Mechanisms of Studio-based Research, Contribution #2014-02

Literature Review Part I: The Unique Mechanisms of Studio-based Research and the Potential As a Galvanizing Role Model in Art|Design + Science Collaborations 1 Melita Morales2

Rhoode Island School of Design Providence, RI

Supported in part by National Science Foundation grant #1004057 to Rhode Island Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)

Contribution #2014-02 to the Edna Lawrence Nature Lab, Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, RI EPSCOR|STEAM Communications and Engagement Coordinator, Edna Lawrence Nature Lab, Rhode Island School of Design 1 2

Â

EPSCoR Goal: To understand the dynamics of and create collaborative environments for successful interdisciplinary research among artists, designers and scientists.

RISD Literature Review Goals: Review is devoted to: 1. The unique mechanisms of studio-based research and the potential of a galvanizing role model in collaborative art|design+science collaborations I will be preparing for Susan a review of literature that breaks studio methodologies down into an understanding of the neuroanatomy and cognitive science of creativity, as an important part of the studio-based methodologies that define and support creative "thinking�. Additionally I will be looking at the current literature on studio-based research, benefits of visual literacy in science research through multiple modes of inquiry, and how art+science research is currently being defined.

2. The efficacy of student-driven, studio-based research as a type of art|design+science collaboration to support an evaluation of the outcomes and contributions of that model.

Part 1: Susan will look at how studio-based methodologies align with best practices in STEM teaching and learning.

Part 2: Building on a review of studio-based methodologies as research, Susan will be looking at the work that has come out of the EPSCoR studios and aligning it with literature on models of art/design + science collaborations that demonstrate case study success in producing novel outcomes.

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

1

The purpose of this literature review is to gain an understanding of the research around the unique mechanisms that drive studio-based inquiry. Ultimately, we are interested in constructing an informed model for interdisciplinary work which can further the capacity for creativity and novel outcomes. First, we must decipher what is meant by creativity and novel outcomes. Second, we must understand the studio environment. Third, we must incorporate the latest work in the field of artbased research. Finally, we can bring into focus what a studio-based, student-driven environment offers other disciplinary fields, exploring the capacity for multiple modes of inquiry in art|design + science collaborations. I looked for patterns and themes in my selection of books and journal articles, that would offer relevant insight into how the mind works, and be of value to the pedagogical construction of an art|design + science collaborative space.

What Is Meant by Creativity?

We are a country obsessed by creativity, with increasing fervor since the 1950s when psychologist J.P. Guilford first addressed the American Psychological Association on divergent versus convergent thinking processes. (Dietrich and Kanso 2010; Kuo 2011). Yet despite enthusiasm for studying the field of creativity and the increasing sophistication of testing tools, little headway has been made to advance one cohesive theory of the specific mechanisms responsible for creative thinking (Gazzaniga 2008). Differentiating the “brain” functions (central nervous system mechanisms) from the working of the “mind” (the actions or processes prompted by the brain) is just one part of teasing out a definition for creativity. Humans process primitive information from the environment, which is organized into fundamental forms and then moves in a hierarchical manner to the associative cortex and then further onto synthesis, interpretation and meaningful thought formation (Solso 1994). At some point in this process, novel thoughts emerge to individuals, thoughts we call creative. At the heart of the quest to understand the relationship between the brain and creativity is the exploration of the questions: What do we mean when we say the arts build creativity? Do all people possess the capacity to be creative? Is there something neurologically different about the way that creative people’s brains are wired? Can we test for creativity? How can research on creativity add to teachers’ pedagogy?

Defining Creativity While it is common to hear talk of something being more or less creative, there is much obscurity around what that means when pressed. At this point, there is no one single definition of creativity,

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

2

and lack of discussion as to what exactly creativity is raises even more questions around how to test for the mechanisms that lead to creative thought and action. The study of creativity began by looking at divergent thinking, or the ability to come up with multiple solutions to a problem (Dietrich and Kanso 2010). Creativity tests became synonymous with divergent thinking tests such as the Alternative Use Test which tested, for example, how many ideas one could come up with for a shoe when prompted to “be creative” (Dietrich and Kanso 2010) or the Torrence Creativity Test. Yet different aspects of divergent thinking were not deconstructed and studied by its parts such as the number of ideas generated (fluency), differences in types or categories of ideas generated (flexibility), and the novelty of each idea (originality). Divergent thinking consists of multiple mental processes such as perception, attentional focus, knowledge recall, analyzing information, assessing objects, using language and forming images. The variability in what specific thinking process was being tested led to a critique of divergence as the single representation of creative thinking (Abraham 2013; Dietrich 2004).

Many theorists pointed out that convergent thinking, a methodical and linear approach to problem solving, or solving through elimination of ideas, could similarly lead to generative insight or novel outcomes (Dietrich and Kanso 2010; Abraham 2013; Weisberg 2006; Gabora 2002). One could follow the process of creativity as unexpected results through unexpected pathways or unexpected results through purposeful pursuits (Wang 2009, Dietrich and Kanso 2010). Defining creativity simply as a capacity for divergent thinking oversimplifies the associated mechanisms, falsely branding creativity as a simple exercise of expanding possible outcomes.

Currently, creativity is most commonly defined as the capacity to produce something that is novel and appropriate, or original and useful (Abraham 2013; Dietrich 2004; Wang 2009; Gardner 1993; Smith, Ward and Finke 1995). Another way to think about it is that generative creativity results both from imagination and practicality (Smith, Ward and Finke 1995). Application of imagination is key to ideas existing as more than pure fantasy. What is appropriate will look different in different fields, for example a designer’s solution to a problem will look different than an artist’s yet both will have to satisfy the demands of the given challenge and constraints in order to be deemed appropriate for that situation.

Testing for creativity

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

3

It is debatable whether creativity can actually be measured. Current neurological methodologies generally measure where in the neocortex higher order thinking shows the greatest activity (Sawyer 2011). Electroencephalography (EEG) is a neuroimaging tool that measures the electrical signal of neurons firing after a stimulus event, presented as the event related potential (ERP). Different frequency bands measure different brain activity associated with different states of consciousness.

Delta waves are found during deep sleep, theta waves are implicated in encoding and information retrieval, alpha waves suggest a relaxed, awake state, beta waves occur in moments of increased alertness and focused attention, and gamma waves, the least understood are linked to a unity of conscious perception. Positron emission tomography (PET) introduces a radioactive tracer into the bloodstream. Blood flows to the area of the brain most involved in the given task, enabling the radioactive tracer to produce an image. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) uses a magnetic field to detect the ratio of oxygenated blood to deoxygenated blood resulting in a blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal. Increase in neural activity causes blood to flow to that specific area causing an increase in the BOLD signal (Dietrich and Kanso 2010; Dietrich 2004).

Neuroscientists use imaging while participants are involved in a number of cognitive science creativity tests. These tests are used to compare areas of brain related to creative thinking while involved in the exercise with various controls such as the participant pool (high and low performing groups) or non-cognitive demanding task controls (Abraham 2013). Some common creativity tests include (Abraham 2013; Sawyer 2011): Alternative Use Test – participant gives as many possible uses for a common object as they can, beyond its traditional use.

Remote Associates Test - takes three unrelated words, such as “Falling-Actor-Dust,” and asks you to come up with a fourth word that connects all three words (i.e. star).

Story generation – participants are give three seemingly unrelated words and asked to create a story (rabbit, truck, hammer) versus the control test in which a more expected arrangement of words is given (hat, rabbit, magician).

Anagrams - in which words or phrases can be made by rearranging other words or phrases. These are most often used with or without a hint to test for insight (an Aha moment) when the solution is realized.

Incomplete Figure – lines are drawn on a piece of paper and the participant is asked to complete the figure.

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

4

The Creative Process Creativity is said to have four stages (Gabora 2002; Sousa and Pilecki 2013). Preparation: or a period of intense focus and conscious attention to a problem; Incubation: time away from a task to where attention to outside stimulus is minimized; Illumination: a moment of insight in which a possible solution or pattern becomes clear; and Verification: the application of the insight to the problem at hand. Each stage involves a different level of divergent and convergent thinking, as well as activating different brain regions for specific cognitive tasks.

Link these two paragraphs…

The personality approach looks at the enduring behaviors and traits of prominent artists and compares them to non-artists, studying the creative individual versus the creative process (Kuo 2011; Smith, Ward and Finke 1995). They take a macroscopic look at the events and environment within a person’s life to determine creativity thinking over a lifetime. This is also referred to as the ‘Big C’ creativity (Kuo 2011; Amable 2012). ‘Extraordinary creativity’ is reserved for a few individuals within a given domain. There is little need for an assessment method, and ultimately yields broad insights into a few case study individuals (Amable 2012; Sousa and Pilecki 2013). Personality based creativity theory supposes that creativity is an individual trait with a fixed potential that can be studied. How biological impairment affects creativity is also investigated to find correlative relationships between the physiology of the brain and genius individuals (Kuo 2011).

The creative cognitive approach seeks to understand the brain mechanisms behind creativity, and suggests that creative thinking is the same as everyday thinking, encompassing the same cognitive processes as non-creative pursuits (Abraham 2013; Weisberg 2006; Kuo 2011; Smith, Ward and Finke 1995; Sawyer 2011). Because of this, researchers advocate that we will advance our understanding of processes involved in creative cognition by learning more about normal functions of cognition or “thinking” such as remembering, imagining, planning, anticipating an outcome, judging, deciding an outcome, determining consequences, perceiving patterns, comprehending messages, recognizing contradiction, and interpreting pictures and diagrams (Weisberg 2006).

‘Ordinary creative’ thinking is constructed from a combination of these ordinary thinking processes.

Everyday creative actions and thoughts are described as ‘little c’ creativity (Kuo 2011; Amable 2012). Testing for different elements of the creative cognitive approach requires an agreed upon

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

5

method of identifying degrees of creative thinking versus normative thinking, and yields narrower insights for a greater amount of people (Amable 2012).

Associationism is a creative cognition approach that proposes that creativity is generated incrementally as a person rigorously works at a problem over time. Here, the long devotion to a discipline, a training, generates more stored information in one’s mind, and therefore more possible solutions to a problem, which in turn increases the potential for creativity (Sawyer 2011; Smith, Ward and Finke 1995).

Gestalt approach is another popularly held belief which points to the “Aha” moment, the “Eureka” moment, of creativity (Smith, Ward and Finke 1995). As humans take in stimulus from the environment, neurons store the information across many locations in the brain Insight is the moment of greatest importance, which leads to a novel recombination of the information when coupled with stored knowledge and memory (Dietrich 2004; Gabora 2002; Gill 1986). Each person stores the information in separate parts until a final piece is included which allows for the emergence of a ‘whole’. The new ‘wholes,’ grouped together, can later on become another more complex ‘whole’.

Computational approach to creativity formulates precise mathematical operations that can produce ideas similar to that produced by humans (Wang 2009; Smith, Ward and Finke 1995). Using concept trees of human knowledge, mathematical models of creativity are used to establish quantitative measurements.

The social context approach introduces the idea of the social context within which creativity is developed and places high importance on the interaction of the individual and the field, once an individual has become trained in their domain. Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi is most know for articulating the concept of creativity as broken into the domain, which is the set of rules and beliefs that govern a field of knowledge, the individual, the person involved in the creative act or variation from ordinary problem-solving, and the field, the group of people who make up the social organization of the domain and determine whether or not the work is evaluated as creative (Wang 2009; Kao 2011).

The social perspective on creativity engages with a systems view and advocates for gaining an understanding of creativity within a social context versus a lab. Great importance is placed on the field of people, knowledgeable in a specific domain that assesses the value of a work or idea as important in that domain. In the social context approach, the field members create limits so creativity is not completely person-centered and individually defined (Kuo 2011). Implicit theories of

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

6

creativity (versus empirically tested, explicit theories), look at definitions for creativity that are built on an individual’s belief system, with some overlaps between different domains, to reveal a universal pattern (Runco and Bahleda 1986).

Some of the main concepts cognitive scientists are currently investigating: Flow - Research on mind wandering, mental relaxation, selective forgetting (grouped as ‘flow’) focuses on what areas of the brain are active when a person is in an unfocused state that leads to associations of information formerly unconnected in the conscious mind (Kauffman 2013; Sousa and Pileki 2013; Sawyer 2011; Dietrich 2004).

Associative hierarchies - Some relate specific differences in brain bias such as flat associative hierarchies versus steep (Abraham 2013; Gabora 2002). Because we must filter all the information around us, only some of this information is stored as conscious memories and some remains unconscious, or unprocessed, yet stored. Each experience can excite a locus in many of these neural networks and branch in activation from there.

Intrinsic motivation – Studies suggest that people will be most motivated to produce novel work when they are challenged by internal motivations versus external pressures (Amable 2012) Brain plasticity – Research shows that our brain has plasticity. After determining a correlation between gray matter and creativity, a question remains; does an increase in the size of gray matter allow for creativity or does the training in the arts build the size of the gray matter? (Sawyer 2011; Abraham 2013; Gazzaniga 2008). It has also been demonstrated that fluctuations in creativity occur throughout a lifetime and these fluctuations can be reflected in the physiology of a brain (Abraham 2013).

Emotion – Each of us record memories specific to our experiences of the world. How each individual records their memories opens up unique neural pathways (Sawyer 2011).

Challenges There are many current challenges to studying creativity. One is the limitation of the measurement tools in neuroimaging (Sawyer 2011). EEG has high temporal resolution or time specific detection yet low spatial resolution, or accuracy of specific local of activity. PET has greater spacial resolution, offering a more accurate 3D picture of the brain, but low temporal resolution. The radioactive traces also decay quickly (which is good for exposure) but limit the length of tests. fMRI images can be

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

7

taken over longer periods of time. BOLD signal images show anatomical accuracy for blood vessel supplying neurons versus the neuron itself. Also, hemodynamic response time can vary to when blood flows to the region, necessitating temporal calibration for each individual, and the measurable increases in BOLD signal are very slight (between 1% and 3%). The length of the tests presents yet another challenge because participants are asked to sit still for the duration of the task, and any movement can interfere with the neuroimaging of brain activity. (Abraham 2013; Sawyer 2011).

Another set of challenges arise from the methodologies of the tests themselves, aside from imaging tools (Dietrich and Kanso 2010; Abraham et al. 2012)). Many tests generalize and treat creativity as a whole, rather than as an assembly of specific mechanisms (Abraham 2013). “It is likely to be necessary to decompose the concept of creativity into more specific, more experimentally tractable constructs (Sawyer 2011, 151)” for a more effective study and unification of creativity theory. If creative tasks are operationalized, researchers can look for overlaps in cognitive functions. How we assess low and high creativity in individuals, as well as the relationship between problem-solving and expressive creativity need to be further scrutinized (Abraham et al. 2012; Abraham 2013).

Depending on the task prompt, it can be hard to tease apart the differences in imaging that are the result of the complexity of a given cognitive task versus less demanding control tasks (Abraham 2013; Abraham et al. 2012; Sawyer 2011). Also, how responses are recorded varies. For example, some participants are asked to remember each time they think of a new use for a shoe and articulate it after task completion to avoid movement during the imaging, yet this can result in forgetting and altered answers.

Finally, neuroscience creativity tests, and most cognitive creativity tests take place in a lab with high levels of control. Researchers realize that they have to trade off controlled methodology for a more ecologically valid testing that takes place within social contexts (Abraham 2013, Sawyer 2011, Kuo 2011, Runco and Bahleda 1986). This could offer more insight as to how a person might respond in a social context when engaged in normal activities. Many creativity tests rely on prompted creativity (Abraham 2013; Abraham et al. 2012), making the task not internally initiated so we do not know the starting point of the task. We can’t yet pinpoint the moment before the creative behavior takes place, making it difficult to study the biological mechanisms that are involved in creative solution finding.

Without being able to define with certainty what creativity is, the challenge remains as to how to build opportunities that can better facilitate teaching and learning practices that foster creative

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

8

outcomes. While much of the research on creativity has yet to operate with cohesive methodologies there is still information that can be gleaned from findings so far. Current cognitive research reveals a number of general points of interest that are supported by testing: 1. Prior knowledge, memories and problem solving processes contribute to the capacity to solve new problems, yet cannot be solely responsible for creative thinking. High intelligence is not synonymous with creativity (Sousa and Pilecki 2013). Creative thinking must also rely on the formation of new knowledge and untested problem-solving processes (Smith, Ward and Finke 1995).

2. The right and left hemispheres are both involved in creative functions and are not localized as was believed for many years. (Sousa and Pilecki, 2013; Sawyer 2011; Dietrich and Kanso 2010). Large-scale networks of neurons operate in parallel, engaging millions of units at one time (Kauffman 2013). The capacity to access many locations of stored information at once is termed flat associative hierarchies, or associative richness (Gabora 2002). Higher cognitive functions “involve many distinct neural groups scattered throughout the brain” in a vast network (Sawyer 2011, 150; Malina 2006). Thinking is hierarchically structured, with one thought following another (Dietrich 2004; Weisberg 2006).

3. The physiology of each person’s brain is different and mental structures differ from person to person (Solso 1994). Therefore the creative process can look very different in one brain than the creative process in another’s. After perceiving the world through a combination of pattern, color and movement, information is stored through personal associative links that contain individually relevant details filtered from the environment. (Dietrich 2004; Weisberg 2006; Matthewson 1999). Young people create signs and symbols as they grow that evolve into hierarchical systems that offer the capacity to abstract and generalize perceived information into themes (Nichols and Stephens 2013; Matthewson 1999).

4. Continued sharp focus on a problem can create ruts and prevent insight. At times, this can be because we bring a certain preconception to an event that affects how we take in information in the moment (Solso 1994). There is some discrepancy in findings as to whether it is low arousal, or moments of dissociative thinking, that play a role in the creative process (Gabora 2002; Smith, Ward and Finke 1995) or enhanced concentration focused on an alternative task (Dietrich and Kanso 2010).

5. There is agreement that during the period of incubation, remote associations rise to consciousness that might have otherwise been prevented through the intense goal focus or attention to stimulus during the preparation phase. Neuroimaging has shown that there is a

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

9

measurable rise in brain wave activity during the incubation phase just prior before the answer reaches consciousness, in which a momentary and rapid restructuring of thoughts leads to novel ideas (Sawyer 2011; Dietrich 2004; Smith, Ward and Finke 1995; Sousa and Pileki 2013;).

6. All higher order thinking is processed through the frontal cortex (Dietrich 2004; Sawyer 2011). Thinking is both top-down, in that stored memories and past experiences directs thinking that moves into the frontal cortex, and bottom-up, where information is taken in from the external environment, processed and stored as conscious experience or later motivates action which changes how one thinks and acts (Sawyer 2011; Weisberg 2006).

Dietrich tries to unite the dichotomy of gestalt versus associationism approaches to creativity by suggesting that there exist four variables in thinking at any moment in time. Two types of information are recorded from surroundings, the emotional and the cognitive domain.

Information is processed through two modes of thought, deliberate and spontaneous processing. Solutions come into consciousness by means of any one of the combinations of these variables (Dietrich 2004).

7. Interest in the arts, accompanied by training can lead to high motivation, which is linked to efficiency of the executive attentional network (Kuo 2011; Posner, Rothbart, Sheese and Kieras 2008). In education, this is linked to high motivation and personal interest in the task at hand (Nichols and Stephens 2013).

8. Verbal processing can get in the way of creative insight, making alternative visualization techniques and other methods of non-verbal processing important for detecting meaningful relationships (Sawyer 2011).

All experience of the world is subjective – it is the stimulation of the brain caused by external input.

This input is categorized and interpreted through networks wired in unique physiology of each person’s brain, the cognitive functioning of which is deeply personal and filtered based on cultural influences, experiential memories, and stored emotion. The arts offer students an opportunity to be personally motivated and engaged physically and mentally, which has lasting effects on storing information (Nichols and Stephens 2013). Creative acts result from interactions in the high level functioning in different domains, and the interaction across areas in the brain responsible for carrying out both high and low level tasks.

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

10

Due to conflicting evidence from neuroscience experiments, it is suggested that scientists need to use more combined methodologies for testing aspects of creativity to account for temporal and spatial inaccuracies, alongside teams that have cognitive scientists, behavioral psychologists and educators to interpret results (Abraham 2013; Sawyer 2011). Developing research that exhibits causal relationships over correlational is critical to drive trusted change in policy (Nichols and Stephens 2013; Gazzaniga 2008). As an educator, one must decide on personal beliefs about creativity and incorporate those into their teaching pedagogy, with a conscious effort to focus on the thinking processes and/or changing behaviors of students. At this point, correlative evidence points to visual arts training as integral to the development of a symbol library that is critical for finding meaning in abstract thought (Nichols and Stephens 2013; Marshall 2011).

How Is the Studio a Set-up for Exploration through Making?

In order to more fully explore the meaning of multiple modes of inquiry and understand what the arts can bring to the sciences, we first must look at the role of the studio in art and design education.

What are the methodologies used in a studio context which offer students a unique environment for exploring the world, and which successfully maximize a potential response to the task of being “creative?” As we focus our attention on the studio, keep in mind how the aspects of creativity mentioned above can inform the choices made about each studio set-up.

This review of literature on studio based learning offers a synthesis of commonalities found in the studio set up across the art + design field in order to further investigate what role it can play in generating an environment or context for creative thinking and innovative outcomes. This review does not propose which models have proven to be most effective or which have been more rigorously tested. Brandt et al. define the studio model as, “a unique learning community where students engage in legitimate peripheral participation in order to develop their professional identity within a community of practice (Brandt et al., 2013; 331).” The studio model can be traced as far back as the Middle Ages in the form of apprenticeships, where skills and knowledge were gained under the tutelage of master craftsman and artisans. Studio learning borrowed elements from the pedagogy of educational theorists in the late 1800’s such as Francis Parker and John Dewey, who advocated for small classes, learning-by-doing, integrated curriculum, small classes and studentcentered motivation and interest. More recent influences consist of the design problems and master critiques found in the Beaux Arts system and the focus on core competencies as a means to

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

11

production found in the Bauhaus model (Brandt et al. 2013; Lackney 1999). While moving between technical and professional training on one end of a spectrum and personal expression on the other, there are elements of commonality to be found across all art studios that offer insight into how the studio model sets the stage for innovation. Studio based learning can be broken down into the physical attributes of the space, the pedagogical activities set forth by the instructor, and epistemological definitions of learning particular to the studio discipline. (Brandt et al. 2013; Brocato 2009).

The Physical Space What does an art studio look like? The studio set-up consists of individual and group space that can be utilized by the students in a variety of ways. Students may have designated desks with dividers, or they may be in an open space. Group space consists of an area for lecture, pinning up process work, collaborative work, and shared resources and technologies. Shared resources can consist of anything from books to supplies to CNC machines. Students spend the extended class hours in the room and it is also open and available for them to continue their work on their own hours throughout the semester (Brandt et al. 2013; Dealy et al. 2013; Brocato 2009; Lackney 1999; Wilson 1997).

Each detail can be thought through from lighting to material resources to types of desks.

Studio Pedagogy How does an art or design instructor structure a class in order to stimulate learner-centered meaning formulation as an outcome? Individual studio instructors have different approaches depending on whether the goals for a specific course are more concept based or technique based. Studio pedagogy consists of the activities the instructor puts into place, the time allotted for each activity, the assessment techniques communicated to the students and the types of exchange set up with experts and professionals brought in to the class to further student learning. (Brandt et al. 2013, Hetland et al. 2013; Hadjiyanni 2008). This pedagogy positions students as “producers of knowledge” (Mathews 2010) within a “practice community” (Brandt et al. 2013, Mathews 2010).

While variance on duration and frequency of different pedagogical elements exist in each model, the pattern in studio learning framework demonstrate the following: Open-ended problems: In the studio, students are given a specific problem or challenge. These are the “ambiguous problems addressed iteratively through multimodal analysis, proposition and

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

12

critique (Brocato, p. 139) and are grounded in an authentic reality of professional practice (Brandt et al, 2013). There is not one single solution as to how to resolve the problem but many divergent possibilities developed within a given set of constrains (Mathews 2010). Free inquiry plays a critical role in the development of a solution to the problem (Walker & Leary 2009). Brandt et al. note that it is the complexity of such problems that drives the meta-knowledge, or an understanding of the steps necessary to resolve such problems (Brandt et al., 331).

Lecture: Faculty or guest lecturers expose students to short presentations. These can introduce thematic concepts or art historical movements, techniques such as plaster mold making, or a professional body of work (Hetland et al 2013; Brandt et al 2013; Brocato 2009). Lectures can also be held within an alternative environment such as on field trips to studios or museums (Brocato 2009; Bovill, Gardner & Wiedemann 1997).

Concept development: Research plays an integral role as students explore their problem and build an understanding of the given constraints, background knowledge and prior attempts at resolution. It can be conducted through books, journals, media, interviews and/or physical investigations into materials or techniques (Brocato 2009, Lackney 1999; Bovill, Gardner & Wiedemann 1997). It can also involve social, cultural, religious, political, environmental, technological and economic parameters that impact the resolution of the project (Hadiyanni 2008). Hadjiyanni (2008) furthers that concept development is critical to the student-centered focus of the project and is what allows for the final proposal to account for broader impact in the world. Concepts can be developed through many “representational modes” such as drawings, 3D models, low-resolution prototypes and digital sketches (Brandt et al. 331).

Proposal: Students submit their proposals to the class at various stages. These proposals can follow formal formats such as Brocato’s (2009), which require a concept title, a visual exploring the concept, and the translation of the concept into the design. Others may simply ask students to present their work for critique (Brandt et al. 2013, Hetland et al. 2013, Brocato 2009).

Critiques (Crits): Crits can take on many different forms throughout the course and most educators utilize a variety in order to facilitate reflection on progress and feedback through multiple perspectives. (Brandt et al. 2013, Hetland 2013, Brocato 2009; Lackney 1999; Kirby, Keefe and Laidlaw). Desk crits are an individual dialogue between the teacher and student that take place on a daily or weekly basis as teachers move throughout the studio. The goal is to understand the student’s work based on their preliminary sketches, models, writing and material explorations and then facilitate inquiry into an aspect of the problem that may require further development or research. Pin-ups allow the work of the entire studio community to be looked at as a whole.

Students are asked questions by their peers about their work and can also use the time to articulate

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

13

challenges they are facing in their own designs. The peer reviewing is key to the formulation of a community and allows the class to follow the progression of individual ideas. Pin-ups can happen at the beginning of a course and at a final development state. When art|design faculty use pin-ups for the condensations of many ideas into the pursuit of one, these are often called charrettes (Hadiyanni 2008). Juried crits involve outside experts, faculty from other departments, possible users of the designed product and professional practitioners. The configuration of jury participants is meant to situate the student work in a broader context, offering feedback that promotes rigor within the field, and possible additional professional constraints previously unexplored. Crits are essential to the art studio and is often the piece that introduces or reinforces reflection and reflexivity (Sharma 2013).

Iteration: All studio models see the work produced as one point in an iterative cycle. After receiving feedback through various methods of critique, students are asked to return to their individual spaces and improve upon their work, incorporating the feedback offered (Brandt et al. 2013; Hetland et al.

2013, Mathews 2010; Brocato 2009; Lackney 1999).

Documentation: Throughout the studio process, students create multiple alternative solutions to the problem prompt as they revise and develop their concept or idea. Recording these observations, descriptions and analysis of the work is important for making the internal learning process explicit. It guides the understanding of the artist/designer themself and others about how the individual (or group in a collaborative project) came to resolve the prompt in their own way (Brandt et al. 2013, 332). Documentation also communicates the individual area of expertise developed throughout the process both in formative stages and the summative stage (Marshall 2010; Mathews 2010).

Defining learning As each teacher formulates the structure of his/her class, they also establish what constitutes learning in that specific discipline (Brandt et al. 2013). These are the “beliefs and expectations about the nature of knowing in the studio classroom and how knowledge is developed (Brandt et al., 339).” This becomes more critical in interdisciplinary settings when students are unfamiliar with the studio model. Yet, clarification is also important between art and design disciplines such as architecture or interior design. The pedagogy set forth in each studio can reveal an otherwise tacit understanding of what constitutes “successful” or “good” insight and knowledge procurement in that discipline. Teachers and students can both be responsible for co-defining the epistemology, forming a common understanding of what is believed and valued in the specific field (Brandt et al. 2013).

By looking at literature on the studio context we can begin an investigation into why the art studio is

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

14

unique as a space that fosters creativity. A main objective in an art and design studio is for students to develop critical thinking dispositions that allow for fluid movement between divergent (many possible solutions to a problem) and convergent (picking one appropriate answer for a given set of constraints) problem-solving. This work is rooted in common studio elements found in the physical space, the pedagogical activities and the epistemological beliefs. Work is personal as artists interact with background information and examine data on the problem posed in their individual way, pursuing topics with personal relevance. During studio exploration, rigorous art practitioners move between convergent and divergent thinking, honing an idea into a work presented in various stages of development for critique. Thoughtful attention to the creation of the studio is important to the outcome of the explorations as “the distinctive forms of art experience and knowledge that comprise the processes and practices of art education serve as a basis for multiple modes of inquiry that art education researchers develop and apply (Sullivan 2014, 283).” Faculty, peers and internal and external experts offer feedback that students can use to further refine their work. Judgment is initially suspended and risk is encouraged as the concepts driving solutions unearth possibilities perhaps yet unexplored, offering opportunities for creative insight through a diversity of perspectives.

What Is Research In the Studio?

The search for knowledge is never ending in all disciplines. Scientists and scholars would agree that as we grow, we learn things. Sullivan (2014) stipulates that, “as artists we learn things differently (Sullivan 2014, 272).” Although often overlooked, the quest for understanding, or knowledge, or truth, is constantly under revision. Even in the empirically based sciences, we come to know by negating what no longer stands as a model for understanding the world and replacing it with a clearer, more descriptive model. It is the variable nature of art practice that offers its potential to reinterpret human experience in fresh ways. It is the individuality of interpretation, creation of a language of symbols, and unique layering of content, mediated through the specific making skills of the individual, which offers diverse solutions to problems (McNiff 2013; O’Farrell and Meban 2003).

Artists and scientists interpret the world in ways that have dramatically changed since the Enlightenment. Focus on the mind was supplanted by the idea of knowing about things through data collection, and resulted in establishing methods for answering a question empirically (Sullivan 2010). The institutionalization of education led to the formalization of art education pedagogies and a shifting value of the artist and art education in society, fluctuating between cultural contributors, producers of objects with personal or social significance and craftsman (Sullivan 2010). Research

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

15

practices have generally been divided by quantitative and qualitative methodologies, with empirically based, science investigations falling into the first category, and social science practices falling into the second (Barone and Eisner 2012). Arts practice as research is a relatively new articulation of the past few decades, as compared to the preferred method of scientific research begun in the nineteenth century.

At the heart of arts-based research is the idea that through the process undertaken in the studio artists come to know and discover meaning about the world (Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes 2007; Sullivan 2010; Marshall and D’Adamo 2011). Sullivan (2010) writes ‘the world we see is given meaning by the world we know.” Through making, personal investigations generate an embodied knowledge about the social context of humans with each other and their environment, and/or make advances in what is known about the materiality of their medium. Art is seeing and thinking in ways shaped by the cultural contexts that filter what we see, and partially governed by the biology of how we see (Sullivan 2014). Process, materials or behavioral ideas can drive this investigation (Dunnigan 2013). Artists work at uncovering meaning beyond collected information of immediate environment, and move toward a created response to what is not seen, to imagined realities (Sullivan 2010, Miller 1995). Sullivan (2014) emphasizes, “Adopting someone else's language and methods as one's own will only get us so far…To be informed and empowered requires information to be recreated in a vision of one's own making (Sullivan 2014, 284).” Through a research path that is motivated by the initial research question, artists reveal new meanings, new knowledge and tacit knowledge through self-directed and inquiry based investigations (Dunnigan 2013; Marshall and D’Adamo 2011). Artists convey interpretations and meaning in direct and vivid ways that cannot be accessed otherwise (Marshall 2011; Al-Yahyai 2014; 0’Farrell and Meban 2003).

Arts-based research often begins with a direct purpose, or a research question (Marshall 2010; McNiff 2013). In the pursuit of the answer, experiential learning drives understanding. Art making experiences have the potential to open up problems to a myriad of possible solutions, to see phenomena expressed and interpreted in new ways (O’Farrell and Meban 2003). In the pursuit of answering the research questions, the artist remains in dialogue with his/her work in a reflection-inaction (Schön 1985; Marshall 2010). Donald Schön writes: When we go about the spontaneous, intuitive performance of the actions of everyday life, we show ourselves to be knowledgeable in a special way. Often, we cannot say what it is that we know…Our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our patterns of

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

16

action and in our feel for the stuff with which we are dealing. It seems right to say that our knowing is in our action. (Schön 1985, 21) The link between art practice and thinking/perceiving, or what Schön would call knowing-in-action, is essential to arts practice as research. Simultaneous reflecting and creating diverge production away from a linear path as the artist oscillates between lived experience, expression, interpretation and understanding. Artists fluidly move into their work getting up close with the details and step back from their work to sense the overall picture, “coming at a problem by moving around it, and being able to use measurement as a means to interrogate specific elements and ideas on a large scale” (Sullivan 2014). Knowledge is tacitly verified at each moment when the artist chooses what the next right step will be in response to recognizing influences, connections and networks of information (Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes 2007). Gill refers to active versus passive prediction, in which inferential new leaps and insight in hypothesis formation are emergent and molded by interpretation (Gill 1986).

Unlike the highly systematized scientific methodologies of measurement that gather data from observations on specific properties of phenomena, the methodologies of arts-based research are still being negotiated (Sullivan 2010; Marshall 2010; Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes 2007). Scientific methodologies are based on observable evidence that leads to rational, linear conclusions (Nichols and Stephens 2013).Arts-based research is more closely linked with the diversity of methodologies practiced in the social sciences in that it is concerned with interpreting and understanding people’s actions, beliefs and values within a social context, yet the two are not synonymous (Mason 2008; Marshall 2010). Rather than verifying hypothetical claims through quantitative methods, the focus of arts-based research is to discover new connections and relationships (Sullivan 2014). The attributes that are involved in purposeful and meaningful research mirror the distinctive forms of artistic cognition, such as sensing, intuiting, focusing, reasoning, questioning, grounding, comparing, and interpreting.

Research based on knowing through the arts provides for the transfer of feelings, thoughts and images into an ‘aesthetic form of enquiry” that other disciplines can’t (Marshall 2011; Al-Yahyai 2014). Shaun McNiff (2008) points out that the arts “can take us even closer to experiences than verbatim descriptions and the tedious and formalistic literalism that pervades case study literature (McNiff 2008, 38).” Generally, studio-based research is an individual exploration through making that comes to knowledge through trial and error and trial, or action-reflection-action. The findings or

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

17

results of this “praxis” are then communicated either through a written component (exegesis) or documentation (Marshall 2010; Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes 2007; Marshall and D’Adamo 2013; Al-Yahyei 2014). Additionally, artists look to others in their field to see how they have grappled with similar topics, generating an awareness of existing practice, and further incorporating and reflecting on this in their own work, making their research grounded in both theory and practice (Al-Yahyai 2014).

Many words are used to describe arts-based research: practice-led research, practice-based research, arts-based research, design-based research, studio-based research, practice-centered research, critical inquiry, investigative practice, reflective practice, evidence-based practice, research informed practice. Most of these terms fall along a continuum that has practice on one end, and research on the other, and describe whether practice was used as a part of the research or whether the final piece is the embodied outcome of the research, whether making was the means or the end (Dunnigan 2013). Practice is the “application of skills, knowledge and expertise through action or exercise” and research is “a systematic inquiry and investigation that leads to new knowledge or understanding, usually in the form of concept or theory building.” These can be further categorized into research involving practice where practice becomes a big part of the investigative process, critical inquiry where the practitioner also takes an objective look at his/her work at times through data gathering, and practice by reflection and/or research which focuses on the practice as the means of developing new insight through deliberate inquiry. (Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes, 2007: 8-10)

It is argued that the empirical evidence displayed through numbers does not engage others in new knowledge and understanding as well as the expressive arts can (Barone and Eisner 2012). Arts based research frames an interaction of elements in a way that becomes noticeable to others (Barone and Eisner 2012). Reducing complex ideas into a visual language opens up the possibility to find new meaning in the lexicon of symbols. The goal of artistic exploration shifts from the product produced to the exploration of a topic, the response and then reflection (Marshall and D’Adamo 2011). The actual object/performance/text is just one piece of the entirety of the research on that topic. Documentation is a critical element to arts based research. Recording the purpose, context and challenges communicates the overall process of discovery to others (McNiff 2013; Marshall and D’Adamo 2011; Dunnigan 2013).

Arts practice as research is developed when explorations within professional and educational art

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

18

settings build new knowledge. Patterns found in the methods of these explorations such as identifying and classifying iconography, noting emerging concepts, connecting concepts, testing hypothesis and generating theory, resemble research found in other disciplinary communities although they are not prerequisites in the arts (Marshall and D’Adamo 2011). The imagination and intellect are both involved in the research as coherence and meaning are generated during critiques that offer knowledge that is new, or that adds to or alters our understanding of the topic (Sullivan 2010; Marshall and D’Adamo 2011). Seeing and perceiving as a form of critical inquiry allow an alternative way of thinking about the world (Al-Yahyei 2014).

Scientific findings are verified by the methods used and proof offered as prescribed by their peer community (Pariser 2009). Arts-based research submits to the same verification process of accountability for rigor and validity within the professional and vocational expectations of the art world (Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes 2007; Sullivan 2010). Assessment of arts-based research is consistent with other disciplines as it is based on the creation of new knowledge in the domain and how useful it is to others in the profession, seen in how often the work is cited and prompts future studies (McNiff 2013). The research undertaken must exhibit objectivity, reliability and validity (Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes, 2007).

Many critics of art-based research defend empirical models as singularly valid through replication and repeatability, refuting that art practice is not research in that it cannot be repeated. They see the variability in art based research methodology as a limitation to considering arts practice as research (O’Farrell and Meban 2003). Critics warn of trying to define art practice in academically legitimizing ways, making transparent the goal to situate and validate the studies carried out in university art departments, as well as professional arts organizations (Mason 2008; Eubanks 2012; Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes 2007). Differing ideas exist among arts professionals themselves to define common practices and methodologies for arts based research, which in doing so make it difficult to have a systematic reviewing of the products (Mason 2008). Due to the lack of coherent research tactics and training among art education specialists, this research often is lumped into the qualitative research methodologies of social science, which do not provide ample latitude for the type of differentiated knowledge generation which are the outcomes of art as research practices.

There is also differentiated use of terminology to describe practice within research such as practicebased, practice-led, or studio-based research that can lead to confusion within and beyond the field (Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes 2007).

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

19 Â

 While accepting that each artist will have a different approach and process in their work, it is argued that the field could benefit from practitioners being more explicit about their methods by identifying and classifying concepts, connecting concepts, stating and testing hypothesis, finding patterns in their work and generating theory with others (McNiff 2013, Marshall and D’Adamo 2011). Yet, McNiff argues that this cannot come at the expense of formalizing methodologies that restrict the essentials of artistic form and expression in arts-based research to follow social science format rules (McNiff 2013). Art educators need to think of their role as researchers as well as teachers, developing their teaching pedagogy alongside theories of knowing in the field of arts-based research (Sullivan 2010).

Conclusion Problems can no longer be understood in isolation, and insight will surface through understanding relationships in complex, dynamic systems (Laidlaw: Art and Visualization; Malina 2006). At this point, art and science collaborations still operate as a mixture versus a compound (Miller 2014).

Some argue that this is important to the emergent quality of work in the overlap of methodologies, as it keeps it free from standardized institutional formality (Miller 2014). With the vast amount of unknowns that exist in our world, it is important to explore using diverse methodologies (Malina 2006; Sullivan 2010). Transdisciplinary spaces allow researchers to combine experiments conducted alone and with others (McNiff 2013; Malina 2006).

Opening the opportunity for debate across domains is essential if we are to benefit from our curiosity about phenomena and how the world works, and also from our capacity to find relevance and meaning across disparate domains. The variation in our brain physiology and psychology offer different circuitry and symbol systems to access and store information about the world. Multiperspective, cross-discipline investigations have long been a part of serious studio activity, which grow and develop as the artist continues to return to their initial research question, armed with critical feedback (Sullivan 2014; Marshall 2014). A studio-based educational model facilitates the strengthening of both divergent and convergent thinking to explore a topic, increasing opportunity for creative insight (Malina 2006). Visual arts have the capacity to contribute expertise in the formation of imagery, metaphor and thematic discovery in a significant way (Sullivan 2014; Matthewson 2005).

Visual arts practitioners understand that to "know different things" is important, yet also believe it is necessary to "know things differently" (Sullivan 2014, 281).

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

20

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

21

Some questions surface for me when looking at the patterns of thought presented by different scholars as they relate to building an art|design + science collaborative model.

1. How is artsci a new domain? Can we formalize a framework that defines knowing in this domain?

2. What are the important components for an educator as a bridge in collaborative models either between studio and professional practice or between disciplines? What are the questions that an educator must ask to develop collaborative inquiry and ensure rigor in both art and science?

3. How does changing the creative “field” alter how we define success in artsci collaborations?

Who are the gatekeepers in the third culture art|design + science domain?

4. What pedagogies are important for bringing the conceptual phase, the brainstorming into focus? How do the activities designed for brainstorming benefit from initial research and then return to the original research to broaden the knowledge base?

5. How do we maximize potential for creativity and assess ordinary from extraordinary creativity? How do we as educators make explicit a student’s old knowledge and encourage the formation of new knowledge?

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

22

Working Bibliography Science of Creativity Abraham, Anna, Karoline Pieritz, Kristin Thybusch, Barbara Rutter, Sören Kröger, Jan Schweckendiek, Rudolf Stark, Abraham, Anna. The Promises and Perils of the Neuroscience of Creativity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7 (2013): 246. Published online Jun 5, 2013. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00246 Amable, Theresa. Big C, Little C, Howard and Me: Approaches to Understanding Creativity. A working paper for Harvard Business School Sept. 30, 2012. accessed 11/18/14 from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/12-085_eb9ecda0-ec0a-4a32-8747884303f8b4dd.pdf Chatterjee, Anjan. Neuroaesthetics. In Arthur P. Shimamura and Stephen E. Palmer (Eds.), Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains and Experience. Oxford University Press, New York. 2012.

299-317 Chatterjee, Anjan. Prospects for a Cognitive Neuroscience Of Visual Aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts 4, n.2 (2003): 55-60 Dietrich, Arne and Riam Kanso. A Review of EEG, ERP, and Neuroimaging Studies of Creativity and Insight. Psychological Bulletin 136, n.5 (2010); 822-848.

Dietrich, Arne. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, n.6 (2004), 1011-1026 Gabora, Liane. Cognitive mechanisms Underlying the Creative Process. T. Hewett and T. Kavanagh, Eds. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creativity and Cognition, October 13-16, Loughborough University, UK, p.126-133 Gardner, Howard. Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity Seen Through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi. Basic Books (1993) Gazzaniga, Michael. Arts and Cognition: Findings hint at relationships. Posner, Michael. Mary K. Rothbart,Learning, Arts and the Brain: The Dana Consortium Report on Arts and Cognition.

Carolyn Asbury and Barbara Rich, Eds .The Dana Foundation downloaded 11/22/14 from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/DanaSpelke.pdf Kaufman, Scott Barry. The Real Neuroscience of Creativity. Scientific American. posted August 19, 2013. accessed 10/17/14 from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautifulminds/2013/08/19/the-real-neuroscience-of-creativity/ Kuo, Hsu-Chan. Toward a Synthesis Framework for the Study of Creativity in Education. Journal of Doctoral Research in Education 11, n. 1 (2011): Posner, Michael. Mary K. Rothbart, Brad Sheese, and Jessica Kieras. How Arts training Influences Cognition. Learning, Arts and the Brain: The Dana Consortium Report on Arts and Cognition.

Carolyn Asbury and Barbara Rich, Eds .The Dana Foundation downloaded 11/22/14 from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/DanaSpelke.pdf Runco, M. A. and Bahleda, M. D. Implicit Theories of Artistic, Scientific, and Everyday Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior 20 (1986): 93–98.

Sawyer, Keith. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity: A Critical Review. Creativity Research Journal. 23, n. 2 (2011): 137-154

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

23

Schrag, Francis. Does Neuroscience Matter for Education? Educational Theory. 61(2),2011. 221236 Smith, Steven. Thomas Ward and Ronald Finke. Cognitive Processes in Creative Contexts.

Introduction to The Creative Cognition Approach Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995.

Smith, Steven. Thomas Ward and Ronald Finke. Paradoxes, Principles, and Prospects for the Future of Creative Cognition. In The Creative Cognition Approach Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995.

Solso, Robert. Cognition and the Visual Arts. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1994.

Wang, Yinxu. On Cognitive Foundations of Creativity and the Cognitive Process of Creation.

International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence 3, n.4 (2009): 1-18 Weisberg, Robert. Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention and the Arts. John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, New Jersey (2006).

Windmann, Sabine and Christiane Hermann. Creativity and the Brain: Uncovering the Neural Signature of Conceptual Expansion. Neuropsychologia 50 Studio-Based M ethodologies Brandt, Carol, and Katherine Cennamo, Sarah Douglas, Mitzi Vernon, Margarita McGrath, Yolanda Reimer. “A Theoretical Framework for the Studio as a Learning Environment.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 23, n.2 (2013): 329-348.

Brocato, Kay. “Studio Based Learning.” Theory Into Practice 48 (2009): 138-146 Hadjiyanni, Tasoulla. “Beyond Concepts - A Studio Pedagogy for Preparing Tomorrow’s Designers.”

International Journal of Architectural Research 2, n. 2 (2008): 41-48.

Hetland, Lois, Ellen Winner, Shirley Veenema, and Kimberly M. Sheridan. Studio Thinking 2: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education. New York: Teachers College Press, 2013.

Lackney, Jeffrey. A History of the Studio-based Learning Model (1999) accessed on 10.13.14 from http://edi.msstate.edu/work/pdf/history_studio_based_learning.pdf Lampert, Nancy. Enhancing Critical Thinking with Aesthetic, Critical and Creative Inquiry. Art Education. 59, n. 5 (2006): 46-50.

Mathews, James M. “Using a studio-based pedagogy to engage students in the design of mobilebased media.” English Teaching: Practice and Critique 9, n. 1 (2010) accessed on 10.12.14 from http://edlinked.soe.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2010v9n1art1.pdf further investigations might include: Bain, Ken Monson, C and Poros, J. (2003). ACHIEVE Mississippi workshop. Mississippi State University Studio Practice as Research Al-Yahyai, F. K. Practice-Based Research as an Approach for Seeing, Re-seeing and Creating Artworks. International Journal of Education through Art 10, n. 3 (2014): 287–302 Barone, Tom and Elliot Eisner. arts based research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2012.

Dunnigan, John. Thingking. In The Art of Critical Making. Roseanne Sommerson and Mara L. Hermano, eds. New Jersey: Wiley, 2013 Marshall, Cora. A Research Design for Studio-Based Research in Art. Teaching Artist Journal 8, n.2 (2010): 77-87 Marshall, Julia and Kimberly D’Adamo, “Art Practice as Research in the Classroom,” Art Education 64(5) 2011: 13

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

24

McNiff, Shaun. “Art-Based Research.” in Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research. ed. J Gary Knowles and Ardra L. Cole. California: Sage Publications, 2008. ____________. Introduction: A Critical Focus on Art-based Research. Journal of Applied Arts & Health 4, n. 1 (2013): 5–12 ____________. Art As Research: Opportunities and Challenges. Chicago, IL: Intellect Press, 2013 O’Farrell, Larry and Margaret Meban, “Arts Education and Instrumental Outcomes: An Introduction to Research, methods and Indicators,” (a paper commissioned by UNESCO with Faculty of Education Queen’s University, Canada, 1-52, 2003): 9 Pariser, David. “Arts-Based Research: Trojan Horses and Shibboleths. The Liabilities of a Hybrid Research Approach.” Canadian Review of Art Education: Research and Issues. 36, 2009: 1-18.

Schon, Donald. The Design Studio and Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials. London: RIBA Publications Limited, 1985.

Stokrocki, Mary. ed. Interdisciplinary Art Education: Building Bridges to Connect Disciplines and Cultures. Reston, Virginia: National Art Education Association, 2005.

Sullivan, Grame. Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts, 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Los Angeles (2010) ______________. The Art of Research. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research 55, n.4 (2014): 270-286 also look into: Stewart, R. (2005), ‘Smart art: The mindful practitioner-researcher as knowledge worker’, in SPIN 2005: Applying Practice-Led Research in the Creative Industries, Brisbane, Australia, April.

Wilson, B. (2007), ‘The second search: Metaphor, dimensions of meaning, and research topics in art education’, in S. La Pierre and E. Zimmerman (eds), Research Methods and Methodologies for Art Education, Reston: National Art Education Association, pp. 1–32.

M ultiple M odes of Inquiry and Art|Design + Science Barry, Andrew, Georgina Born, Gisa Weszkalnys. “Logics of Interdisciplinarity.” Economy and Society.

37(1) 2008: 20-49.

Gerber, William. Review of The Concept of Creativity in Science and Art by Dutton, D and Krausz, M. The Review of Metaphysics: a philosophical quarterly. June 1983, 36(4), 923-924 Gill, Susan P. The Paradox of Prediction. in Art & Science ed. by Stephen R. Graubard. American Academy of Arts and Society (1986) Scott, Jill and Esther Stoeckli (Eds.). Conclusion: Neuromedia: Talking Into the Future. Neuromedia: Art and Neuroscience Research. 2012 King, Alison. “Designing the Instructional Process to Enhance Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum.” Teaching of Psychology. 22(1), Feb. 1995: 13-17 Malina, Roger. Welcoming Uncertainty: The Strong Case for Coupling the Contemporary Arts to Science and Technology. In Jill Scott (Ed.). Artists-In-Labs: Processes of Inquiry. Springer Vienna Architecture. 2006 Marshall, Julia. “Transdisciplinarity and Art Integration: Toward a New Understanding of Art-Based Learning Across the Curriculum.” Studies in Art Education. 55(2) 2014: 104-127.

Mason, Rachel. “Problems of Interdisciplinarity: Evidence-Based and/or Artist- Led Research” International Journal of Art and Design Education. 27(3), 2008: 279-293

Literature Review Part I - DRAFT

25

Matthewson, James H. The Visual Core of Science: Definition and Applications for Education.

International Journal of Science Education 27, n. 5 (2005): 529-548 __________________. Visual-Spatial Thinking: An Aspect of Science Overlooked by Educators.

Science Education 83 (1999): 33-54 Miller, Arthur. The Coming of a Third Culture. Colliding Worlds: How Cutting-Edge Science is redefining Contemporary Art. 2014 Nichols, Amanda J. and April Stephens. The Scientific Method and the Creative Process: Implications for the K-6 Classroom. Journal for Learning in the Arts 9, n. 1 (2013) Ox, Jack. Editorial: Art-Science Is a Conceptual Blend. Leonardo. 47(5) 2014, 424.

Perkins, David. Learning to Think by Looking at Art (Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for Education in the Arts, 1994) 68 Phillips, Graham. Interview with Artist in Residence: David Kraemers. Catalyst ABC Thursday 13 June 2002. accessed from: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s581097.htm RTDinfo: Magazine for European Research. March 2004 Scott, Jill. Suggested Transdisciplinary Discourses for More Art_Sci Collaborations. In Jill Scott (Ed.).

Artists-In-Labs: Processes of Inquiry. Springer Vienna Architecture. 2006 Segel E, Heer J. 2010. Narrative visualization: telling stories with data. IEEE Trans. Visualization & Comp. Graphics (Proc. InfoVis). http://vis.stanford.edu/papers/narrative.

Siler, Todd. “The ArtScience Program for Realizing Human Potential.” Leonardo. 44(5) 2011: 417424.

Snow, C.P. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge University Press, New York.

1961 Yang, Andrew S. Interdisciplinarity as Critical Inquiry: Visualizing the Art/Bioscience Interface.

Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 2011, 36(1), 42-54.

Zeki, Semir. Neurobiology and the Humanities. Neuron. 84. October, 2014. 12-14 Case Studies Kirby, Robert, and Daniel F. Keefe and David H Laidlaw. Painting and Visualization. Visualization Handbook 2004. Chris Johnson and Charles Hansen, editors.

Laidlaw, David. Art and Visualization: Oil and Water? Panelists: davidkremers, VIctoria Interrante, Felice Frankel, Thomas Banchoff Laidlaw, David H. and Eric T. Ahrens, David Kraemer, Matthew J. Avalos, Russell E. Jacobs and Carol Readhead.