Methodology and Methods – Lecture 3 Research Strategies

by stronged

I felt quite honoured to listen in on a panel discussion with such esteemed academics this evening. This lecture began with a disclaimer from the MC that not one method can produce multiple, differing products. Methodology is a evolving practice that changes every time you approach an inquiry/project.

  1. Professor Lyndal Jones
  2. Professor Martyn Hook
  3. Professor Jeremy Diggle
  4. Doctor Marcelo Stamm
  5. Professor Lesley Duxbury
  6. Assoc. Professor Pia Ednie-Brown (MC)




1 – Lyndal mentioned improv pioneer Keith Johnstone as inspiring particular methodology she uses in her practice; the “yes, and” tactic.

1 – She also discussed how she appropriates skills from other disciplines to inform her work (i.e. using the structure of a musical piece to inform her narrative construction as opposed to relying on the strictures of traditional narratology.

2 – Research informs practice, practice extracts research.

2 – Preferred the term “manner” than “method” as this implies an aspirational purpose as much as a reality. Highlights that this is a personal undertaking, feeding into aspects of your own personality.

3 – “In the act of remembering something you destroy the memory.”

4 – Marcelo used the metaphor/analogy of fighting close to the bull – you must conduct your research like this, becoming as close to your subject/topic as possible. However, there is also a danger in immersing yourself out of your practice by descending into theory/academia rather than continuing to create.

4 – Where’s your argument? Show it rather than tell it. A benefit of studying filmmaking as a chosen discipline is the self-reflective nature of it. You are always capturing something. Archiving it.

3 – “Conversation is the same as looking.”

I feel that this is a very important aspect to highlight. I have found by discussing my concepts with others key elements are highlighted for me to delve into. It is yet another way to articulate my ideas and direction.

It was funny to hear Jeremy experiencing an epiphany whilst watching water considering my Precursor questioning begins with water as it’s subject. He says that he found that water consists of circles. This made him aware of the interconnectedness of all things. How everything exists as vibrations. This altered his perspective of how he understands his environment and his practice.

1 – Lyndal began to speak about the more personal nature of Research. That it really is about finding your own voice in order to relate to others. The method is the communication to ourself, about what we are actually doing. There is a fear and delight experienced when illuminating that which is so close we cannot see; our true self.

This resonated deeply with me. We only understand who we are from our behaviour; what we do. So, by this rationale, the practice of research is really the practice of being. And reflecting upon this in order to articulate this process is how we discover who we are – and how we be – exist

6 – The act of writing a PhD or academic paper is grasping a collective moment individually.

This statement appropriately expands on what Danielle introduced us to in the last Futures seminar. The process of getting an academic article published involves first gaining acceptance from the publisher. Then the publisher sends it off to other academics specialised in this area to critique and note where amendments must be made – this is called an academic review. The article will then be sent back to the publisher (somewhat of a middle-man) and returned to you to make the changes (if any are needed) before publication. So, an academic piece is not just one voice really, it is the collective voice of that area/discipline in academia. This is a comforting thought. Very democratic.

5 – Adopting the same conditions for your text that you hold for your practice is a productive approach.  This equality promotes a complimentary nature to your research.

3 – “Practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, before your best performance.” The practice must be repeatable in order to nail your best possible performance.

2 – One must be rigorous in three ways: 1) Practice, 2) Reflection, and 3) articulating the process.

2 – Your research question changes more and more as your practice progresses.

This claim relaxes me. I feel the whole process of academic research you are on unsteady ground. At sea with crashing waves as you fervently try to catch a fish. And it has taken me a long time to resign to the fact that I must accept this condition. Embrace the sea-sickness. The unsteady ground. The elusive research question that I swear is somewhere out there, I just have no idea how to capture it.

2 – Treat the research proposal as a grant application – it is a starting point. Not set in concrete.

This needs to be emphasised more in Honours to save the initial palpitations and unnecessary anxiety I for one have experienced. My question is ever-changing.

Trying to explain my interest in generative media to Tully and Kim before I found I stitched myself up. I have no idea how to articulate such a fresh concept. I need to read and write and read and write and film and edit and read and write before I feel like I have the slightest prospect of achieving a sound explanation. Trouble is, lack of time.