Skip to content
1981

f End Matter

image of End Matter
file format pdf download PDF
Preview this chapter:
Preview Magnify
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/9781789389296/9781789389319-bm01.html?itemId=/content/books/9781789389296.bm01&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Arday, Jason, Branchu, Charlotte, and Boliver, Vikki (2022), ‘What do we know about Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) participation in UK higher education?’, Social Policy and Society, 21:1, pp. 12–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronson, Stanley M. (2020), ‘Jonas Salk, medical sleuth and scientist’, Rhrode Island Medical Journal, 103:6, pp. 87–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Atherton, Sophie (2017), ‘Contemporary issues: Media studies as a Mickey Mouse subject’, Sophie Atherton, https://sophiesstudio.wordpress.com/postgraduate-work/contemporary-issues-media-studies-as-a-mickey-mouse-subject/. Accessed 25 February 2017.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Dallas J. (2011), ‘Queering practice-led research: Subjectivity, performative research and the creative arts’, Creative Industries Journal, 4:1, pp. 33–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Batorowicz, Beata, Baguley, Margaret, and Kerby, Martin (2022), ‘Artists as tricksters: Exploring boundary crossing between theory and practice in a new doctor of creative arts program’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 0:0, pp. 1–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bochner, Arthur P. (2000), ‘Criteria against ourselves’, Qualitative Inquiry, 6, pp. 266–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bod, Rens (2013), A New History of the Humanities: The Search for Principles and Patterns from Antiquity to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bogle, David (2018), ‘100 years of the Ph.D. in the UK’, in Proceedings of Vitae Researcher Development International Conference 2018, Birmingham, UK, Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited, https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10068565/1/Bogle_History%20of%20PhD.pdf. Accessed 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bouchardon, Serge, and Heckman, Davin (2012), ‘Digital manipulability and digital literature’, electronic book review, http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/electropoetics/heuristic. Accessed 2012.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brandt, D. (1992), ‘The cognitive as the social: An ethnomethodological approach to writing process research’, Written Communication, 9:3, pp. 315–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brophy, Peter (2009), Narrative-Based Practice, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown, Claire (2015), ‘What's the best, most effective way to take notes?’, The Conversation, 21 May, http://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-most-effective-way-to-take-notes-41961. Accessed 21 May 2015.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Buscatto, Marie (2014), ‘Artistic practices as gendered practices: Ways and reasons’, in T. Zembylas (ed.), Artistic Practices: Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics, London: Routledge, pp. 44–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Candy, Linda (2006), Practice Based Research: A Guide, Sydney: University of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 184Candy, Linda (2019), The Creative Reflective Practitioner: Research Through Making and Practice, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Candy, Linda and Edmonds, Ernest (2018), ‘Practice-based research in the creative arts: Foundations and futures from the front line’, Leonardo, 51:1, pp. 63–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Carter, Paul (2004), Material Thinking, Carlton: Melbourne University Press.
  18. Celes (2009), ‘25 Useful brainstorming techniques – Personal excellence’, Personal Excellence, 9 February, https://personalexcellence.co/blog/brainstorming-techniques/. Accessed 9 February 2009.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cirillo, Francesco (2011–22), ‘The Pomodoro Technique’, https://www.pomodorotechnique.com/. Accessed 3 April 2024.
  20. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996), Where Is Creativity?, 1st ed., New York: HarperCollins, pp. 23–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (2006), ‘A systems perspective on creativity’, in J. Henry (ed.), Creative Management and Development, 3rd ed., London: Sage Publications, pp. 3–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dotterer, Ronald L. and Bowers, Susan (1992), Politics, Gender, and the Arts: Women, the Arts, and Society, Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press.
  23. Finke, Ronald A. (1996), ‘Imagery, creativity, and emergent structure’, Consciousness and Cognition, 5:3, pp. 381–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Flower, Linda and Hayes, John R. (1981), ‘A cognitive process theory of writing’, College Composition and Communication, 32:4, pp. 365–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Flower, Linda and Hayes, John R. (1984), ‘Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing’, Written Communication, 1:1, pp. 120–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Garfinkel, Harold (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gray, Carole and Malins, Julian (2004), Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design, Aldershot: Ashgate.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gregory, Abigail (2012), ‘Understanding mental illness through performance’, Master's thesis, Bangor: Bangor University.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hayles, N. Katherine (2002), Writing Machines, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hicks, Mar (2017), Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hope, Sophie (2016), ‘Bursting paradigms: A colour wheel of practice-research’, Cultural Trends, 25:2, pp. 74–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Howell, Kerry (2013), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology, London: SAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim, Annabel L. (2020), ‘The politics of citation’, Diacritics, 48:3, pp. 4–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Klingsieck, Katrin B. (2013), ‘Procrastination: When good things don’t come to those who wait’, European Psychologist, 18:1, pp. 24–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Koulouris, Theodore (2016), ‘Mickey Mouse and the state of media and cultural studies’, Three-D, 27, https://www.meccsa.org.uk/news/three-d-issue-27-mickey-mouse-and-the-state-of-media-and-cultural-studies/. Accessed 16 December 2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo (2006), Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd ed., Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Leavy, Patricia (2013), Fiction as Research Practice: Short Stories, Novellas, and Novels, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Leavy, Patricia (2020), Method Meets Art, Third Edition: Arts-Based Research Practice, New York: Guilford Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 185Lott, Bernice (1985), ‘The devaluation of women's competence’, Journal of Social Issues, 41:4, pp. 43–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Macleod, Katy and Holdridge, Lin (eds) (2006), Thinking Through Art: Reflections on Art as Research, Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Makri, S. and Blandford, Ann (2012a), ‘Coming across information serendipitously: Part 1 – A process model’, Open Access version, Journal of Documentation, 68:5, pp. 684–705.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Makri, S. and Blandford, Ann (2012b), ‘Coming across information serendipitously: Part 2 – A Classification framework’, Open Access version, Journal of Documentation, 68:5, pp. 706–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Malott, Curry (2021), A History of Education for the Many: From Colonization and Slavery to the Decline of US Imperialism, London: Bloomsbury Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Marino, Mark C. (2006), ‘Critical code studies’, electronic book review, http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/electropoetics/codology. Accessed 2006.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Marino, Mark C. (2020), Critical Code Studies, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. McDermid, Jane (2008), ‘Women and education’, in J. Purvis (ed.), Women's History: Britain, 1850–1945: An Introduction, London: Routledge, pp. 91–110.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. McNiff, Shaun (1998), Art-Based Research, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. McNiff, Shaun (2013), Arts as Research: Opportunities and Challenges, Bristol: Intellect.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Mott, Carrie and Cockayne, Daniel (2017), ‘Citation matters: Mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of “conscientious engagement”’, Gender, Place & Culture, 24:7, pp. 954–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Murray, Eoin (2020), ‘The meaning we give it: Utopic manifestation in interactive media’, Ph.D. thesis, Bangor: Bangor University, https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/the-meaning-we-give-it-utopic-manifestation-in-interactive-media(c8cc5109-88df-4e58-8843-3fbbd73b8851).html. Accessed 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Niedderer, Kristina and Roworth-Stokes, Seymour (2007), ‘The role and use of creative practice in research and its contribution to knowledge’, in IASDR07: International Association of Societies of Design Research, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Nochlin, Linda (1971), ‘Why have there been no great women artists?’, ARTnews, https://www.artnews.com/art-news/retrospective/why-have-there-been-no-great-women-artists-4201/. Accessed 1971.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Nola, Robert and Sankey, Howard (2006), Theories of Scientific Method: An Introduction, London: Taylor and Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Nonaka, Ikujiro and Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Pratt, Linda Ray and White, Laura Mooneyham (2005), ‘A model for interdisciplinary nineteenth-century studies’, The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, 38:2, pp. 112–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Price, T. Douglas (2015), Ancient Scandinavia: An Archaeological History from the First Humans to the Vikings, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Richardson, Laurel and St. Pierre, Elizabeth Adams (2008), ‘Writing: A method of inquiry’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, 3rd ed., Los Angeles: SAGE, pp. 473–500.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Riis, Kirstine and Groth, Camilla (2020), ‘Navigating methodological perspectives in Doctoral research through creative practice: Two examples of research in crafts’, FormAkademisk, 13:3, https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.3704. Accessed 2 October 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Robinson, Francis Pleasant (1946), Effective Study, New York: Harper & Bros.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 186Rossiter, Margaret W. (1993), ‘The Matthew Matilda effect in science’, Social Studies of Science, 23:2, pp. 325–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Ruse, Michael (2013), ‘Charles Robert Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace: Their dispute over the units of selection’, Theory in Biosciences, 132:4, pp. 215–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Russ, Joanna ([1983] 2018), How to Suppress Women's Writing, new edition, Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Ryan, Marie-Laure (2006), Avatars of Story, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Shannon, Geordan, Jansen, Melanie, Williams, Kate, Cáceres, Carlos, Motta, Angelica, Odhiambo, Aloyce, Eleveld, Alie, and Mannell, Jenevieve (2019), ‘Gender equality in science, medicine, and global health: Where are we at and why does it matter?’, The Lancet, 393:10171, pp. 560–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Shelley, Mary (1818), Frankenfont: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus (2011), Frankenfont, Boston: Fathom Information Design.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Skains, R. Lyle (2017), ‘The adaptive process of multimodal composition: How developing tacit knowledge of digital tools affects creative writing’, Computers and Composition, 43, pp. 106–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Skains, R. Lyle (2018), ‘Creative practice as research: Discourse on methodology’, Media Practice and Education, 19:1, pp. 82–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Smith, Hazel and Dean, Roger T. (2009), Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Smith, Emma (2011), ‘Women into science and engineering? Gendered participation in higher education STEM subjects’, British Educational Research Journal, 37:6, pp. 993–1014.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Spörke, Michael (2014), Big Mama Thornton: The Life and Music, Jefferson: McFarland.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Stuart, Kate (2016), ‘Glass slippers and the MBTI: How does Cinderella's personality type affect plot structure in a screenplay adaptation?’, Undergraduate, Bangor: Bangor University.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Sullivan, Graeme (2009), ‘Making space: The purpose and place of practice-led research’, in H. Smith and R. T. Dean (eds), Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 41–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Sullivan, Graeme (2010), Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in Visual Arts, 2nd ed., London: SAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Sullivan, Graeme and Gu, Min (2017), ‘The possibilities of research – The promise of practice’, Art Education, 70:2, pp. 49–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Tuhiwai Smith, Linda ([1999] 2012), Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 2nd ed., London: Zed Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Universities UK (2022), ‘Higher education in facts and figures: 2021’, Universities UK, https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-research/publications/higher-education-facts-and-figures-2021. Accessed 20 December 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Venables, Emma (2010), ‘The propagandist's wife: A creative exploration of Magda Goebbels as victim or perpetrator’, Master's thesis, Bangor: Bangor University.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Zotero (n.d.), ‘Collections and Tags’, https://www.zotero.org/support/collections_and_tags#colored_tags. Accessed 3 April 2024.187
  79. Baden, Maggi Savin and Wimpenny, Katherine (2014), A Practical Guide to Arts-Related Research, New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Bassetti, Chiara (2014), ‘The knowing body-in-action in performing arts: Embodiment, experiential transformation, and intersubjectivity’, in T. Zembylas (ed.), Artistic Practices: Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics, London: Routledge, pp. 91–111.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Batorowicz, Beata, Baguley, Margaret, and Kerby, Martin (2022), ‘Artists as tricksters: Exploring boundary crossing between theory and practice in a new doctor of creative arts program’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, p. 14740222221137858.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Bochner, Arthur P. (2000), ‘Criteria against ourselves’, Qualitative Inquiry, 6, pp. 266–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Brandt, D. (1992), ‘The cognitive as the social: An ethnomethodological approach to writing process research’, Written Communication, 9:3, pp. 315–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Brook, Scott (2010), ‘Managing creativity: Practice-led research and training the person’, Text Journal, 14:8.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Brophy, Peter (2009), Narrative-Based Practice, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Brown, Andrew R. and Sorensen, Andrew (2009), ‘Integrating creative practice and research in the digital media arts’, in H. Smith and R. T. Dean (eds), Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, Edinburgh: Edinbugh University Press, pp. 153–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Buscatto, Marie (2014), ‘Artistic practices as gendered practices: Ways and reasons’, in T. Zembylas (ed.), Artistic Practices: Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics, London: Routledge, pp. 44–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Candy, Linda (2006), Practice Based Research: A Guide, Sydney: University of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Candy, Linda and Edmonds, Ernest (2018), ‘Practice-based research in the creative arts: Foundations and futures from the front line’, Leonardo, 51:1, pp. 63–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Carter, Paul (2004), Material Thinking, Carlton: Melbourne University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Collins, Hilary (2010), Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries, Lausanne: AVA Academia.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, 1st ed., New York: HarperCollins.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Dogantan-Dack, Mine (2016), Artistic Practice as Research in Music: Theory, Criticism, Practice, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Edmonds, Ernest A, Weakley, Alastair, Fell, Mark, Knott, Roger, and Pauletto, Sandra (2005), ‘The studio as laboratory: Combining creative practice and digital technology’, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 63:4&5, pp. 452–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 194Ellis, Carolyn, Adams, Tony E., and Bochner, Arthur P. (2011), ‘Autoethnography: An overview’, Forum Qualitative Social Research, 12:1, Article 10, http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095. Accessed 2011.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Evans, Mark (2009), ‘Creative professional practice in methods and methodology: Case study examples from Ph.D.'s in industrial design’, in EKSIG 2009: Experiential Knowledge, Method & Methodology, DRS Special Interest Group on Experiential Knowledge, June.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Finke, Ronald A. (1996), ‘Imagery, creativity, and emergent structure’, Consciousness and Cognition, 5:3, pp. 381–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Flower, Linda and Hayes, John R. (1981), ‘A cognitive process theory of writing’, College Composition and Communication, 32:4, pp. 365–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Flower, Linda and Hayes, John R. (1984), ‘Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing’, Written Communication, 1:1, pp. 120–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Fortune, Ron (2005), ‘“You’re Not in Kansas Anymore”: Interactions among semiotic modes in multimodal texts’, Computers and Composition, 22:1, pp. 49–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Fox, Alice and Macpherson, Hannah (2015), Inclusive Arts Practice and Research: A Critical Manifesto, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Frayling, Christopher (1993), ‘Research in art and design’, Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1:1, pp. 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Garfinkel, Harold (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Gherardi, Silvia (2019), How to Conduct a Practice-Based Study: Problems and Methods, 2nd ed., Edward Elgar Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Gray, Carole and Malins, Julian (2004), Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design, Aldershot: Ashgate.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Gustavsen, B. (2008), ‘Action research, practical challenges and the formation of theory’, Action Research, 6:4, pp. 421–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Hayles, N. Katherine (2002), Writing Machines, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Herman, David (2013), Storytelling and the Sciences of Mind, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Hickey-Moody, Anna (2015), ‘Manifesto: The rhizomatics of practice as research’, in A. Hickey-Moody and T. Page (eds), Arts, Pedagogy and Cultural Resistance: New Materialisms, London: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 169–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Hope, Sophie (2016), ‘Bursting paradigms: A colour wheel of practice-research’, Cultural Trends, 25:2, pp. 74–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Jewitt, Carey (ed.) (2017), The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, 2nd ed., London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Kerrigan, Susan (2010), ‘Creative practice research: Documentary practice’, Text Journal, 14:8.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Kress, Gunther (2005), ‘Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning’, Computers and Composition, 22:1, pp. 5–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo (2006), Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd ed., Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Leavy, Patricia (2013), Fiction as Research Practice: Short Stories, Novellas, and Novels, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Leavy, Patricia (2020), Method Meets Art, Third Edition: Arts-Based Research Practice, New York: Guilford Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Leggett, M. (2006), ‘Interdisciplinary collaboration and practice-based research’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 12:3, pp. 263–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 195Macleod, Katy and Holdridge, Lin (eds) (2006), Thinking Through Art: Reflections on Art as Research, Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Makri, S. and Blandford, Ann (2012a), ‘Coming across information serendipitously: Part 1 – A process model’, Open Access version, Journal of Documentation, 68:5, pp. 684–705.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Makri, S. and Blandford, Ann (2012b), ‘Coming across information serendipitously: Part 2 – A classification framework’, Open Access version, Journal of Documentation, 68:5, pp. 706–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Marino, Mark C. (2020), Critical Code Studies, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. McNiff, Shaun (1998), Art-Based Research, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. McNiff, Shaun (2013), Arts as Research: Opportunities and Challenges, Bristol: Intellect.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Niedderer, Kristina and Roworth-Stokes, Seymour (2007), ‘The role and use of creative practice in research and its contribution to knowledge’, in IASDR07: International Association of Societies of Design Research, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Perry, Gaylene (2008), ‘The non-verbal and the verbal: Expanding awareness of practice-led research in creative writing’, in The Creativity and Uncertainty Papers: The Refereed Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the Australian Association of Writing Programs, Australian Association of Writing Programs.
  126. Pillow, W. S. (2010), ‘Dangerous reflexivity: Rigour, responsibility and reflexivity in qualitative research’, in P. Thomson and M. Walker (eds), The Routledge Doctoral Student's Companion, London: Routledge, pp. 270–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Pope, Rob (2005), Creativity: Theory, History, Practice, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Reason, Peter and Bradbury, Hilary (2001), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, London: SAGE.
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Riis, Kirstine and Groth, Camilla (2020), ‘Navigating methodological perspectives in doctoral research through creative practice: Two examples of research in crafts’, FormAkademisk, 13:3, https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.3704. Accessed 2 October 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Riley, Sharon Rose and Hunter, Lynette (eds) (2009), Mapping Landscapes for Performance as Research: Scholarly Acts and Creative Cartographies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Smith, Hazel and Dean, Roger T. (2009), Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Stewart, Robyn (2006), ‘Mindful practice: Research and interdisciplinary dialogues in the creative industries’, in InSEA World Congress: Interdisciplinary Dialogues in Arts Education, 1–5 March 2006, International Society for Education through Art, Viseu, Portugal, pp. 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Stokes, Jane (2021), How to Do Media and Cultural Studies, London: SAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Sullivan, Ceri and Harper, Graeme (eds) (2009), Authors at Work: The Creative Environment, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Sullivan, Graeme (2009), ‘Making space: The purpose and place of practice-led research’, in H. Smith and R. T. Dean (eds), Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 41–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Sullivan, Graeme (2010), Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in Visual Arts, 2nd ed., London: SAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Sullivan, Graeme and Gu, Min (2017), ‘The possibilities of research – The promise of practice’, Art Education, 70:2, pp. 49–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Tracey, Shelley (2007), ‘Creative reflection, creative practice: Expressing the inexpressible’, in Creativity or Conformity? Building Cultures of Creativity in Higher Education, 8–10 January 2007, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff; Higher Education Academy, Cardiff.
     [Google Scholar]
  139. 196Weight, Jenny (2006), ‘I, apparatus, you: A technosocial introduction to creative practice’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 12:4, pp. 413–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Woods, Mel (2012), ‘Serendipity as a method for creative practice’, http://www.serena.ac.uk/2012/05/serendipity-as-a-method-for-creative-practice/. Accessed 2012.
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Zembylas, Tasos (ed.) (2014), Artistic Practices: Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics, London: Routledge.197
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Arday, Jason, Branchu, Charlotte, and Boliver, Vikki (2022), ‘What do we know about Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) participation in UK higher education?’, Social Policy and Society, 21:1, pp. 12–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronson, Stanley M. (2020), ‘Jonas Salk, medical sleuth and scientist’, Rhrode Island Medical Journal, 103:6, pp. 87–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Atherton, Sophie (2017), ‘Contemporary issues: Media studies as a Mickey Mouse subject’, Sophie Atherton, https://sophiesstudio.wordpress.com/postgraduate-work/contemporary-issues-media-studies-as-a-mickey-mouse-subject/. Accessed 25 February 2017.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Dallas J. (2011), ‘Queering practice-led research: Subjectivity, performative research and the creative arts’, Creative Industries Journal, 4:1, pp. 33–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Batorowicz, Beata, Baguley, Margaret, and Kerby, Martin (2022), ‘Artists as tricksters: Exploring boundary crossing between theory and practice in a new doctor of creative arts program’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 0:0, pp. 1–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bochner, Arthur P. (2000), ‘Criteria against ourselves’, Qualitative Inquiry, 6, pp. 266–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bod, Rens (2013), A New History of the Humanities: The Search for Principles and Patterns from Antiquity to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bogle, David (2018), ‘100 years of the Ph.D. in the UK’, in Proceedings of Vitae Researcher Development International Conference 2018, Birmingham, UK, Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited, https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10068565/1/Bogle_History%20of%20PhD.pdf. Accessed 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bouchardon, Serge, and Heckman, Davin (2012), ‘Digital manipulability and digital literature’, electronic book review, http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/electropoetics/heuristic. Accessed 2012.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brandt, D. (1992), ‘The cognitive as the social: An ethnomethodological approach to writing process research’, Written Communication, 9:3, pp. 315–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brophy, Peter (2009), Narrative-Based Practice, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown, Claire (2015), ‘What's the best, most effective way to take notes?’, The Conversation, 21 May, http://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-most-effective-way-to-take-notes-41961. Accessed 21 May 2015.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Buscatto, Marie (2014), ‘Artistic practices as gendered practices: Ways and reasons’, in T. Zembylas (ed.), Artistic Practices: Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics, London: Routledge, pp. 44–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Candy, Linda (2006), Practice Based Research: A Guide, Sydney: University of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 184Candy, Linda (2019), The Creative Reflective Practitioner: Research Through Making and Practice, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Candy, Linda and Edmonds, Ernest (2018), ‘Practice-based research in the creative arts: Foundations and futures from the front line’, Leonardo, 51:1, pp. 63–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Carter, Paul (2004), Material Thinking, Carlton: Melbourne University Press.
  18. Celes (2009), ‘25 Useful brainstorming techniques – Personal excellence’, Personal Excellence, 9 February, https://personalexcellence.co/blog/brainstorming-techniques/. Accessed 9 February 2009.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cirillo, Francesco (2011–22), ‘The Pomodoro Technique’, https://www.pomodorotechnique.com/. Accessed 3 April 2024.
  20. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996), Where Is Creativity?, 1st ed., New York: HarperCollins, pp. 23–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (2006), ‘A systems perspective on creativity’, in J. Henry (ed.), Creative Management and Development, 3rd ed., London: Sage Publications, pp. 3–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dotterer, Ronald L. and Bowers, Susan (1992), Politics, Gender, and the Arts: Women, the Arts, and Society, Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press.
  23. Finke, Ronald A. (1996), ‘Imagery, creativity, and emergent structure’, Consciousness and Cognition, 5:3, pp. 381–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Flower, Linda and Hayes, John R. (1981), ‘A cognitive process theory of writing’, College Composition and Communication, 32:4, pp. 365–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Flower, Linda and Hayes, John R. (1984), ‘Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing’, Written Communication, 1:1, pp. 120–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Garfinkel, Harold (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gray, Carole and Malins, Julian (2004), Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design, Aldershot: Ashgate.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gregory, Abigail (2012), ‘Understanding mental illness through performance’, Master's thesis, Bangor: Bangor University.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hayles, N. Katherine (2002), Writing Machines, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hicks, Mar (2017), Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hope, Sophie (2016), ‘Bursting paradigms: A colour wheel of practice-research’, Cultural Trends, 25:2, pp. 74–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Howell, Kerry (2013), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology, London: SAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim, Annabel L. (2020), ‘The politics of citation’, Diacritics, 48:3, pp. 4–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Klingsieck, Katrin B. (2013), ‘Procrastination: When good things don’t come to those who wait’, European Psychologist, 18:1, pp. 24–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Koulouris, Theodore (2016), ‘Mickey Mouse and the state of media and cultural studies’, Three-D, 27, https://www.meccsa.org.uk/news/three-d-issue-27-mickey-mouse-and-the-state-of-media-and-cultural-studies/. Accessed 16 December 2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo (2006), Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd ed., Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Leavy, Patricia (2013), Fiction as Research Practice: Short Stories, Novellas, and Novels, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Leavy, Patricia (2020), Method Meets Art, Third Edition: Arts-Based Research Practice, New York: Guilford Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 185Lott, Bernice (1985), ‘The devaluation of women's competence’, Journal of Social Issues, 41:4, pp. 43–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Macleod, Katy and Holdridge, Lin (eds) (2006), Thinking Through Art: Reflections on Art as Research, Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Makri, S. and Blandford, Ann (2012a), ‘Coming across information serendipitously: Part 1 – A process model’, Open Access version, Journal of Documentation, 68:5, pp. 684–705.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Makri, S. and Blandford, Ann (2012b), ‘Coming across information serendipitously: Part 2 – A Classification framework’, Open Access version, Journal of Documentation, 68:5, pp. 706–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Malott, Curry (2021), A History of Education for the Many: From Colonization and Slavery to the Decline of US Imperialism, London: Bloomsbury Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Marino, Mark C. (2006), ‘Critical code studies’, electronic book review, http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/electropoetics/codology. Accessed 2006.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Marino, Mark C. (2020), Critical Code Studies, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. McDermid, Jane (2008), ‘Women and education’, in J. Purvis (ed.), Women's History: Britain, 1850–1945: An Introduction, London: Routledge, pp. 91–110.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. McNiff, Shaun (1998), Art-Based Research, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. McNiff, Shaun (2013), Arts as Research: Opportunities and Challenges, Bristol: Intellect.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Mott, Carrie and Cockayne, Daniel (2017), ‘Citation matters: Mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of “conscientious engagement”’, Gender, Place & Culture, 24:7, pp. 954–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Murray, Eoin (2020), ‘The meaning we give it: Utopic manifestation in interactive media’, Ph.D. thesis, Bangor: Bangor University, https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/the-meaning-we-give-it-utopic-manifestation-in-interactive-media(c8cc5109-88df-4e58-8843-3fbbd73b8851).html. Accessed 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Niedderer, Kristina and Roworth-Stokes, Seymour (2007), ‘The role and use of creative practice in research and its contribution to knowledge’, in IASDR07: International Association of Societies of Design Research, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Nochlin, Linda (1971), ‘Why have there been no great women artists?’, ARTnews, https://www.artnews.com/art-news/retrospective/why-have-there-been-no-great-women-artists-4201/. Accessed 1971.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Nola, Robert and Sankey, Howard (2006), Theories of Scientific Method: An Introduction, London: Taylor and Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Nonaka, Ikujiro and Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Pratt, Linda Ray and White, Laura Mooneyham (2005), ‘A model for interdisciplinary nineteenth-century studies’, The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, 38:2, pp. 112–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Price, T. Douglas (2015), Ancient Scandinavia: An Archaeological History from the First Humans to the Vikings, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Richardson, Laurel and St. Pierre, Elizabeth Adams (2008), ‘Writing: A method of inquiry’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, 3rd ed., Los Angeles: SAGE, pp. 473–500.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Riis, Kirstine and Groth, Camilla (2020), ‘Navigating methodological perspectives in Doctoral research through creative practice: Two examples of research in crafts’, FormAkademisk, 13:3, https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.3704. Accessed 2 October 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Robinson, Francis Pleasant (1946), Effective Study, New York: Harper & Bros.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 186Rossiter, Margaret W. (1993), ‘The Matthew Matilda effect in science’, Social Studies of Science, 23:2, pp. 325–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Ruse, Michael (2013), ‘Charles Robert Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace: Their dispute over the units of selection’, Theory in Biosciences, 132:4, pp. 215–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Russ, Joanna ([1983] 2018), How to Suppress Women's Writing, new edition, Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Ryan, Marie-Laure (2006), Avatars of Story, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Shannon, Geordan, Jansen, Melanie, Williams, Kate, Cáceres, Carlos, Motta, Angelica, Odhiambo, Aloyce, Eleveld, Alie, and Mannell, Jenevieve (2019), ‘Gender equality in science, medicine, and global health: Where are we at and why does it matter?’, The Lancet, 393:10171, pp. 560–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Shelley, Mary (1818), Frankenfont: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus (2011), Frankenfont, Boston: Fathom Information Design.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Skains, R. Lyle (2017), ‘The adaptive process of multimodal composition: How developing tacit knowledge of digital tools affects creative writing’, Computers and Composition, 43, pp. 106–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Skains, R. Lyle (2018), ‘Creative practice as research: Discourse on methodology’, Media Practice and Education, 19:1, pp. 82–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Smith, Hazel and Dean, Roger T. (2009), Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Smith, Emma (2011), ‘Women into science and engineering? Gendered participation in higher education STEM subjects’, British Educational Research Journal, 37:6, pp. 993–1014.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Spörke, Michael (2014), Big Mama Thornton: The Life and Music, Jefferson: McFarland.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Stuart, Kate (2016), ‘Glass slippers and the MBTI: How does Cinderella's personality type affect plot structure in a screenplay adaptation?’, Undergraduate, Bangor: Bangor University.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Sullivan, Graeme (2009), ‘Making space: The purpose and place of practice-led research’, in H. Smith and R. T. Dean (eds), Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 41–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Sullivan, Graeme (2010), Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in Visual Arts, 2nd ed., London: SAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Sullivan, Graeme and Gu, Min (2017), ‘The possibilities of research – The promise of practice’, Art Education, 70:2, pp. 49–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Tuhiwai Smith, Linda ([1999] 2012), Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 2nd ed., London: Zed Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Universities UK (2022), ‘Higher education in facts and figures: 2021’, Universities UK, https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-research/publications/higher-education-facts-and-figures-2021. Accessed 20 December 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Venables, Emma (2010), ‘The propagandist's wife: A creative exploration of Magda Goebbels as victim or perpetrator’, Master's thesis, Bangor: Bangor University.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Zotero (n.d.), ‘Collections and Tags’, https://www.zotero.org/support/collections_and_tags#colored_tags. Accessed 3 April 2024.187
  79. Baden, Maggi Savin and Wimpenny, Katherine (2014), A Practical Guide to Arts-Related Research, New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Bassetti, Chiara (2014), ‘The knowing body-in-action in performing arts: Embodiment, experiential transformation, and intersubjectivity’, in T. Zembylas (ed.), Artistic Practices: Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics, London: Routledge, pp. 91–111.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Batorowicz, Beata, Baguley, Margaret, and Kerby, Martin (2022), ‘Artists as tricksters: Exploring boundary crossing between theory and practice in a new doctor of creative arts program’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, p. 14740222221137858.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Bochner, Arthur P. (2000), ‘Criteria against ourselves’, Qualitative Inquiry, 6, pp. 266–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Brandt, D. (1992), ‘The cognitive as the social: An ethnomethodological approach to writing process research’, Written Communication, 9:3, pp. 315–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Brook, Scott (2010), ‘Managing creativity: Practice-led research and training the person’, Text Journal, 14:8.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Brophy, Peter (2009), Narrative-Based Practice, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Brown, Andrew R. and Sorensen, Andrew (2009), ‘Integrating creative practice and research in the digital media arts’, in H. Smith and R. T. Dean (eds), Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, Edinburgh: Edinbugh University Press, pp. 153–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Buscatto, Marie (2014), ‘Artistic practices as gendered practices: Ways and reasons’, in T. Zembylas (ed.), Artistic Practices: Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics, London: Routledge, pp. 44–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Candy, Linda (2006), Practice Based Research: A Guide, Sydney: University of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Candy, Linda and Edmonds, Ernest (2018), ‘Practice-based research in the creative arts: Foundations and futures from the front line’, Leonardo, 51:1, pp. 63–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Carter, Paul (2004), Material Thinking, Carlton: Melbourne University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Collins, Hilary (2010), Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries, Lausanne: AVA Academia.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, 1st ed., New York: HarperCollins.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Dogantan-Dack, Mine (2016), Artistic Practice as Research in Music: Theory, Criticism, Practice, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Edmonds, Ernest A, Weakley, Alastair, Fell, Mark, Knott, Roger, and Pauletto, Sandra (2005), ‘The studio as laboratory: Combining creative practice and digital technology’, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 63:4&5, pp. 452–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 194Ellis, Carolyn, Adams, Tony E., and Bochner, Arthur P. (2011), ‘Autoethnography: An overview’, Forum Qualitative Social Research, 12:1, Article 10, http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095. Accessed 2011.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Evans, Mark (2009), ‘Creative professional practice in methods and methodology: Case study examples from Ph.D.'s in industrial design’, in EKSIG 2009: Experiential Knowledge, Method & Methodology, DRS Special Interest Group on Experiential Knowledge, June.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Finke, Ronald A. (1996), ‘Imagery, creativity, and emergent structure’, Consciousness and Cognition, 5:3, pp. 381–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Flower, Linda and Hayes, John R. (1981), ‘A cognitive process theory of writing’, College Composition and Communication, 32:4, pp. 365–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Flower, Linda and Hayes, John R. (1984), ‘Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing’, Written Communication, 1:1, pp. 120–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Fortune, Ron (2005), ‘“You’re Not in Kansas Anymore”: Interactions among semiotic modes in multimodal texts’, Computers and Composition, 22:1, pp. 49–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Fox, Alice and Macpherson, Hannah (2015), Inclusive Arts Practice and Research: A Critical Manifesto, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Frayling, Christopher (1993), ‘Research in art and design’, Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1:1, pp. 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Garfinkel, Harold (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Gherardi, Silvia (2019), How to Conduct a Practice-Based Study: Problems and Methods, 2nd ed., Edward Elgar Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Gray, Carole and Malins, Julian (2004), Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design, Aldershot: Ashgate.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Gustavsen, B. (2008), ‘Action research, practical challenges and the formation of theory’, Action Research, 6:4, pp. 421–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Hayles, N. Katherine (2002), Writing Machines, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Herman, David (2013), Storytelling and the Sciences of Mind, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Hickey-Moody, Anna (2015), ‘Manifesto: The rhizomatics of practice as research’, in A. Hickey-Moody and T. Page (eds), Arts, Pedagogy and Cultural Resistance: New Materialisms, London: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 169–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Hope, Sophie (2016), ‘Bursting paradigms: A colour wheel of practice-research’, Cultural Trends, 25:2, pp. 74–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Jewitt, Carey (ed.) (2017), The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, 2nd ed., London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Kerrigan, Susan (2010), ‘Creative practice research: Documentary practice’, Text Journal, 14:8.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Kress, Gunther (2005), ‘Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning’, Computers and Composition, 22:1, pp. 5–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo (2006), Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd ed., Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Leavy, Patricia (2013), Fiction as Research Practice: Short Stories, Novellas, and Novels, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Leavy, Patricia (2020), Method Meets Art, Third Edition: Arts-Based Research Practice, New York: Guilford Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Leggett, M. (2006), ‘Interdisciplinary collaboration and practice-based research’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 12:3, pp. 263–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 195Macleod, Katy and Holdridge, Lin (eds) (2006), Thinking Through Art: Reflections on Art as Research, Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Makri, S. and Blandford, Ann (2012a), ‘Coming across information serendipitously: Part 1 – A process model’, Open Access version, Journal of Documentation, 68:5, pp. 684–705.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Makri, S. and Blandford, Ann (2012b), ‘Coming across information serendipitously: Part 2 – A classification framework’, Open Access version, Journal of Documentation, 68:5, pp. 706–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Marino, Mark C. (2020), Critical Code Studies, Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. McNiff, Shaun (1998), Art-Based Research, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. McNiff, Shaun (2013), Arts as Research: Opportunities and Challenges, Bristol: Intellect.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Niedderer, Kristina and Roworth-Stokes, Seymour (2007), ‘The role and use of creative practice in research and its contribution to knowledge’, in IASDR07: International Association of Societies of Design Research, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Perry, Gaylene (2008), ‘The non-verbal and the verbal: Expanding awareness of practice-led research in creative writing’, in The Creativity and Uncertainty Papers: The Refereed Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the Australian Association of Writing Programs, Australian Association of Writing Programs.
  126. Pillow, W. S. (2010), ‘Dangerous reflexivity: Rigour, responsibility and reflexivity in qualitative research’, in P. Thomson and M. Walker (eds), The Routledge Doctoral Student's Companion, London: Routledge, pp. 270–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Pope, Rob (2005), Creativity: Theory, History, Practice, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Reason, Peter and Bradbury, Hilary (2001), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, London: SAGE.
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Riis, Kirstine and Groth, Camilla (2020), ‘Navigating methodological perspectives in doctoral research through creative practice: Two examples of research in crafts’, FormAkademisk, 13:3, https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.3704. Accessed 2 October 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Riley, Sharon Rose and Hunter, Lynette (eds) (2009), Mapping Landscapes for Performance as Research: Scholarly Acts and Creative Cartographies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Smith, Hazel and Dean, Roger T. (2009), Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Stewart, Robyn (2006), ‘Mindful practice: Research and interdisciplinary dialogues in the creative industries’, in InSEA World Congress: Interdisciplinary Dialogues in Arts Education, 1–5 March 2006, International Society for Education through Art, Viseu, Portugal, pp. 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Stokes, Jane (2021), How to Do Media and Cultural Studies, London: SAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Sullivan, Ceri and Harper, Graeme (eds) (2009), Authors at Work: The Creative Environment, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Sullivan, Graeme (2009), ‘Making space: The purpose and place of practice-led research’, in H. Smith and R. T. Dean (eds), Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 41–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Sullivan, Graeme (2010), Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in Visual Arts, 2nd ed., London: SAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Sullivan, Graeme and Gu, Min (2017), ‘The possibilities of research – The promise of practice’, Art Education, 70:2, pp. 49–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Tracey, Shelley (2007), ‘Creative reflection, creative practice: Expressing the inexpressible’, in Creativity or Conformity? Building Cultures of Creativity in Higher Education, 8–10 January 2007, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff; Higher Education Academy, Cardiff.
     [Google Scholar]
  139. 196Weight, Jenny (2006), ‘I, apparatus, you: A technosocial introduction to creative practice’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 12:4, pp. 413–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Woods, Mel (2012), ‘Serendipity as a method for creative practice’, http://www.serena.ac.uk/2012/05/serendipity-as-a-method-for-creative-practice/. Accessed 2012.
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Zembylas, Tasos (ed.) (2014), Artistic Practices: Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics, London: Routledge.197
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9781789389296.bm01
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
/content/books/9781789389296.bm01
dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9781789389296
Book
false
en
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test