Questioning Creative Practice Human Research Ethics

RESEARCH STATEMENT

The research question

How does university human research ethics process intersect with creative practice research?

Methodology

The work uses creative practice research methodology.

Methods include

A literature review of some of the researchers who question current human research ethics processes in relation to creative practice.

Critical reflection on this literature

Placing this research in the embodied position of the researcher. This is guided by decolonising scholar, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, who explains that “research is not an innocent or distant academic exercise”. There is always “something at stake” and it “occurs in a set of political and social conditions” (2012, 5). 

The work uses the affordances of film and visual metaphor as a way of re-enforcing the ideas being explored.

Creative Process

Creating a film about research ethics presented an interesting challenge in terms of how to visually and aurally represent this set of ideas. 

When the imagery is not immediately apparent, my usual process is to search through my folders of what I call “orphan images.” These are images that I have recorded without a particular project in mind. Through this process I found the still image of the sculptural fragment of the hands meeting in an act of friendship. I then decided to film my own hands mimicking the gesture of the sculpture. There is a sensuality in the images of the slowly moving hands that is evocative of the tentative relationship formed between participants and artist researchers.

I thought about what the hands might occasionally hold, as a metaphor. I mostly use other orphan images, and found archival images related to the discussion, to add to these visuals.

The open hand that forms the interstitial is inspired by an image I have of signs in Tibet which use the open hand as a directional pointer. I use the magpie warble over the interstitials to mimic how magpies in Melbourne warble as humans pass by, as a way of acknowledging a new presence moving into the place.

Discussion

The film itself contains the discussion. Below is the abstract for the work.

One of my first tasks at the creative arts tertiary institution where I work was to examine the existing ethics processes and policy. As a result, I delved into the growing literature on creative practice research ethics to examine the ways in which academic ethics and creative practice research interact. A particular focus of this work is the human research ethics process, with its underlying principle of reduction of harm by the researcher on the individual researched person. I investigate this by reflecting on the experiences of researchers as documented in the literature, as well as reflecting on my own experience. This work examines the tensions that arise between the underlying assumptions of university ethics that emerged from the medical science’s Nuremberg Code, the realities of interacting with participants in creative practice research, and existing creative industry moral codes. In particular, I explore whether ethics can be discipline specific; the potentially harmful effect of participant anonymity; using a rolling consent process to allow for changing circumstances and understanding; who the consent is between, for instance, a researcher and a community; and self-care of the researcher. As a result of the discussion, I challenge existing university research practices as directing researchers into a colonial relationship with the researched. This research has implications for how universities manage their human research ethics and audit research.

Impact

The work has been presented at ASPERA 2023, The Many Faces and Spaces of Precarity in the Moving Image 2023 and at a guest lecture at AFTRS in 2024. The work explores some ideas that are also part of a written paper by the author “Questioning creative practice human research ethics” in The International Journal of Creative Media Research in 2022.

PEER REVIEW 1 

The work has a number of potential areas of interest and relevance: 

• Potential to bring obscure and often litigational language into “filmic” language, so as to make it more accessible, but also to add layers of meaning to what is often a dry and overly-objectified discourse around ethics “processes” at universities which are, in reality, embodied and impactful in the real world on many levels.

• Potential to explore an area of ethical concern often overlooked, especially in creative practice based research, especially in an era when a number of broadcast industry practitioners have made the move into university research positions. 

• Potential to shift existing understandings of research ethics in practice based research, according to the specific conditions in that form of research, rather than that form of research having to conform to an approach to an ethics ideology born from other contexts, for example STEM.

  
  

In terms of bringing ethics into a filmic plane and making use of the polysemic potentialities of audio-visual expression, this is a successful text. It uses a variation on an established video essay approach with a continuous narrative, akin to a formally composed essay with references, with accompanying visual and audio elements. The result underlines the call for a more grounded and bespoke set of ethical approaches, as the film emerges from the author’s direct experience and work. I’m not sure whether the use of metaphor is convincing regarding the subject matter, and this level of metaphoric expression might need some extra ingredient for it to speak to the subject matter more powerfully. Perhaps the “video essay” aspect of the work could be emphasised through onscreen citations and quotations; this would help the explication of dense written textual matter, and also perhaps enable a closer “filmic” reading of the other layers within the work.

In terms of exploring an overlooked ethical area within screen-based practice research, the work certainly makes a valuable contribution. It is here that the “weave” of the work is at its most effective, especially when expanding on the ex-broadcasting background a number of practice researchers have (including myself). Might it be possible to be more nuanced here? Is it true that all industrial media makers are blind to ethics as is claimed? Perhaps terms can be defined a bit more here (for example, industry) and possibly the written component of the work can help with positioning some of the video work’s discourse.

In terms of helping to shift existing understandings of research ethics in practice as research, according to the specific conditions in that form of research, this is potentially a very valuable work. I can imagine it being usefully watched by research administrators and other institutional gatekeepers. Perhaps, this potentially highly valuable advocacy function for the work again suggests the need for a slightly clearer onscreen exposition of the research being quoted from?

There is definitely evidence here of a question, and a problem to be examined. There is evidence of innovation, especially on an institutional basis. To conduct an institutional level examination of research in film practice THROUGH film practice is unusual, if not pioneering. In which case there is definitely evidence of new knowledge, interpretation, and insight. The contextualization of the work could be tighter; that is the question around the institutional framing and (un)appropriateness of this method in the university milieu. A more detailed account of the specific textual methods used might help deepen an understanding of how this film “works” to answer its question. It might also help others follow this example and initiate a discussion in filmic form.

PEER REVIEW 2

Catherine Gough Brady’s Questioning Creative Practice Human Research Ethics (2023) uses imagery of two hands overlapped to explore ethics within creative practice research and how that compares to the human research ethics process. The various imagery of the overlapped hands works to highlight the centrality of ethical collaboration between participant and researcher central to her practice as a documentary filmmaker. Whilst the film speaks broadly to research by creative practice, the central argument around an ethics of “no harm” between researcher, participants, and those we’re collaborating with, alongside the essayistic nature of the film, make it more relevant to documentary media creative practice researchers.

The film is reflected on by Gough-Brady as a literature review which questions human research ethics which the film does through the voice-over quoting specific researchers in this field. The pacing of the edit is slow with each image lingering, drawing attention to what is being said over what is seen. Whilst the overlapping hands work as a visual metaphor to re-enforce the collaborative argument of the film, I found some of the other imagery, such as the tree during the “Accountable” section less impactful in its metaphoric connection with what was being said. Gough-Brady speaks about the imagery as largely “images recorded without a particular project in mind,” so I wonder whether there could have been more of a mix between these “orphan images” and images filmed specifically for this project? This could have strengthened the metaphoric relationship between voice-over and imagery to further explore how the affordances of the filmic medium could work with and emphasise what was being said.

As Questioning Creative Practice Human Research Ethics is organised as an essay film through a quote as provocation followed by a set of key considerations, the issue of ethics in creative practice research is positioned as a central inquiry of the film. Evidence from key scholars are used in each section to provide a range of perspectives and build an argument. New knowledge emerges in the speculative conclusion which considers what university ethics can bring to creative practice research and vice versa. The argument that rolling consent and renegotiation can allow for ethical creative practice research is compelling, particularly in creative practice projects which shift and change with the possibilities of bringing new collaborators on board. I view this literature review essay film as an opening to discussion on this topic, where I look forward to future projects which put these ethical considerations into practice.

The research statement suggests the film contains the discussion which it does, so this provides an opportunity for the research statement to speak more about the methodology. For instance, I would like to know more about the methodology of how the film was made, particularly around how the voice-over and imagery come together. Was the voice-over written specifically for a video piece or is it a piece of writing which evolved into a video?

RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEWS

“Is it true that all industrial media makers are blind to ethics as is claimed?”

I stand by my comment in the film when I say:

“Industry ethical codes differ from university ethical codes and all of these codes have flaws, blind spots, and spaces where they create unintended harm.” 

I think it is important to note that I use the term “blind spots” not “blind.” I am referring to the way our ethical standards in the broadcast industry are patchy at best. A close examination of behaviour in the film and TV industry reveals significant ethical problems: for instance, gender (Verhoeven et al., 2020), treatment of workers (Dutton et al., 2024), and inclusion of diversity (O’Meara et al., 2023). There are certain industry actors who aim to behave ethically; in Australia NITV is our most ethical broadcaster and organisations like Bus Stop Films are bringing about positive change. Despite this, the broadcast system relies on a set of power relations that mean, in most cases, final decisions are made by the broadcaster who has power to control principal aspects of distribution, a significant part of the budget, and editorial control over the cut including how anyone in it is depicted. This hierarchical control means that other parties involved have limited ability to ensure that ethical principles are upheld.

“The written discussion could also allow for some more definition of key terms, such as ‘industry’, and an explanation of the limits set around the literature review, such as the absence of a discussion of documentary film ethics (Aufderheide, McDougall, Winston, etc).” All three of the above authors have written important works examining various aspects of documentary ethics, primarily around ethical obligations in relationship to the person being filmed and to the audience. In this work, I am focused on the intersection of industry and academic ethical practices, rather than a detailed analysis of the documentary screen industry perceptions of their ethical standards. In this work I include the documentary filmmaker and academic Stephen Thomas’s (2019) examination of rolling consent as a useful method that could be applied to university creative practice human research ethics.

Being asked to define the film “industry” is an interesting proposition. I am loath to lock it down in an exclusionary manner, instead I will give a loose and broad definition: it includes when screen workers are paid to create a screen work intended for public distribution.

“I would like to know more about the methodology of how the film was made, particularly around how the voice-over and imagery come together. Was the voice-over written specifically for a video piece or is it a piece of writing which evolved into a video?”

and

“I think on this occasion the textual introduction could be expanded to say something more about the reasons/practice of metaphor in this form of work”

I see filmmaking as relational and embodied. As Laura Marks points out “In embodied spectatorship the senses and the intellect are not separate” (2000, 151). I make intuitive decisions that are formed through years of experience and knowledge that I have developed.

I began this film knowing it was about human research ethics and that I had to find an image for the project that could form a starting point. When I saw the hands I knew and importantly, felt, that this is the right image for what I wanted to say. This process of “looking” for images that speak to me reflects Susan Kerrigan’s analysis of the filmmaking process as “drawing from both spectating and film-making as a united creative practice” (2016, 196). The relational process between myself and the images is a key part of the process and this relational process includes the audio elements.

All of my films are created through a dialogue between audio and visual elements. As I cut the film together the images and the audio elements build on each other, and edit each other in the creation of the work. This means that there are many drafts of the voice over as it adapts to speak to the images (and the images speak back). It is important to notice that I write about this process as being between the images and the audio, rather than my control over them. A non-fiction edit is a dialogical process where the editor is allowing the film to emerge from the material.

I find it interesting that both reviewers are not convinced by the hands as a metaphor. When I started to film my hands, I was genuinely surprised by how tactile and evocative the micro movements in touch are. There is a vulnerability in those slight movements of skin against skin, which I see as reflective of the experience of working with participants. I have noticed that I develop an intimate non-sexual haptic connection with those I film, my hand is inside their top or dress as I secure the mic to their body. I am watching them closely and notice how they feel as well as micro changes in their moods. They allow me to do this, and over time they expect it. My hand is linked to my eye via the camera and lens, the hand and the eye become one. The relationship continues into the edit between myself and their images where I watch and hear them again and again over the course of the edit as I touch the keyboard. These are, no doubt, the reasons why I chose hands as the key image for the film.

REFERENCES

Dutton, Jonathan, Jo Briscoe, and Ben Steel. 2024. Leadership Matters: Responding to the Calls for Cultural Change to Improve the Creative, Commercial and Workforce Sustainability Outcomes of the Australian Screen Industry. The University of Melbourne & ScreenWell.

Kerrigan, Susan. 2016. “The spectator in the film-maker: re-framing filmology through creative film-making practices.” Journal of Media Practice 17 no. 2-3, 186-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2016.1248172.

Marks, Laura. 2000. The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses. Duke University Press.

O’Meara, Radha, Laura Dunstan, Anna Debinski, and Catherine Ryan. 2023. Disability and Screen Work in Australia: Report for Industry. Melbourne Disability Institute.

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies : Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.

Thomas, Stephen. 2019. “Stories of Freedom: A Reflexive Account of Collaboration and Ethics in Documentary Filmmaking.” In The Meeting of Aesthetics and Ethics in the Academy: Challenges for Creative Practice Researchers in Higher Education, edited by Kate MacNeill and Barbara Bolt, 1st Edition. Routledge - Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429197321.

Verhoeven, Deb, Katarzyna Musial, Stuart Palmer, Sarah Taylor, Shaukat Abidi, Vejune Zemaityte, and Lachlan Simpson. 2020. “Controlling for openness in the male-dominated collaborative networks of the global film industry.” PLoS One 15, no. 6. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234460