Is Composition Research?
I have previously contributed thoughts on this topic at this blog, but a recent re-opening of the debate caused me to think again and to put down some more thoughts. I wish to be careful about what I say here, since it is not my intention to devalue the work that is done by anyone, but to look at the value system itself. This is, in fact, one of the core problems: debates relating to practice-as-research/ practice-led research often focus on which kinds of work are more or less valuable or which methodologies might generate better kinds of knowledges, thus causing rifts amongst a community of researchers who might be better off joining together to explain how practice-led research exemplifies the way that all kinds of research are valued is not as appropriate as it could be. This is the point that I have tried to explain here.
Writing is not resarch.
This is a frequent point made by both those who do and don’t value practice-led research. From those who don’t can be heard, “we shouldn’t value writing just anything, it’s the content that counts.”
And from those who do, “we don’t value just anything, it’s the content that counts, writing is just a medium.”
The second point of view contains an important addition which allows for the position that a written article or oral presentation is also performative. This is important to me because it shows that a performed nature is something that is shared by all research. So just as the act of writing is not research (even when creative and performative writing are considered) the act of composition is not research.
Composition is work, not research.
This is a point on which the debate over differences in methodology surfaces. It is clear that some practice-led research projects conflate the “looking things up in a book” everyday definition of research with the creating and applying new knowledge definition of research that Universities use. Thus many research projects can be viewed as merely re-arrangements of exisiting knowledge (and this doesn’t sound much like research). what is not often added to this argument is that the same problem exists in traditional musciological research: biographies of obscure composers, extracted at length from dusty archives, are surely subject to the same objections.
What does it mean to create new knowledge?
That is clearly an epistemological question and not a blog post paragraph. However the long standing argument that practice-led research creates different kinds of knowledge is an important one. The problem is that these kinds of knowledge are poorly defined - probably because the use of words to describe something extralinguistic is going to yield poor results. Really this throws into question what the nature of knowledge really is, and how and if it can be valued.
Is composition a commercial enterprise?
It does seem to be - which also undermines research contributions made by composers. The problem facing composers researching in universities is this: composition costs money. Performers, venues, people who record and document performances all have to be paid. And unlike in science disciplines where large budgets are available to provide necessary materials for research, music departments have no budget for this. However, all of these things and people are necessary since unless compositional research is performed, and preferably by internationally known performers who have little or no interest in research, in international venues in countries which don’t even recognise the contributions made by practice-led researchers, it is not valued highly. This research is valued on its commercial success.
It is interesting to note that while this seems not to be the case for traditional musicological written research, the recent debate around academic publishing has thrown this into question. All research is valued (publically) on its ability to make money for someone else. This commercial condition both devalues practice-led research and exemplifies how the process of valuing research devalues all kinds of research.
Is composition research?
It was a hard-won battle and an important recognition of work done that brought composition into the academy. Thus claiming that composition is not research can be seen as merely a technique of dividing researchers and distracting attention away from the fact that research might not be what the REF would have us all believe that it is.
Composition is research - the problem that I have with this statement is the word is: because this is not necessarily the case. I do not believe that anything might inherently be research. But to reject this statement is not to accept that composition cannot be research.
The more problematic question is to consider the following: research is (although not always) composition.
Considering what research might be, and how it might be valued outside of a commercial arena, the peer review process (which is inherently flawed), and arbitrary grading systems, will more readily give the answer as to which practice (and traditional) contributions are doing research: but this seems an elusive goal.
