DEVELOPING GLASS PRACTICE THROUGH CREATIVE RESEARCH

ABSTRACT
This paper outlines the emergence of research in art and design, and discusses some of the problems and challenges connected to its development. It further discusses current approaches to negotiating the understanding of art and design research with the logic and requirements of conventional understandings of research. This discussion serves as a backdrop against which to portray the research in glass that has developed at the University of Wolverhampton under Professor Keith Cummings, and its contribution to building an international glass culture.

1. THE ADVENT OF RESEARCH IN ART & DESIGN
Research in art and design in the UK, as in many other countries, has emerged only during the last decade. The introduction of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in 1992 in the UK has been a major factor in focusing attention on the role of research in art and design because it was the first time that the invention of ideas, images, performances, and artefacts including design where these lead to new or substantially improved insights were, in a formal sense, recognised as [a contribution to] research (HEFCE, 1992, Annex A).

Prior to this, art and design had been ineligible for research funding in the academy under its own categorisation (Frayling 1993), and developmental activity in art and design departments was split into research and practice (Durling 2000). The former being undertaken by staff engaged in theoretical and contextual studies within a humanities or a science tradition, whilst the latter involved staff that sought to maintain their professional standing and skills within a vocational education system.

The 1992 RAE legitimised activities previously considered to be professional practice as research. However, the abrupt integration raised questions in terms of research conduct and quality (Park 2005: 201), because the post-rationalisation of work submitted and evaluated through peer review process confused the previously held status quo of research operating within strict scholarly conventions leading to publication and further knowledge in the field.

From opening research to the inclusion of practice, the need arose to legitimise the use of practice within research and with regard to its contribution to knowledge, because the requirements for research remained the same, and any submission was and is still judged against the conventional criteria of research. The need for justification resulted in a growth of terminology that tried to legitimise the use of practice by labelling it, e.g. practice-based or practice-led research. However, the use of this kind of terminology did not address or solve the root problem of why and how to use practice within research (Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes 2007).

The problem and uncertainty over the use of practice as part of research has sparked a range of research over the last decade, trying to understand and address this problem. For example Durling (2000), Langrish (2000), and Durling and Niedderer (2007) have discussed the problem of practice in PhD study, and Frayling (2003), Durling et al (2003), Biggs (2003), Scrivener and Chapman (2004), Rust (2004), Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes (2007), Niedderer (2007a,b) and others have discussed a number of issues concerning the use of practice in research, including the nature of research, its contribution to knowledge, its communication, etc.

2. CHALLENGES FOR RESEARCH IN ART & DESIGN
As indicated above, until recently, art and design research has been situated either within a humanities tradition, e.g. history or philosophy, or within a scientific tradition, e.g. engineering. Following the first RAE, Art and Design has been increasingly uneasy with either tradition, and has begun to search for its own identity.

In order to understand what this means, it is important to understand the principles that underlie research. Key to the current understanding of research is the requirement for the contribution to knowledge. Upon analysis it becomes clear that current research conventions are based on an understanding of knowledge as propositional knowledge, that is as justified true belief (Niedderer 2007a). Despite continued criticism, this definition has prevailed, and Niedderer (2007a) has shown that this definition is implicit in the understanding of research through requirements such as the presentation of an intellectual position (proposition, thesis – true belief), the logic of verification and defense of this intellectual position through argument and evidence (justification), and the explicit and unambiguous communication through textual/written presentation.

This understanding of knowledge has important implications for the conduct and presentation of research, and both established research traditions (humanities, sciences) have developed from this understanding of knowledge, albeit in different ways.

The first implication concerns what is regarded as valid and rigorous in research both in terms of process and outcomes. For example, scientific research is based on the idea of foundational beliefs, i.e. that observation from experiment provides the last proof and justification of knowledge; humanities frameworks are based on the principle of coherence, where no one belief can be proven, but all beliefs together have to form a coherent whole.

Art and design research, in whatever form, also follows one or the other of these two models or a combination of both. However, what counts as empirical evidence in art and design may differ strongly from scientific models. This is where art and design research has departed from established models. The reason for this departure is that both humanities and scientific traditions aim to explain phenomena that occur in the world. In contrast, art and design is concerned with how new phenomena are created. This requires a different approach even though the ways of logic and reasoning related to knowledge remain the same.

The second implication concerns the presentation of research. Because art and design have developed out of vocational disciplines, experience and tacit knowledge are an important part of art and design research. Therefore there is a need to communicate these as part of research, unlike in the traditional model of research where it is assumed that all knowledge can be communicated linguistically.

3. DEVELOPING GENUINE DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC RESEARCH IN ART & DESIGN
I now want to consider what it might mean for art and design research to establish a genuine, discipline specific methodology which can accommodate research into the creation of new phenomena, and integrate and communicate experiential or tacit knowledge within, and as part of this research process.

One of the first attempts towards a discipline specific methodology came from March (1984) who, referring to Peirce’s notions of deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning (also: productive reasoning), proposes that the latter is the most appropriate for design. This is based on Peirce’s understanding that,

Deduction proves that something must be; induction shows that something actually is operative; abduction merely suggests that something may be. (Hartshorne and Weiss 1998, vol. 5: §171)

Peirce defines abductive reasoning further as,

…the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new idea;… (Hartshorne and Weiss 1998, vol. 5: §171)

Presenting the concept of productive reasoning in the context of design methodology, March (1984: 269) argues that this mode of reasoning is most appropriate as a framework for design knowledge, because of the nature of design as a creative and conjectural process. He thus explains and justifies the particular way of thinking akin to art and design.

A number of researchers have explored the feasibility of different approaches to research that are founded in this idea of reasoning. Most prominently, Scrivener (Scrivener & Chapman 2004, Scrivener 2007) is working on a framework for research in fine art which acknowledges the experiential and aesthetic contribution of fine art practice within research. In design, studies by Whiteley (2000; Rust and Whitely 1998), Wood (2004), and Niedderer (2007d) have used the creative potential of designing to generate insights and/or new solutions.

Within these approaches, professional (creative) practice is framed appropriately and used as a research method within the process of research. In this regard, Durling and Niedderer (2007) have presented a study of different ways of using designing as a method within research in order to demonstrate how research in art and design can be developed in a manner that is genuine to the discipline’s aims and nature.

Part of the same discussion is the concern with the integration and communication of experiential or tacit knowledge within research. Intuitively, practice has been used to achieve this, but has often been met with suspicion from other disciplines. Studies by Niedderer (2007b,c), Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes (2007), and by Nieddererand Imani (2008) are addressing this issue, with the aim to explain the role of tacit knowledge in research, how practice can be used to include and communicate tacit knowledge, and to provide frameworks to guide practical application.

4. RESEARCH IN GLASS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON, AND ITS INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE ON PRACTICE AND TEACHING
The development of genuine art and design research, which includes and makes a contribution to creative practice, and which has been described above from a theoretical perspective, is also manifest in an exemplary way in the work of the Glass Department at the University of Wolverhampton, School of Art and Design. In the following, I will use the creative work and research of Professor Keith Cummings, and that of one of his current students, Xue Lu (Shelly) as an example to explain in more detail the nature of art and design research and its link with creative practice.

Cummings has been a glass practitioner and teacher for many years, first at Stourbridge College, then at the University of Wolverhampton, and also for some time at the Royal College of Art, London. According to Cummings , contemporary research by practitioners into the practices of glass making began with the American Glass Movement in the 1960’s. During this time, a new type of glassmaker evolved. From the traditional split between the glass designer and the glass manufacturer, evolved a group of glass artists that were designer-makers who strived both to design and realise their designs in order to allow scope for experimentation, and expressive development.

As part of this development, many traditional techniques had to be recovered and adapted to make them available for use by individual glassmakers. This caused glassmakers to do research into the materials and techniques they use from the point of the glassmaker. Before 1992 this type of work would have been regarded as professional practice development; after 1992 it has been eligible for presentation as research. An important difference between before and after 1992 is perhaps the requirement of explicit publication of the findings and the knowledge or understanding gained in the process. While often contested by makers, it offers the important advantage of making an individuals knowledge available to others.

From the drive of the designer-maker, Prof Cummings’ own research emerged, which resulted in recognised research publications, such as his book on The Techniques of Kiln-Formed Glass (Cummings 1997) and A History of Glassforming (Cummings 2002). Another, equally interesting project has been the Amalric Walter Research Project (Cummings and Stewart 2007), in which Cummings and Stewart have researched the forgotten techniques of Pate-de-Verre of Amalric Walter. This project is interesting from the point of the development of art and design research, because it draws on traditional understandings of both history and technology research, but does not fit into either category. Instead it clearly demonstrates the aim to make a contribution to glass practice (rather than glass history, for example), and uses an appropriate methodology of testing and creative work to achieve its aim.

Cummings is passing his passion for creative inquiry on also to his students. Among them Shelly, who uses a combination of historical, conceptual and creative research to understand and provide new creative approaches to glass design and practice. Shelly compares the historical and contemporary influences of Western glassmaking on Chinese glass practice, and then explores a number of propositions through her practice to propose ways to create contemporary glass design of genuine Chinese character.

5. CONCLUSION
In conclusion it remains to observe that the glass research conducted by Cummings at the University of Wolverhampton had a major impact on the development of his own creative work. Also, research and practice have been inextricably linked in his work, overcoming the traditional division of academic research and vocational practice.

Through teaching, Cummings has passed this ethos of working on to his many national and international students. They in turn have developed high profile work as testified through the exhibition documented in this catalogue, and have further influenced their own students nationally and internationally.


Dr Kristina Niedderer PhD,
Reader in Design and Applied Arts,
School of Art & Design,
University of Wolverhampton.

Developing Glass Practice Through Creative Research


REFERENCES
Biggs, M. (2003). ‘The Rôle of ‘the Work’ in Research’. PARIP 2003 (2). Retrieved January 2006, from URL: www.bris.ac.uk/parip/biggs.htm
Cummings, K. (2008). Personal communication 28 May 2008.
Cummings, K. (2002). A History of Glass-forming. London: A & C Black Publishers.
Cummings, K. (1997). The Techniques of Kiln-Formed Glass. Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
Cummings, K. and Stewart, M. (2007). The Amalric Walter Research Project. University of Wolverhampton.
Durling, D. (2000). ‘Design in the UK: some reflections on the emerging PhD’, in Durling, D. & Friedman, K. (eds.). Doctoral Education in Design: Foundations for the Future, Stoke-on-Trent, UK, 317-328. Durling, D., Friedman, K. & Gutherson, P. (2002). Editorial: ‘Debating the Practice-Based PhD’, in International Journal of Design Science and Technology, 10 (2), 7–18.
Durling, D. and Niedderer, K. (2007). ‘The Benefits and Limits of Investigative Designing’, in IASDR International Conference 2007. Hong Kong: IASDR. (CD) Available online from URL: www.niedderer.org/publications.html
Frayling, C. (1993). Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers Volume 1 Number 1 1993/4. London: Royal College of Art.
Hartshorne, C. & Weiss, P. (eds.) ([1931–58] 1998). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (vol. 5). Bristol: Thoemmes Press.
HEFCE (1992) Research Assessment Exercise 1992: The Outcome, Universities Funding Circular 26/92, Bristol.
Langrish, J. (2000). ‘Not everything made of steel is a battleship’, in D. Durling and K. Friedman (eds.), Doctoral Education in Design: Foundations for the Future. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Staffordshire University Press, 297-306.
March, L. (1984). ‘The Logic of Design’, in N. Cross (ed.) Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 265-276.
Niedderer, K. (2007a). ‘A Discourse on the Meaning of Knowledge in the Definition of Art and Design Research’. European Academy of Design Conference 2007. Izmir, Turkey.
Niedderer, K. (2007b). ‘Mapping the Meaning of Experiential Knowledge in Research’. Design Research Quarterly, 2 (2).
Niedderer, K. (2007c). ‘Relating the Production of Knowledge and the Production of Artefacts in Research’. The Art of Research. Helsinki: UIAH. (in press)
Niedderer, K. (2007d). ‘Designing Mindful Interaction: The Category of the Performative Object’. Design Issues, 23: 1
Niedderer, K. and Imani, Y. (2008). ‘Developing a Framework for Managing Tacit Knowledge in Research using Knowledge Management Models’. Undisciplined. Proceedings of the Int. DRS Conferences 2008. Sheffield Hallam University & DRS.
Niedderer, K. and Roworth-Stokes, S. (2007). ‘The Role and Use of Creative Practice in Research and its Contribution to Knowledge’. IASDR International Conference 2007. Hong Kong: IASDR. (CD) Available online from URL:
www.niedderer.org/publications.html
Park, C. (2005). ‘New Variant PhD: The changing nature of the doctorate in the UK’. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, July 2005, pp. 189–207.
Rust, C. & Whiteley, G. (1998). ‘Analogy, Complexity and Holism - Drawing as 3-D Modelling’. POINT Art and Design Research Journal, 6 (Autumn/Winter 1998).
Scrivener, S. & Chapman, P. (2004). ‘The practical implications of applying a theory of practice based research’. Working Papers in Art & Design, from URL: www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/research/res2prac/confhome.html
Scrivener, S. (2007). ‘The Roles of Art and Design in Research’. The Art of Research. Helsinki: UIAH. (in press).
Whiteley, G. (2000). ‘An Articulated Skeletal Analogy of the Human Upper-Limb (PhD thesis)’. Sheffield Hallam University, UK.
Wood, N. (2004). ‘Unknown knowns - knowledge elicitation for multimedia in craft learning’. Gray’s School of Art. from URL:
www.challengingcraft.org [11/10/2006]

FOREWORD
Professor Tim Collins: Foreword

ESSAYS
Professor Andrew Brewerton: Glass Routes
Professor Keith Cummings: Continuity and Change in Glass History
Stuart Garfoot: The Glass Baton, A Personal Overview
Susanne Frantz: Glass Tiger
Associate Professor Xiaowei Zhuang: The Development of Studio Glass at Shanghai University
Associate Professor Guan Donghai: Creating With Glass
Dr Kristina Niedderer: Developing Glass Practice Through Creative Research
Xue Lu (Shelly): Growing With the Soil of China

Stuart Garfoot: Introduction to Creative Pathway
David Reekie: Creative Pathway 1
Katy Holford: Creative Pathway 2