, defend and develop research modes relevant to their forms and genres, screen production has been slower to start. In art and design, for example, books such as Practice as Research : Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry (Barrett and Bolt 2010), Creative Spaces for Qualitative Researching: Living Research (Higgs et al. 2011) and Supervising Practices for Postgraduate Research in Art, Architecture and Design (Allpress et al. 2012) have found a strong foothold in the academy, often referred to in discussions of methodology in honours, masterâs and doctoral projects across the creative arts. The same can be said of the performing arts, with Robin Nelsonâs Practice as Research in the Arts: Principles, Protocols, Pedagogies, Resistances (2013) emanating from this discipline, and Brad Hasemanâs journal article, âA Manifesto for Performative Researchâ (2006), being widely cited. Smith and Deanâs Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts (2009) provides a range of excellent chapters about practice research across creative arts disciplines.
Similarly, creative writing research has grown exponentially over the past two decades. Key texts such as Creative Writing Studies: Practice, Research and Pedagogy (Harper and Kroll 2007), Establishing Creative Writing Studies as an Academic Discipline (Donnelly 2011), Research Methods in Creative Writing (Kroll and Harper 2012) and Researching Creative Writing (Webb 2015), as well as journals such as New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing, and TEXT: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses, have provided multiple accounts of creative practice research and are also influencing the methodological thinking of those outside the discipline.
The discipline of screen/media/video production has made some headway, too, with outlets such as the Journal of Media Practice, and the establishment in the UK of the Media, Communication and Cultural Studies Association (MeCCSA) Practice Network to champion such matters. Subject-based peak body associations such as the Australian Screen Production Education and Research Association (ASPERA), the University Film and Video Association (UFVA) in the USA, and the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR)âs Media Production Analysis Working Group in Europe, have also contributed to these debates through refereed conference proceedings and journal special issues. The rising popularity of production studies and media industries studies has also ignited interest in the practice aspects of the field, though is more often about studying production from a variety of disciplinary and methodological approaches than actually embracing production as a mode of research. Thus, unlike disciplines such as art, design, creative writing and performance that have defined what creative practice research looks like for them, screen/media/video production has been more tentative in its approach and has a less developed set of research literacies.
This collection, then, was borne out of a desire to put a stamp on what screen production research is and looks like, to provide a global benchmark of sorts from which others can contribute and move the discipline forward. As practitioner-researchers with full-time academic jobs, we have been part of countless debates about what creative practice research is (and is not), and have collectively mentored many students and staff in the area. This mode of research is complex and diverse, and it has taken us a long time to fully understand and appreciate the nature of it, in all of its guises and with all of its intricacies. This book is thus intended to provide a milestone in screen production research, staking a claim for definitions and offering useful case studies in the hope that the discipline can be confident about what it does and inspired about where it is going.
The book is purposely structured in two parts: the first scoping the field and offering definitions and methodologies ; the second providing solid examples of these ideas âin practiceâ, through reflections on research projects (including PhDs) for which screen production has been central. Contributors were invited based on their strong knowledge and appreciation of screen production research, their experience of writing about and supervising creative practice methodologies, and their passion for combining academic research with artistic/aesthetic/industry practice. The result, we hope, is a rich collection of insights into the entangled and contested, yet innovative and empowering space that is screen production research.
The first chapter, âA âLogicalâ Explanation of Screen Production as Method-Led Researchâ by Susan Kerrigan, explains the importance of research design and how philosophical understandings can help practitioners defend their subjective positions as creative practice researchers. Following this, Leo Berkeley looks at the development of the discipline of screen production in âLights, Camera, Research: The Specificity of Research in Screen Productionâ , specifically, how it has methodologically borrowed from other disciplines. Drawing on his own practice as a filmmaking professional and academic, Berkeley explores what makes screen production a distinct field of academic inquiry. Desmond Bell then uses his chapter, âThe Primacy of Practice: Establishing the Terms of Reference of Creative Arts and Media Researchâ, to trace the origins of the terminology currently being used in the academy to describe practice as a mode of research. He argues that âartistic researchâ is a more authentic way of speaking to the actual research practices of those working in creative fields.
Craig Batty and Dallas Baker provide a comprehensive overview of the screenplay as research in âScreenwriting as a Mode of Research, and the Screenplay as a Research Artefactâ. They argue that as a growing mode of research in the academy, screenwriting functions as both a method of knowledge enquiry and a performative traditional research. Phillip McIntyre continues to explore the relationship between research enquiry and research artefact in âUsing Practitioner-Based Enquiry (PBE) to Examine Screen Production as a Form of Creative Practiceâ . Here McIntyre sees screen production research as a creative activity undertaken from the perspectives of the practitioner, which provides insights into the processes of creative actions. Marsha Berryâs chapter, âEthnography and Screen Production Researchâ, then explores experiential strategies that can be applied through an ethnographic methodology . Using mobile media screen practice as a lens, Berry explains how writing strategies can be used to illustrate reflections on process as a way of constructing knowledge .
In the second half of the book, authors reflect more specifically on their screen production practices. This begins with Erik Knudsen, whose chapter âMethod in Madness: A Case Study in Practice Research Methodsâ draws together a number of his filmmaking experiences and reflects on what he sees as a creative research process, and the madness that ensues when a film crew embarks on such a production. Cathy Greenhalgh, in âCinematography : Practice as Research , Research into Practiceâ, then highlights the performativity of cinematographers working on film sets or in locations, and how this act relates to research contexts and intentions. She draws on examples of her own and othersâ cinematographic work to argue for praxis as a useful way of identifying and articulating this mode of research.
Aparna Sharma turns the focus to documentary in âPractices of Making as Forms of Knowledge : Creative Practice Research as a Mode of Documentary Making in Northeast Indiaâ. Here Sharma discusses two of her observational documentary films that are underpinned by her social aesthetic approach to haptic audio-visuality. Bettina Frankham also discusses documentary practices in her chapter, âFragments, Form and PhotogĂ©nie : Using Practice to Research the Intersectional Work of Poetic Documentaryâ. In this case study Frankham explains how intersectional methodologies provide a poetic approach to documentary, which can provoke diverse knowledges for both makers and spectators .
John Hughes discusses moving image research in âPeter Kennedyâs The Photographsâ Story: The Dialectical Image as Researchâ. Focusing on Peter Kennedyâs recent installation work, Hughes explores the poetic dimension of art at the heart of Kennedyâs work, and how it uses images as a vehicle for transmission. Also reflecting on methodological approaches to moving image research is Smiljana Glisovic, in âThe NaĂŻve Researcher, Resisting Methodology : a Ph.D. Experienceâ. Glisovicâs research explores the relationship between the body and landscape through audio-visual art practice, by describing her experience and how she, as a researcher, becomes attuned to the medium that frames colours, textures, rhythms and sounds.
Finally, in their Afterword, âTacit Knowledge and Affect â Soft Ethnography and Shared Domainsâ, Belinda Middleweek and John Tulloch draw together the range of creative approaches to research highlighted in this book....