Fostering methodological literacy and research identity in creative-practice HDR education: Insights from a pilot seminar series

Abstract

This paper evaluates a pilot Methodology Seminar Series, designed to support Contemporary Art Higher Degree Research (HDR) candidates in developing and articulating practice-led research methodologies. Conducted over six sessions from June to October 2025, the series provided a structured, dialogic environment for exploring practice-led research frameworks through key readings, reflective discussion, and practitioner insights. Using a mixed-methods evaluation– pre- and post-series surveys and participant observation– the study reports gains in candidates’ confidence, conceptual clarity, and ability to articulate methodology within creative practice research. Although limited by a small cohort size and one author’s involvement in supervising participants, findings highlight the effectiveness of discipline-specific, cohort-based training in bridging theoretical and practical knowledge, fostering research culture, and mitigating isolation often experienced in HDR pathways. Recommendations include extending session duration, incorporating writing workshops, and adopting blended delivery modes to enhance accessibility. This initiative offers a replicable framework for strengthening methodological development in creative arts doctoral education.

Introduction

Doctoral training, especially within creative practice disciplines, continues to receive consideration. With increased focus on employability and industry readiness for research students (Skills and capabilities for Australian enterprise innovation Report, Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA): 2016) ¹ internal or local research training is still considered critical and valuable alongside the development of the thesis. Australian researchers have long argued for the bespoke nature of creative arts and humanities students - even more so for those undertaking creative practice research (Brien et al., 2020; Hamilton and Jaaniste, 2014; Brooke et al., 2024, among others). This article uses a specific case study of a localised doctoral training intervention to examine the importance of discipline specific, cohort-based training activities. The 2025 pilot Methodology Seminar Series was developed to address a gap in Contemporary Art HDR candidates’ understanding of methodological frameworks. Presented in a small-group format in a university gallery, the seminar allowed students to discuss selected readings (Appendix 1), relate theory to their own practice and lived experience, and reflect critically on methodological approaches. During one seminar, faculty members in creative practice research gave short presentations on their practice-led methodologies. Overall, the series facilitated key insights by aligning theory and practice, delivering highly effective pedagogy through dialogue and lived experience, and fostering a collegial research culture that valued diverse perspectives. This evaluation assesses the effectiveness of the series and provides recommendations and potential expansion based on the findings of the research. Author Feeney, in her capacity as a supervisor, identified a gap in the understanding of methodological frameworks among Contemporary Art candidates. Feeney observed that candidates struggled with how to bring together established discourse with ‘non-conventional academic data’ (Brien et al., 2017: 9) to establish frameworks for generating knowledge through practice. While this can be a common challenge for candidates working in a creative practice mode, this cohort – perhaps in response to staffing or curriculum changes – were identified as having potential for growth. The project’s overarching aim is to assess how this seminar series functions as a learning space for candidates to engage with methodological concepts, frameworks, and reflective practice within creative practice research.

To evaluate the seminar, a mixed-methods approach was employed–incorporating a pre-series survey to establish baseline understanding and needs, participant observation to capture ongoing engagement and learning processes, and a post-series survey to assess outcomes, reflections, and perceived value. This approach enabled both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the seminar’s effectiveness in supporting HDR candidates’ understanding and application of creative-practice methodologies.

Insights indicate notable gains in candidates’ methodological literacy and confidence, underscoring the value of structured, discipline-specific support within creative practice research. Participants demonstrated clearer conceptual understanding and greater reflexivity in articulating practice-led methodologies. Initial uncertainty gave way to a more confident and nuanced grasp of methodological principles. Self-reported confidence in discussing methodology increased notably, with participants expressing a stronger ability to differentiate between method, theory, and practice. The integration of dialogue, readings, and lived experience in the seminar design proved highly effective, receiving near-perfect ratings for its impact on learning and engagement. The series also contributed to a supportive research culture, fostering collegial exchange, mutual recognition, and deeper discussion around the nature of creative research. These outcomes highlight the value of structured, discipline-specific initiatives within the higher education sector, where they can play a pivotal role in strengthening research capability, confidence, and community among creative-practice scholars.

Background

Nationally, the UniSA 2025 pilot Methodology Seminar Series aligns with broader efforts to support practice-led HDR candidates, including: Australian National University’s Practice-led Research: Writing Methods course; Monash University’s Practice-based Research: Design, methods and modes of representation course; Central Queensland University’s Creative Arts Research Training Academy (CARTA), and the University of Sydney’s Art as Research course. ² While ANU and Monash provide structured instruction on articulating methodologies and developing creative-practice research, CQU’s CARTA offers research intensives, workshops, and peer-feedback sessions, and the University of Sydney emphasises philosophical and theoretical engagement within creative arts HDRs. The UniSA seminar series is distinctive in its discipline-specific focus on Contemporary Art candidates, its non-assessed, seminar-based model, and its integrated evaluation design (pre- and post-surveys plus participant observation).

Internationally, programs such as the Practice-led Art Studies (PASS) Centre at the University of Copenhagen and the University of Brighton’s Arts & Creative Practices Doctoral Training Program ³ provide intensive workshops, supervisor training, and structured opportunities for doctoral candidates to explore practice-led research and its dissemination. Situating UniSA alongside these initiatives demonstrates the university’s engagement with a global trajectory of creative-practice HDR development. By foregrounding practitioner voice, embedding methodological development early in candidature, and providing a replicable scaffold for creative-research education the UniSA seminar series contributes to national and international efforts to strengthen visibility and pedagogical support for knowledge generated through creative practice enabled research.

Creative practice as research

Knowledge generated through creative practice research is often tacit (Polanyi, 2009 [1966]), or embodied and is integral to the creative researcher’s doing or lived experience. Different to traditional forms of knowledge, which are often explicit and exist independently of the researcher, creative practice research requires ‘reflection-in-action’ (Schön, 2016 [1986]; Candy, 2022). These tacit, personal and reflective elements can pose challenges for creative PhD candidates in understanding how to design, implement and articulate their methodology (McNiff, 2012; Brabazon, 2020; Batty and Zalipour, 2024, among others). Much progress has been made since early proponents of practice-based research in academic contexts (Barrett and Bolt, 2010; Borgdoff, 2010; Biggs and Büchler, 2007) first argued for the legitimacy of knowledge produced through practice. However, outputs of practice-led research, often termed Non-Traditional Research Outputs (NTROs), continue to be defined largely in negative terms—that is, by what they are ‘not’, rather than by affirming their positive and distinctive contributions to knowledge. Consequently, many creative-practice PhD researchers find the formal research environment intimidating and have expressed uncertainty about how their methodology—often entangling personal reflection, process, and outcome—produces new knowledge. This challenge is heightened when candidates compare their work to peers in traditional disciplines such as the sciences or humanities, where making or practice is not directly involved and the researcher is often positioned as having a more distanced or ‘objective’ relationship to the research outputs. Within this context, the 2025 Methodology Seminar Series responds directly to creative practice research frameworks and sector-wide needs by situating HDR candidates within a structured, reflexive environment for engaging with methodological literacy. Aligning with the epistemic and pedagogical frameworks articulated by Borgdorff (2010), Nelson (2022), and Batty and Zalipour (2024), the series fosters understanding of creative practice as an authentic form of knowledge production rather than a supplementary mode of inquiry. The series’ small-group, dialogic format emphasises peer exchange and learning directly from artistic mentors, which are pedagogical strategies that reflect international trends in practice-led research training both nationally and internationally. Through its focus on methodological articulation and practitioner voice, UniSA’s initiative advances Australia’s leadership in creative research education, offering a replicable model that bridges theory, pedagogy, and practice in postgraduate training.

The foundations of artistic and practice-led research are rooted in an epistemological redefinition of what constitutes knowledge in the arts. Borgdorff (2010) establishes artistic research as a legitimate and distinctive form of inquiry, characterised by ontological, epistemological, and methodological perspectives that position artistic practice itself as a mode of ‘unfinished thinking’. He argues that the knowledge generated through art is non-conceptual, embodied, and often resistant to translation into traditional academic discourse. It is important to recognise that Borgdorff’s framing reflects an early stage in practice-led research discourse, when scholars were still arguing for the legitimacy of artistic knowledge within existing academic paradigms. His emphasis on the ‘non-conceptual’ and the difficulty of translating artistic insight into established scholarly forms describes not a deficiency in artistic knowledge, but a mismatch between creative epistemologies and inherited academic conventions. From a contemporary perspective, such claims can appear to position artistic research as needing to conform to traditional modes of knowledge articulation. However, subsequent developments in the field increasingly argue that it is the academy that must expand its parameters to accommodate the distinctive forms of thinking-in-practice and pre-reflective knowledge that creative research produces. This shift highlights an ongoing reorientation: rather than creative practice bending toward academic discourse, academic discourse is very gradually acknowledging and adapting to the epistemic richness and validity of practice-led inquiry.

In a complementary vein, Biggs and Büchler (2007: 1) contend that rigour in practice-led research arises not from replicating scientific models but from establishing transparency, coherence, and traceability within the creative process, thereby validating artistic practice as a robust research method. Similarly, Gibson (2010) describes artistic research as producing “third-space” knowledge that bridges propositional understanding (“knowing that”) with embodied experience (“knowing how”). His work underscores the significance of ambiguity, affect, and lived experience as essential components of creative knowledge production. More recently, Candy and Edmonds (2018: 63-69) have expanded these foundations by emphasising the centrality of practitioner-led creative processes, arguing that practice generates new insights by driving an iterative, materially engaged system of inquiry, while recognising that practice-led research may also take immaterial, conceptual, or digital forms that are not grounded in material engagement. Their work highlights how contemporary creative practice research integrates interdisciplinary methods, demonstrating that artistic knowledge is dynamic, situated, and co-produced. Together, these foundational texts challenge positivist paradigms, establishing the arts as a field that generates knowledge through doing, sensing, and reflecting rather than through detached observation or empirical measurement.

Building on these philosophical foundations, more recent scholarship has sought to articulate the evolving role of the artist within institutional and methodological frameworks. Mottram (2021) examines the historical development of practice-based research in the visual arts, identifying persistent tensions between creative processes and academic systems of validation. Nelson advances this discourse through his ‘multi-mode epistemological model’ (2022: 43), distinguishing between tacit, reflective, and contextual domains of knowledge. His model provides a framework for understanding the transition from practitioner to practitioner-researcher, offering practical strategies for reflection, documentation, and research design. Bayley extends these ideas through a new materialist lens, arguing for ‘many-worlded’ (2023: 3) and diffractive approaches that view practice and research as entangled processes rather than hierarchical categories. In parallel, Olivier highlights the significance of authorial voice and agency in academic writing, suggesting that for creative practitioners, articulating the reflective and theoretical dimensions of practice is itself a negotiation of identity and epistemic legitimacy within institutional contexts (2018: 5-6).

Recent contributions have also turned toward developing frameworks that clarify how knowledge is generated, articulated, and shared in creative practice research. Candy, Vear, and Edmonds (Vear et al., 2022) identify three interrelated domains of knowledge—conceptual, procedural, and experiential—and propose strategies for articulating tacit knowledge as a form of intellectual contribution. Building on this, Batty and Zalipour (2024) introduce the Creative Knowledges Enabling Framework (CKEF), which conceptualises the relationships between practical, methodological, and conceptual knowledge as dynamic and iterative. These approaches move beyond defending artistic research’s legitimacy toward elaborating its epistemic architectures and methodological rigour. Collectively, this evolving body of literature demonstrates a field increasingly confident in its pluralism, where embodied, affective, and reflective modes of inquiry coexist with theoretical and institutional analysis, shaping a situated and relational understanding of creative research as both process and product.

Central to the pedagogical aims of this project is the role of exegesis writing. Writing within creative practice research demands a nuanced understanding of how artistic knowledge is produced, articulated, and situated within doctoral inquiry. The challenges of exegetical writing is emphasised by Brien et al. (2017) who elucidate the complexities of the relationship between creative outcomes, the research question and the written component as interpretive and defined through a multitude of understandings within the academy (2017: 6-9). Complementing this, Olivier (2018a) highlights the role of authorial voice in thesis writing, proposing that when students are empowered they find their voice in their writing. Writing in fine art doctorates is inherently multimodal, requiring forms of textual articulation that reflect the complexity, materiality, and tacit dimensions of creative processes (Macleod and Holdridge, 2011). Documenting the creative journey is crucial as Nimkulrat et al. (2016: 5) state, ‘Documentation reveals the process of making artefacts as well as the artistic researcher’s experience of making in a form that can be used as research data for analysis’. Writing in creative practice research operates as a parallel creative process that underpins the methodological dimension of doctoral inquiry, articulating the forms of knowledge generated through artistic practice. As this project focused specifically on research methodology, exegesis writing supported by rigorous documentation, reflection, and critical analysis, emerged as a central concern within the seminar series.

Research aim and objectives

The 2025 pilot Methodology Seminar Series was guided by a set of interrelated objectives aimed at strengthening research training for Contemporary Art HDR candidates. These objectives included responding to candidates’ needs for understanding, developing, and writing about methodology and theoretical frameworks, and fostering a stronger research culture among current and incoming cohorts. The series aimed to develop a pedagogical framework demonstrating how creative practice methodologies generate knowledge and how this can be articulated within artefacts and exegeses, while simultaneously enhancing candidates’ confidence in navigating their unique research journeys. Further objectives included highlighting the significance of creative practice as a knowledge-generating process, strengthening the practitioner voice within the academy, contributing to research skills training aligned with Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) levels 8–10, and establishing scaffolding for future seminar content and flexible delivery models. Crucially, the seminar also sought to evaluate how a practice-led research methodology seminar series can provide effective, discipline-specific training and support for both HDR candidates and supervisors. Collectively, these aims positioned the seminar series as both a responsive and forward-looking initiative within the discipline, supporting the development of reflective, methodologically literate, and confident creative-practice researchers.

Research question

How can a practice-based/led research methodology seminar series provide effective, discipline-specific training and support for HDR candidates and supervisors?

Seminar series methodology and methods

The Methodology Seminar Series comprised six sessions delivered between June and October 2025, with voluntary participation from Contemporary Art HDR candidates. Each session was facilitated by Feeney and centred on one to two key readings (See Appendix 1) designed to stimulate discussion on practice-led research methodology. Each seminar introduced one to two texts for discussion led by Feeney. Seminar topics included: Practice as a generator of knowledge (Borgdorff, 2010; Mottram, 2021); Making methodology explicit (Nelson, 2022); Ways of knowing in practice research (Batty and Zalipour, 2024); developing voice with and beyond the artefact (Olivier, 2018b); practice research as a way of knowing and engaging with the world (Bayley, 2023), and combining firsthand experience with critical distance (Gibson, 2010). In Seminar 5, four faculty colleagues presented recent examples of their creative practice methodology.

Author backgrounds

The three authors of this article had differing roles within the series and the subsequent evaluation. Author Feeney is a supervisor of some of the candidates—both as Principal and Co-Supervisor—and motivated the series in response to her observations of the student cohorts. Author Neville is an experienced creative practitioner, a cotutelle PhD graduate of Deakin University/Coventry University, and not a current supervisor of any of the included student participants. While Feeney was the seminar facilitator and led the group discussions, Neville was the observer for the sessions and occasionally contributed to the participant discussion. Author Ellison was the Dean of Research for UniSA Creative, with responsibility for research training within the local academic organisational unit. With a background of leading research training at multiple institutions, she was an interested party who did not observe or participate in the session. She is the Co-Supervisor of one of the candidates.

Data collection methods

A mixed-methods design (Archibald and Gerber, 2018) combined pre- and post-series surveys (Appendix 2.1 and Appendix 2.3) with participant observation facilitated by author Neville, to evaluate the program. Participants read the selected texts before each seminar. At the beginning of the session, the facilitator asked one or two questions about the readings, inviting participants to identify key concepts, passages, or questions from the reading and to briefly explain why these resonated with their own practice or methodological concerns. This tactic served as an accessible entry point into discussion and established the dialogic structure for the session. From there, the facilitator used open-ended prompts to encourage deeper reflection. These included asking participants to compare the reading with their current methodological challenges, or to articulate points of alignment or tension between theory and their creative processes. As discussion unfolded, the facilitator responded to the emergent themes raised by participants, allowing the conversation to develop organically while still guiding it toward methodological articulation, shared problem-solving, and the co-construction of meaning. This reflective, dialogic approach formed the backbone of the seminar design and supported the collaborative, practice-focused inquiry that the series aimed to foster. Neville observed and documented this discussion regarding the readings and subsequent discourse related to participants’ own PhD projects. Additionally, she noted participant interaction with their peers and facilitator Feeney, while also observing changes in participant commentary and interaction over the duration of the six seminars. Participants signed a consent form (Appendix 2.1) and the entry survey collected baseline data on participants’ demographics, prior experience with practice-led research, and expectations, while the post-series survey assessed perceived impact, confidence, and conceptual development. Participant observation offered real-time insight into how dialogue, questioning, and peer interaction contributed to methodological learning.

Following Archibald (2018), qualitative responses (survey and observations) were thematically coded and quantitative data (Qualtrics surveys) examined for descriptive trends, enabling both a detailed understanding of participant learning and an evaluation of the seminar’s pedagogical effectiveness. Extending early models of group interaction such as Bales’s (1950) Interaction Process Analysis, through current models of observing group interactions (Blaydes and Goud, 2023; Hermkes et al., 2018), offered a processual perspective with dynamic, co-constructed pedagogical exchange. While Bales, Blaydes and Goud focused on categorising communication within small groups, Hermkes et al. highlight the evolving, dialogic nature of collective learning. Their model conceptualises scaffolding as a socially distributed process that unfolds through cycles of diagnosis, intervention, and fading allowing both teacher and participants to negotiate understanding in real time. Drawing on both frameworks, the study employed coded observation to examine teacher–student and student–student interactions, capturing patterns of engagement, questioning, and collaborative meaning-making. This hybrid approach situates interaction analysis within contemporary creative-practice pedagogy, where reflexive dialogue and shared authorship play a central in shaping collective inquiry. The coded observational data were then integrated with thematic and survey findings to connect behavioural interaction patterns with participants’ reported shifts in confidence and methodological understanding.

Participants

All respondents (8) were PhD candidates, predominantly female (7) and enrolled full-time (7), spanning early (3), mid (3) to late (2) candidature stages. High continuity between pre (8) and post (7) surveys indicated sustained engagement. Whilst this series was intended for contemporary arts PhD candidates, 2 additional candidates requested to attend, 1 participant from design and 1 from creative writing.

Survey results

The participants reported that most (4) had started their methodology pre-methodology series, whilst a few (2) had not. Comparatively, after the series all participants were currently developing their methodologies, while one reported to have completed theirs. All participants who had undertaken the task of developing their methodology, whether before or after the seminar, series reported finding it challenging or very challenging. Prior to starting the series, 5 out of 8 participants had some experience developing and writing practice-led methodologies as part of a compulsory credit-based Honours course included in the Creative Practice Honours program offered at UniSA ⁴ .

Before the seminar series was presented, participants described a sense of uncertainty and fluidity in defining their research methodologies, noting that their continually evolving approaches made it difficult to articulate them in writing. Many sought to develop methodological frameworks that meaningfully aligned with their creative practices, yet found it challenging to integrate practice, reading, and writing into a coherent process. As one participant reflected, ‘the “how” is a big challenge—how do you go about developing your own methodology?’ Several recalled earlier stages of study such as Honours, as times when methodology felt more alive and conceptually engaging, expressing a desire to recapture that sense of excitement and clarity. Overall, participants conveyed that the expansive and often ambiguous nature of creative-practice research, combined with limited experience, contributed to feelings of uncertainty about how to refine and sustain their methodological development.

After the series, participants identified several challenges when designing, developing, and writing about their methodology. A common tension exists between working on the creative artifact and working on the exegesis. Another key challenge was described as, ‘innovating a methodology that is rigorous but also authentically tailored to my unique research context’. Participants also observed a lack of relevant training: ‘it has become apparent how few EDGEx ⁵ training workshops at UniSA relate to creative practice or practice-based research. It’s been difficult to find training with the right level of relevance and specificity’. For many, this seminar series has addressed that gap, with one participant noting, ‘Deirdre and Sarah have tapped into a research training gap, and my own project has benefited enormously from the content they put together’, and expressing a desire for more sessions like this in the future.

In the pre-seminar survey participants were asked about their hopes for the Methodology Seminar Series and how it might support them in understanding, developing, and writing about methodology in their exegesis by combining theoretical guidance with lived perspectives. Many valued hearing about others’ experiences, noting that ‘we are able to discuss the theory, but also the ways it plays out in practice, which can be messier than some research papers imply’. Candid conversations about challenges were particularly appreciated, with one participant reflecting that they ‘make the task feel more grounded in the individual candidate's experience and make moving forward feel more achievable’. Engagement with key texts was also important: ‘Reading key text that can inform my methodology and unpacking the texts… will be helpful to understand what methodology is and how it can be applied in my practice’. Participants wanted more examples and strategies, explaining that ‘by providing examples of methodology and ways of thinking about them… discussion in the group to see where other researchers are struggling and finding solutions’ is useful.

Guidance on developing novel methodologies was also requested: ‘it’s difficult to request something precise (you don’t know what you don’t know)… the few readings we have undertaken have been excellent… more readings would be great… even just verbally in workshops is great’. Group discussion was valued for sharing ideas and techniques: ‘discussion within a group of others dealing with similar issues and sharing their view of the field can be very useful. It can suggest techniques and ideas I would not have thought of’. Finally, participants emphasized the importance of developing their own voice and agency in methodology: ‘Deirdre’s explanation of the methodology being an opportunity to develop our own voice beyond the artefact… was empowering—it made it about agency and choice, and where we want our projects to land’, highlighting how workshops can shift thinking and clarify methodological direction. The initial survey recorded that participants look forward to the sessions breaking down academic formalities and connecting formal ideas of methodology with the realities of practice-based research. Following, researchers designed the series to respond to these anticipated needs.

Documented in the survey response following the seminar series, participants expressed a desire for the Methodology Seminar Series to support them in understanding, developing, and writing about methodology in ways that are generative, academically rigorous, and tailored to their creative practice. Many noted that, while supervisors had suggested methodologies suited to their fields, ‘more deeply understanding how I can work on my creative output in ways that are generative and related to the research has been elusive’. Participants hoped to explore how research practices could be integrated with working on a creative artefact in ways that are both personally meaningful and academically credible, summarizing this goal as simply ‘help to work well’. Articulating a unique and coherent methodology and finding language to narrate it creatively, while maintaining academic clarity was another key aspiration: ‘Thinking outside the disciplinary norms, wanting to “custom-make” my own approach’. Participants valued readings and group discussions, noting that the readings have been fantastic and so enlightening… more readings would be great’, and that additional time for discussion would be beneficial.

Other areas of focus included understanding how positionality is expressed through voice, how and why their methodology contributes to academic contexts, and developing writing skills as early career researchers. Participants requested a current reading list of texts relevant to practice-based or practice-led qualitative research as a foundation for understanding the methodological field. Many sought reassurance and guidance in exploring unconventional approaches: ‘Mostly through reassurance that I am not doing the wrong thing by trying something different or unconventional… giving examples of other experimental creative practice methodologies’. The series was seen as an opportunity to provide definitions, frameworks, and examples that allow participants to experiment confidently while maintaining academic credibility.

After the series, participants highlighted several readings as particularly helpful in shaping their understanding of methodology. The Known World (Gibson, 2010) was frequently mentioned, with one participant noting that it was ‘perfectly placed… after all the other weeks of enquiry’. The reading addressed the tension between extant, academically acquired knowledge and deep lived-experience knowledge, showing that the latter, while harder to argue, can carry strong moral authority. One participant reflected, ‘This paper beautifully captured that as researchers we can inhabit both these places and bring them together in our work’. Annouchka Bayley’s Entanglements (2023) was also highly valued for demonstrating methodological flexibility. As one participant described, it ‘helped me realise that I don't need to follow a fixed or traditional method; I can shape my own, based on what feels right for my project… Most of all, it gave me the confidence to see my methodology as something I can build myself, something alive, responsive and true to my own position and purpose’.

Other readings that participants found useful included Borgdorff’s The Production of Knowledge in Artistic Research (2010), praised for clarifying and reinforcing methodological basics, and Olivier’s Negotiating Agency through Authorial Voice in Thesis Writing (2017), noted for its specificity and helpful discussion of writing skills. While the Batty and Zalipour (2024) reading was considered highly useful, many participants felt ‘the one I most enjoyed and felt most reassured by was the final Gibson (2010) reading’. Overall, participants valued readings that combined conceptual clarity with practical resonance, offering both reassurance and inspiration for developing their own practice-based methodologies.

Participants identified seminar discussions as a crucial component in shaping their understanding of methodology. Participants reflected on how insight emerges during practice, which is then observed and formally reflected on, creating a praxis learning cycle. As one participant noted, this discussion helped them see ‘the shape of my PhD’. Being in a room with other creative practice HDR students was also considered highly valuable. One participant commented, ‘Being in the room with other creative HDR students… contributed to a deep insight into my work that I could not see could have come from any other forum’. The workshops were credited with opening up new framings, increasing confidence, and reinforcing trust in participants’ creative processes. As another reflected, the sessions helped them recognise that ‘my creative processes themselves could be part of my contribution in terms of evolving methodologies and methodology in my field’. Overall, participants expressed gratitude for the opportunity to engage in these discussions, noting their transformative impact on both understanding and practice.

Participants were overwhelmingly positive about the Methodology Seminar Series, highlighting both its philosophical depth and practical impact. Many valued the small-group, discussion-led format, describing the sessions as ‘philosophically guided small group discussion’ with ‘gentle guidance of our conversations combined with much held space for us to contribute and share with each other’, which created a dynamic and informative experience. The researchers’ careful facilitation, including highlighting unexpected passages from readings, was noted as particularly helpful in guiding participants’ engagement with key texts. The series was recognised for providing rare opportunities to engage with foundational questions about the nature of creative enquiry and its contribution to knowledge. One participant reflected, ‘Time spent dwelling on the deepest nature of creative enquiry… has been a very rare conversation for me to be involved in within my PhD journey… These framings and conversations are so vital’. Another highlighted the series’ role in developing methodology for their Confirmation of Candidature, ⁶ noting that it ‘introduced me to new ways of thinking that I might have struggled to access on my own, and I now feel I’ve developed a rich and well-thought-out methodology as a result’. Participants also emphasised the sense of community and shared experience, which mitigated the isolation often felt in practice-based PhD research. One reflected, ‘The seminar… created a space to connect with other candidates—something I really appreciated, as this path can sometimes feel isolating’. The series provided practical tools, language, and frameworks to develop unique, rigorous methodologies and strengthened participants’ confidence in articulating their creative practice in writing.

Some participants suggested minor improvements, such as extending sessions to two hours to allow deeper exploration of readings and discussions. Others highlighted serendipitous outcomes, including discovering new readings, refining their methodologies, or connecting with supervisors and collaborators in new fields. As one participant noted, even attending part of the series ‘has set me on a course to make my project much, much richer… I have a much more resolute idea of its dimensions, strengths, and weaknesses… and I feel recognised and seen’. Overall, participants strongly endorsed the continuation of the seminar series, seeing it as essential for supporting creative practice-based researchers in both methodological development and community building.

To measure changes in understanding and confidence, participants were asked to self-report their level of confidence and understanding in designing, developing, and writing about methodology in their PhD project, as well as their certainty with terminology and the application of methodology in the field of contemporary art. The same questions were repeated in both the pre- and post-series surveys. The results indicate a substantial shift in both confidence and understanding following participation in the seminar series. Visualisations of these changes are presented below.

Figures 1 and 2 detail graphs comparing participants’ understanding of HDR methodologies from survey 1 pre-seminar and survey 2 post-seminar.

Figure 1.

Agreement with Methodology– pre-Seminar.

Figure 2.

Agreement with Methodology– post-Seminar.

Post-seminar, participants were asked direct questions to measure the impact of the series. These questions were designed to compare participant’s pre-seminar knowledge, understanding and attitude towards HDR methodologies in the contemporary arts practice context against knowledge and understanding gained post-seminar. Open questions elicited responses about the social gains as well as encouraging sharing of personal experience and most useful readings and discussions across the six sessions. Responses were overwhelmingly positive, demonstrating significant gains in understanding, confidence, and application of methodology. See results detailed in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Graph demonstrating enhanced understanding of principles of HDR methodology through the seminar series, key-readings, discussions and social engagement.

Observations

Over the six seminar sessions, Neville observed evolving patterns of engagement between Feeney and the students, and among students themselves. Engagement shifted from a primarily mentor-to-student dynamic in the early sessions to more dynamic peer discussion over time. Early-stage candidates were initially slow to participate but gradually gained confidence, while candidates nearing submission were often quieter if discussions did not align with their current research or stage in their journey. Mid- to late-stage candidates were more willing to share insights related to their own artistic projects, making process and writing and were better able to frame questions to support their research journey.

In Session Five, four faculty-based artist-researchers shared methodologies from recent projects, and seminar participants appeared more reticent to ask questions or express views; the enthusiasm of the guest speakers sometimes made it difficult to enter the conversation. Nonetheless, this peer-exchange modelled a vibrant research culture, and appreciation for the session was reflected in survey responses. Persistent challenges remained around negotiating the relationship between creative artifacts and the exegesis, as well as academic writing. In response, Feeney focused on writing tools and developing voice in session six. Overall, participants demonstrated increased confidence in expressing diverse methodological approaches.

Findings

The Methodology Seminar Series had a transformative impact on participants’ understanding, confidence, and engagement with practice-based methodologies. Collectively, the six-week series had a profound impact on participants’ conceptual understanding, confidence, knowledge differentiation, pedagogical engagement, research culture, and qualitative development. Participants moved from initial uncertainty and conceptual struggle to a confident and reflective approach to methodology, articulating the interplay between their creative practice and research frameworks: ‘My methodology is now something I can see evolving—it’s part of my creative thinking’. Participants voiced concerns about the written component of their final PhD examination, but were buoyed by the multiplicity of approaches suggested in the readings and inspired by the artist/researchers’ sharing stories from personal doctoral journeys and post-doctorate studies. The series’ combination of dialogue, readings, and peer exchange not only strengthened methodological literacy but also fostered a supportive cohort environment in which diverse approaches were recognised and validated.

Nationally, the series aligns with Australian frameworks for practice-based and practice-led research, which emphasise the integration of creative processes with rigorous academic standards, and the development of knowledge contributions through iterative and reflective practice. Internationally, it echoes debates in artistic research and practice-as-research, where creative work is understood as a legitimate site of knowledge production, capable of combining epistemic rigor with personal and aesthetic insight (Borgdorff, 2010). Key readings, including Gibson’s The Known World (2010) and Bayley’s Entanglements (2023), were instrumental in helping participants navigate tensions between formal academic knowledge and lived experience, while providing confidence to develop original, context-specific methodologies. The pedagogical approach combining introducing texts with guided reflection and dialogue, proved highly effective and provided practical strategies for writing, positioning, and articulating creative research contributions.

Conceptual development

Participants reported increased clarity and reflexivity in understanding practice-based methodologies. Pre-series uncertainty often revolved around distinguishing between method and methodology, as well as how to integrate creative practice with research frameworks. Over the course of the seminar series, participants moved from a tentative engagement to a confident grasp of methodology. As one reflected, ‘I finally understand the difference between method and methodology—this has been a breakthrough’. This aligns with discussions in the literature emphasising the importance of methodological literacy in practice-based research (Borgdorff, 2010; Candy and Edmonds, 2018). Nationally, Australian practice-based research frameworks, such as those articulated by the Australian Research Council (2025) and Adelaide University (2025) underscore the need for researchers to articulate creative processes within rigorous academic structures. Internationally, debates in artistic research highlight the tension between epistemic rigor and creative freedom (Biggs and Büchler, 2007), reflecting the challenges participants reported navigating.

Confidence growth

Self-reported confidence in articulating methodology increased significantly over the series. Participants described feeling more capable of explaining and defending their methodological choices in both written and verbal contexts: ‘I can now talk about my methodology with confidence instead of avoiding the question’. This mirrors findings from international studies on doctoral research in creative arts, where peer-supported reflection and structured guidance can significantly improve researchers’ confidence in methodology (Vaughan, 2021). Nationally, the development of confidence in practice-led research is recognised as essential for creative HDR candidates, especially in navigating disciplinary expectations while maintaining methodological innovation (Batorowicz et al., 2023). Notably, communities of practice, formed across disciplinary cohorts or interdisciplinary arts based doctorate students benefit from shared critique and research development skills (Batorowicz et al., 2023: 286).

Knowledge differentiation

Several participants reported moments where theoretical and practical aspects of their research aligned, enhancing metacognitive understanding of their practice. These ‘aha’ moments were described as transformative, helping participants situate their creative work within broader research paradigms: ‘I’ve found my own way of framing how my art generates knowledge’. This reflects the international discourse on practice-as-research which positions creative activity not only as a process but also as a site of knowledge production (Candy et al., 2022). Nationally, this alignment supports the increasing emphasis on research impact and knowledge contribution in Australian creative arts doctoral projects (Bendrups, 2021; McQuilten et al., 2025).

Pedagogical impact

The seminar design, combining dialogue, readings, and lived experience, was highly effective, ‘It was enlightening and confidence-building—a rare space to discuss what creative research actually is.” The integration of key texts, such as Gibson (2010) on the moral authority of lived knowledge and Bayley (2023) on entanglements in practice-based research, facilitated deep engagement with complex ideas. Pedagogically, the series exemplifies contemporary approaches in creative research education, where dialogic (Nelson, 2022: 66-67) and experiential learning (Barrett and Bolt, 2010; Bolt, 2007) support the development of autonomous and reflective researchers (Candy, 2019).

Research culture

The series fostered collegiality and mutual recognition within the cohort: ‘It was a philosophically guided small group discussion where everyone’s experience mattered’. Participants valued the sense of community, highlighting the isolation often experienced in practice-based HDR work. This reflects findings on the importance of cohort-based learning in doctoral creative arts programs (Batorowicz et al., 2023) and aligns with national initiatives listed earlier to support HDR student engagement and peer mentoring across creative disciplines. The series also reinforced the importance of research culture and collegiality. Participants reported a sense of recognition and shared purpose that mitigated the isolation often experienced in creative HDR pathways: ‘It was a philosophically guided small group discussion where everyone’s experience mattered’. These insights indicate that structured, but informal peer gatherings enhance individual researcher development and contribute to the broader cultural and intellectual life of the creative research community.

Qualitative insights

Pre-series responses reflected conceptual struggle and uncertainty: ‘I don’t know how to keep my methodology alive within my creative process’. By contrast, post-series reflections indicated advanced understanding and ownership: ‘My methodology is now something I can see evolving—it’s part of my creative thinking’, and ‘I’ve found my own way of framing how my art generates knowledge’. These reflections highlight the series’ success in bridging the gap between theoretical frameworks and lived, practice-based research experiences. This outcome resonates with literature that stresses the importance of iterative, reflective practice in developing rigorous yet flexible methodologies (Borgdorff, 2010; Candy and Edmonds, 2018).

Limitations and recommendations

The seminar series had several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. The one-hour session length constrained the depth of discussion, limiting opportunities for extended engagement with readings and peer dialogue. While the specificity of the cohort enabled rich disciplinary discussion, the focus on Contemporary Art meant that broader creative disciplines were underrepresented. In addition, the small cohort size, with few participants from Design and Creative Writing, limited the diversity of perspectives and experiences. These factors may have influenced the types of insights generated and the generalizability of the outcomes to other creative practice contexts. Similarly, the specificity of the cohort and the researchers’ direct involvement in the series does potentially limit the critical feedback received. With Feeney as the seminar facilitator, while also in the role of supervisor for several participants, there exists a small risk that survey responses may have been biased in terms of not wanting to provide negative feedback to their supervisor. To alleviate this risk, future research would see value from multiple case studies and/or the introduction of more explicitly anonymous ways of providing commentary.

To enhance the impact of the Methodology Seminar Series, several recommendations can be made. Extending session duration or providing ongoing seminars would allow deeper engagement with readings, discussions, and peer exchange. Expanding the series to include a broader range of creative practice disciplines would increase diversity of perspectives and relevance across the creative HDR community. However, discipline-specific seminars remain valuable for enabling focused exploration of methodological challenges, language, and practices unique to particular fields. Additionally, small participant cohorts also create a safer environment in which students can build confidence engaging with reading discussions and with broader discourse around practice-led methodology, which might suggest the delivery of multiple seminars run in parallel. Encouraging participation from supervisors could also strengthen methodological support networks and provide participants with further guidance and feedback on developing and articulating their methodologies.

A blended delivery model, incorporating both face-to-face and virtual participation, is recommended to ensure meaningful access for regional and remote students. Flexibility in the design of the seminar series will support responsive implementation and engagement for participants with varied needs. Delivering sessions in a central location, aligned with professional practice and research environments, helps reinforce participants’ artistic and academic identity, and should be repeated to maximise accessibility and maintain an in-situ learning experience. Considering the concerns about writing recurring across the seminar sessions, a writing workshop could be included in future sessions. Providing recordings or asynchronous learning materials would further extend accessibility and allow participants to revisit key methodological concepts as their projects develop.

Concluding remarks

The 2025 pilot Methodology Seminar Series successfully addressed a significant gap in HDR development for Contemporary Art candidates at UniSA. Participants demonstrated measurable improvements in confidence, methodological literacy, and reflective practice. The series also demonstrated the value of dialogic and cohort-based learning in mitigating isolation and fostering a vibrant research culture among candidates. Participant feedback confirmed that this approach enhanced methodological literacy, while supporting the development of scholarly voice and confidence in articulating research frameworks. Although limited by participant numbers, the seminar series cultivated articulate, reflective research-practitioners capable of articulating how their creative practice generates knowledge. This pilot provides a model for future practice-led HDR training programs and contributes to the broader understanding of creative practice as a significant research methodology. Future iterations could build on this foundation by incorporating blended delivery and targeted writing support, ensuring accessibility and responsiveness to diverse HDR needs. These enhancements would strengthen the program’s capacity to foster methodological clarity, research culture, and sustained engagement across diverse creative-practice cohorts.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material - Fostering methodological literacy and research identity in creative-practice HDR education: Insights from a pilot seminar series

Supplemental material for Fostering methodological literacy and research identity in creative-practice HDR education: Insights from a pilot seminar series by Deirdre Feeney, Sarah Neville, Elizabeth Ellison in Arts and Humanities in Higher Education