The research and creation approach in digital literature
Serge Bouchardon
University of Technology of Compiegne (France), COSTECH Laboratory
Introduction
I would like to share some thoughts and questions that I have about the “research and creation” approach (sometimes referred to aspractice-led research). My paper is informed by my own creative activity (I create digital literary works), my academic discipline (Communication sciences) and the fact that I am in charge of a human and social sciences laboratory (with psychology, sociology, cognitive sciences) where researchers argue about methodological and epistemological questions.
Scientific themes are often found in the works of contemporary authors and artists, notably in digital creations. But to what extent can a process of literary and artistic creation be exploited and analysed as a scientific experiment? If you are a practitioner and at the same time a researcher, I don’t think it is sufficient to create a piece and to declare that it constitues in itself an act of research, or that it will improve a research field.
A research and creation based approach is nothing new. It has been seen for many years in disciplines such as arts. But in what sense could such an approach be interesting in Media Studies and in Communication Studies? And why could it be particularly relevant for Digital literature?
I-Observing, conceiving, creating
The involvement of the researcher in his/her research topic
The researcher’s involvement in his/her research topic is a strongly debated issue in Media Studies and Communication Studies in France. It is evident with the edition of “Questions de communication” entitled “Formes de l’engagement et espace public” (Meyer et Walter, 2006) which deals with the issue of the involvement of the researcher. M. Burawoy’s notion of “public researcher” (Burawoy, 2007) is notably referred to and questioned, as is the notion of practice-led research. According to Laurence Monnoyer-Smith, Burawoy’s “reflexive science” provides a context for all these approaches.
“Based on Polyani’s work, many European researchers argue in favour of an involvement in the world to foster the “theory rationality”; in this perspective, in-field involvement rather than detachment provides a means of access to information. This is what Michael Burawoy calls reflexive science”[1](Monnoyer-Smith, 2012).
Regarding the involvement of the researcher in his/her research topic, one could draw a line from participating observation to conception to creation.
Figure 1. The involvement of the researcher in his/her research topic.
Participating observation
Participating observation is what the sociologist Jean-Paul Fourmentraux does when he analyzes digital creation. His work focuses on the new conditions under which digital creations are produced and then circulate in the digital era (Fourmentraux, 2005). He claims that the “cultural conflict” characteristic of models of creation in the past can be overcome through the creation processes of digital art. This conflict maintained a separation between art and science, but also between art and technology. In these models the artistic experiment was seen as an added value to the industrial projects in so far as it encouraged unprecedented uses of technology. And conversely, when the aim of the project was to produce a work of art, the technological input merely provided help with the creation. According to Fourmentraux, a close analysis of recent interdisciplinary digital co-productions reveals a display of the collaboration which produced the work and a definition of authorship based on the notion of contributorship that is used in sciences: co-authorship versus individual authorship. Thus the work itself becomes modular, depending on the target audience (scientific or artistic).
To reach theseconclusions, Jean-Paul Fourmentrauxadopts aparticipating observation approach to analyse the creationprocess.In the flow chartof the creation process of the workDesFrags(figure 2), it is thus interesting to notethat he positions himself in the centerof the socio-technical device.
Figure 2. Flow chart of the creation process of the work DesFrags[2].
The research and conception approach
The research-conception based approach itself keeps a low profile in Communication studies (conception being traditionally the competence of the engineer), even though it is starting to be debated. This approach is that of the COSTECH Laboratory at the University of Technology of Compiegne. The objective is both to understand and to participate in the implementation of concrete socio-technical devices: interface design, pedagogical[3] and participative devices. In terms of scientific approach, the idea is to go beyond an observer position. The questioning position can’t be based only on the observation of what has been done, but also on the anticipation which starts with the conception itself.
This research-conception led approach, which could be called “epistemological constructivism” (Hacking, 1983), seems to be all the more relevant in order to take the role and the mediation of the technical dimension into account, especially concerning digital artefacts.Studying digital objects involves observing, analyzing, criticizing but also conceiving. One can’t just naturalise an object to make it observable; the Digital is always in process, and a conception-led approach is the only way to grasp this construction process.
The research and creation approach
In my case and regarding the digital literature object, this research and conception approach is combined with a research and creation approach. Researchers in hypermedia are also sometimes practitioners. Practice can then enter a feedback loop with research and form an integral part of it. Addressing research and authorship simultaneously allows us to create experimental objects that can be used to test some hypotheses or concepts. The creative gesture provides the conditions to observe the manifestation of a phenomenon.
Participating observation research is ambiguous in that the researcher blends in with the process in order to be part of it yet he/she remains on the side. Creative research is a first person, fully reflexive involvement. While some forms of involvement can be ideological or dogmatic, far from scientific reflexivity, creative research is by definition not dogmatic. The first person involvement leads to a position of reflexive criticism. As a matter of fact, creating is reflecting on one’s creation: the creator is both involved and capable of metadiscourse. Thus this position is nothing new, but one has to account for this back and forth activity. Unlike the artist, the researcher must give a detailed account of his/her activity.
The research and creation approach gives way to experiments which assume a break from positivist positions. Creating and emerging are simultaneous. In order to analyse moments of emergence, one should accept to be questioned by what is emerging and to test it oneself in the first person. In that sense, because of its experimental dimension, digital literature seems to me to be a good object which allows the researcher to adopt an epistemological posture which is not just an objectivation posture, within the meaning of positivism.
II-Experimenting digital literature – and digital writing
The experiences of digital literature
In my case, a research and creation approach consists in creating experiments under the form of experiences. The aim is to go back and forth between experience in the first person and experience in the third person, subjective insight and objective description, but also spontaneous experience and instrumented experience (in other words, closer to experimentation).
SoI rely onmy ownproductionsas well as ontheproductionsofother authors,and I consider them eitherascreative worksorasa meansto experiment withconcepts. In this diagramabove, I mentionfour types ofexperiences correspondingtofour cells.One pitfall, according to me, would consist in beinglocked intoa single cell while the strength could be to combinethefour cells.
Figure 3. Diagram of experiences.
Experimenting digital writing
Let usfocus on the left part of figure 3 and take the example of Loss of Grasp. Loss of Grasp[4]is a creationfrom 2010thatwas awardedtheNew MediaWritingPrizein 2011.For this creation, my goalwas to have the readerexperience a loss of grasp in a narrativeand interactive way.The idea was to create an experience of a certain relationship with the world around us: the loss of grasp with eventsand with people, but also withan interactive work (insofar as this play on grasp and loss of grasp mirrors the reader's experience of an interactive digital work).
Figure 4.Screen capture of Loss of Grasp (scene 3).
But there was also thedesire toexperience thearticulation of twoconcepts,narrativityand interactivity, and toexplore lines of researchin the framework of an interactivenarrative.The expression interactive narrativeseems toraisea contradiction: how can one reconcile narrativityandinteractivity, how can one combinetaking the readerby the hand andtellinghim/her a story, and letting him/her intervenein thestory,and thisat different levels(events,structure, speed and point of view)?
This creative workhas made it possible to exploreseveral avenues:
-What arethe possibilities ofan interactive narrative? (Bouchardon, 2012)
-What newtracks does digital literatureofferdigital writing? (Crozat Bachimont, Cailleau, Bouchardon, 2012)
-How can wereconsider-andre-elaborate-some concepts(in this case narrative)? (Bouchardon, 2009)
This creation has led to a reflectionon howdigital literature is used tore-elaboratesome notions but alsoto clarifywhatcan be calleddigital writing.Indeed,the heuristic value ofdigital literatureis the value thatallows us toreturn tosome scientificnotions, but it is also that which opens and paves the way for new research in digital writing.Mypremise isthat digitalauthors endeavor to develop realms of possibility for digital writing, notably by workingonmateriality andgestures.Aresearch and creationprocessthus makes it possibleto formulateresearch questions, explore tracks,thencontinuewith othermethodologies.
Methodologies and protocols
Concerning methodologies, here are three tracks focusing on the creative process, the socio-technical device of communication or digital writing.
First person introspection
There are nowprotocolsto conductfirstperson introspection.A trackwould be to conduct first person auto-explicitation interviewsfollowing the methodologyofPierreVermersch. Theexplicitation interviewis a set oftechniques thatallows access tothe dimensions of theexperience ofaction thatare not immediatelypresentto the consciousness ofthe person.The purpose is to learnwhatreally happenedas well as implicitknowledgeincluded inthisaction.One technique is for instance to recollectsensoryexperiences in order to access concrete memory.It corresponds to thecurrent phenomenological trend in science.This first person introspection focuses mainly on the creative process.
Modelization
What is the level of genericity?How to become more general?A track is to try to modelize, like Philippe Bootz who proposes a model of communication (“procedural model”) based on digital literature writing and reading (Bootz, 2001).
Experimentation of variability
The heartof digital writingis variability.To the extent thatthecode relieson elementsthatcan be assigneddifferent values(variables), the writing isdesigned toplay onvariations (as a method ofcomposition)andis actuallysubject tovariations intime(variants). The challenge of the encounter between writing and the Digitalis to buildameaningfulvariability.
From a methodological point of view, the idea is here to test variations in the creation process, to explore the variability of digital writing by playing on variations during the writing process.
Conclusion
The research and creation approach is only one aspectof my research, whichI want toconfrontwith others (for example the question ofthe conception ofdigital writingsystems, of the teaching ofdigital writingor of theanalysis ofpractices). One example would be the PRECIP project ( that I am currently leading in France about the teaching and development of innovative digital writing practices in education and lifelong learning. In my research, digital writing is experimented, practiced as well as observed in real-life situations. Nevertheless,the research and creation approach is often a stepping stoneforresearch perspectives, which will then involveother approaches.
There are threemajor poles ofreferencefor research: scientific, technologicaland creative.Whilescientific research is based on the discoveryof laws(at least regardingthe sciences of nature) andtechnological research is based onthe notion of model, creative research (research and creation) is based onthe creation of works. Thisapproach seemsindeedadapted toan object such asdigital writing, which is still in process, as it gives opportunitiesto think differentlyandto perceivethe emergenceof anew meaning. The difficultyis to constructintrospection protocols and to collect data and traces, which will facilitate arestitutionof what happened. The research and creation approach, if it is basedon solidprotocols, has indeed a lotto teach us aboutdigital writingand the Digital.Thisis still largely to be built.
Bibliography
Bachimont, B. (2010).Le sens de la technique: le numérique et le calcul.Paris: Editions Les Belles Lettres, collection «encre marine».
Bootz, P. (2001). Formalisation d’un modèle fonctionnel de communication à l’aide des technologies numériques appliqué à la création poétique. PhD thesis, University of Paris8.
Bouchardon, S. (2009). Littérature numérique: le récit interactif. Paris: Hermès Science.
Bouchardon, S. (2011).« Des figures de manipulation dans la création numérique », Protée volume 39 numéro1.Chicoutimi: Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, 37-46.
Bouchardon, S. (2012). « Du récit hypertextuel au récit interactif », Revue de la Bibiliothèque nationale de France, n°42, décembre 2012, 13-20.
Burawoy, M. (2007). «For Public Sociology», dans Public Sociology. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 23-64.
Crozat, S., Bachimont, B., Cailleau, I., Bouchardon, S., Gaillard, L. (2011b). «Éléments pour une théorie opérationnelle de l'écriture numérique», Document numérique, vol. 14/3-2011. Paris: Hermès Lavoisier, 9-33.
Fourmentraux, J.-P. (2005). Art et Internet. Les nouvelles figures de la création. Paris: CNRS Éditions.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening, Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science, Cambridge University Press ; trad. franç. Concevoir et expérimenter, Christian Bourgois, 1989.
Meyer, V., Walter., J. (dir.) (2006). «Formes de l’engagement et espace public», Questions de communication, Série actes 3, Université Paul Verlaine.
Monnoyer-Smith, L. (2012). «L’intervention du chercheur sur le terrain : quelle posture épistémologique ?Le cas de la conception des débats publics», séminaire Méthodes de recherche sur l’information et la communication, Université Paris 13, 4 mai 2012.
[1] My translation.
[2]Source:
[3] For instance in the PRECIP project I am in charge of ( about teaching of digital writing.
[4] Bouchardon Serge and Volckaert Vincent, Loss of Grasp, 2010,