IRB Processes and Creative Practice Res

A Collaborative Framework: IRB Processes and Creative Practice Research

My work on a University Institutional Review Board (IRB), in collaboration with others, has focused on addressing systemic challenges for research involving creative practices. As both an instructor of graduate-level creative practice courses and a University IRB member since 2017, I have advocated for changes to the IRB application process to make it more inclusive of the arts. This advocacy stems from my primary focus within the University IRB: supporting Master of Fine Arts (MFA) in Choreography candidates in navigating their thesis projects, particularly those using creative practice as their primary research method. My background as a choreographer and my doctorate in Education, which focused on embodied creativity as a mode of research, have driven my efforts to include alternative processes in qualitative research within the University’s IRB submissions. My research on embodied creativity led to findings regarding MFA Choreography projects and the IRB submission process. This resulted in the development of "Three Strands" for project outcomes for a terminal degree in the performing art of choreography. I believe this framework can serve as a foundational understanding for all artistic or creative projects involving creative practice undergoing a University IRB review.

This effort has highlighted the importance of comparing and contrasting research methods between traditional qualitative research and practice-led, practice-based, and practice as research. Collaborating closely with the University’s IRB administrator and Chair, I have strived to accurately portray the nuances of creative practice in the arts when projects meet standard definitions of research, as well as when they do not. My aim has been to expand the University’s IRB forms to encompass the arts-creative practice in research, enabling varied perspectives on research procedures to be effectively communicated in the application and review process.

My work on the University IRB has also been driven by the realization that institutions must critically examine existing models for knowledge and recognize the value of embodied ways of knowing. Understanding how embodied methods may support a wide range of researchers in their efforts for communication and knowledge making is crucial. Institutions must actively confront how they might perpetuate inequalities in reviewing research methodologies by replicating outdated social patterns and worldviews that ignore unique, non-textual findings from creative practice.

The Role of Creative Practice: When applied to artistic or creative practice, "knowledge making" often includes methods that challenge traditional, text-based research:

Embodied Knowing: Knowledge gained through the body, experience, performance, and sensory engagement, rather than just abstract thought.
Material Exploration: The discovery of new insights or solutions through the manipulation of physical materials (like clay, paint, code, or sound).
Tacit to Explicit: Converting knowledge that is hard to explain (like a skill, intuition, or feeling—tacit knowledge) into a form that can be communicated and learned by others (explicit knowledge).

IRB and the Problem of the Unfurling Inquiry: Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) must actively confront how their requirement for pre-defined, fixed protocols perpetuates inequality in research methodology. By prioritizing predictable, textual-based plans, IRBs often replicate outdated social patterns and worldviews that fundamentally ignore the unique, non-textual findings derived from creative practice. The core problem lies in the University IRB's difficulty in recognizing the value of in-the-moment material understandings—knowledge that emerges directly from the act of creation, interaction, or performance.

The University IRB's Model: The IRB typically requires a complete protocol where all methods, materials, and potential risks are pre-defined and static. This model assumes that all valuable data and findings can be anticipated before the research starts.
Creative Practice Model: Many creative practices operate as an ‘unfurling inquiry.’ The most significant ethical or intellectual findings are emergent; they arise from the researcher's responsiveness to the evolving material, context, or participant interaction, and therefore cannot be fully described until they have happened.

By insisting that all protocols and procedures must be entirely known and fixed from the outset, means the University IRB system risks devaluing and effectively vetoing research where the methodology and significant discoveries are necessarily iterative and responsive. This type of approach excludes a valid and unique form of knowledge production. Such a vital shift places a corresponding responsibility on artists/researchers to do two things. 1. Provide a framework for the project that sets parameters for activity for the creative inquiry to emerge so ethical dimensions of the project can be comprehensively grasped. And 2. Systematically document and articulate their creative processes, ensuring the rigor and intent behind their embodied knowledge is transparent and accessible for academic study and the wider community.

Therefore, this systemic reform advocates for several propositions:

More of the article can be requested at cteague@ju.edu

References

Bergson, H. (1946). The creative mind. Citadel Press.

Bolt, B. (2007). The Magic is in Handling. In E. Barrett & B. Bolt (Eds.). Practice as research: Approaches to creative arts enquiry (pp. 27–34). I. B.Tauris.

https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/practice-as-research-approaches-to-creative-arts-enquiry/ch2-the-magic-is-in-handling

Fuschini, L. (2009). Practice-as-Research: In performance and screen. Palgrave MacMillan.

Green, J. (2001). Socially constructed bodies in American dance classrooms. Research in Dance Education, 2(2), 155–173.

Livingston, R. (2020). How to Create Racial Equity in the Workplace a Five Step Plan. Harvard Business Review.

Nelson, R. (2013). Practice as research in the arts: Principles, protocols, pedagogies, resistances. Springer.

Spatz, B. (2017a). Choreography as research: Iteration, object, context. In J. Butterworth, & L. Wildschut, (Eds.). Contemporary Choreography: A Critical Reader (pp. 68-82 ). Routledge.

Spatz, B. (2017b). Embodied research: A methodology. Liminalities, 13 (2), 1-31.