As part of Juliette Davret’s visiting fellowship at the University of Copenhagen (see previous blog post), the Data Stories project is involved in the co-organization of the DATA Life Conference. Please join us!
Conference Theme: Exploring the multiple dimensions of data life through critical data studies
The DATA LIFE Conference invites scholars, researchers, and practitioners to submit papers that delve into the complexities and implications of data in our world. As data becomes an increasingly integral part of our lives, it is vital to critically examine the power dynamics, ethical issues, and social impacts associated with its production, management, and use. The conference will be opened and closed by two keynote speakers: Rob Kitchin (Maynooth University) and Stefania Milan (Amsterdam University). DATA LIFE is a one-day conference co-organised by INTERSECT research group, DATA LOSS and DATA STORIES ERC-projects, the Center for Culture and Technology (SDU) and the Aesthetics of Bio-Machines project.
We welcome contributions that explore, but are not limited to, the following themes:
Data Power: examining power structures in the collection, processing and use of data;
Data Justice: analysing inequalities and biases in data systems and algorithms;
Histories and Cultures of Data: historical and cultural perspectives on the evolution of data management practices;
Data Policies and Regulations: challenges and opportunities in local and global data governance.
Submission Guidelines
Papers presented at the conference should critically explore the data ecosystem, politics, practices, and power dynamics inherent in the life of data. We encourage interdisciplinary research and welcome a diverse range of methodologies, including but not limited to:
Artistic practice-based methodologies
Data-driven Geographic Information Systems (GIS) method
Methodological innovations
Empirical case studies
Submissions should contribute to a deeper understanding of the ways in which data shapes and is shaped by various forces in society.
Submission Instructions
Title and abstract (300-500 words) should be submitted by September 27, 2024.
Please submit your abstract to Louis Ravn lora@hum.ku.dk
We look forward to your contributions to the DATA LIFE Conference and to exploring the many dimensions of data with you.
On the 26th of June at the Nordic Geographers Meeting in Copenhagen, Carla Maria Kayanan presented a paper titled Exploring the synergy between artistic practices and academia in shaping the built environment. This paper opened up the session “Creative practice – (trans)forming space, place and environment, which was chaired by Cecile Sachs Olsen and David Pinder. The Data Stories team were drawn to the call for papers due to their thematic focus on the use of arts-based methods to shape the built environment. Some of the themes and/or places featured in the two back-to-back sessions include: creative practice in London housing estates, the public toilet, bricks and racialised landscapes, aquatic geo-power and hydro-commons and using sketching as an ethical, non-invasive method of inquiry. These papers provided useful examples of scholars, artists and scholar-artists embracing art as a method to provoke social interactions, represent meaning, communicate desires and explore the impact of humans on the environment.
The paper we presented is a collaboration between Carla and Data Stories team member Juliette Davret. Instead of focusing on the outcomes of using arts-based methods in a research project, the paper takes a step back and builds on Carla and Juliette’s ongoing inquiry into the effectiveness of research creation as method. Since Carla and Juliette have been working closely with respective artists and stakeholders, this was an opportunity to reflect on the process of research creation and lessons learnt.
At the time of the presentation, the team had taken on four case studies:
Housing policy stakeholders
Multi-stakeholders (government, private, public)
Multimodal artist
Data aggregator company
Private organisation
Creative writer
Civic group advocating for planning participation
Volunteer organisation
Multimodal artist
Civic group campaigning for housing justice
Activist organisation
Visual artist
Image: Participants working on the storybuilding concertina created by the artist Mel Galley
According to Loveless (2019), the term research creation was already in use by the 1990s, and at this time universities in the UK and Canada were offering the first fine arts doctoral programs. By 2016, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council in Canada formalised the definition of research creation as “an approach to research that combines creative and academic research practices and supports the development of knowledge and innovation through artistic expressions.” What is clear from this definition, and from subsequent literature on the topic (McCormack 2008, Truman 2021), is that research creation is a means for artists to claim space within the academy and to demonstrate how arts-based methods can generate new forms of knowledge. Particularly for Loveless, but also Truman, both who dedicate full sections of their books to discuss how research creation can push against neoliberal university structures, research creation is an attempt to acknowledge the intersection of arts practice, theory and research (Truman, 2021). It entails making art while constantly and consistently thinking with theory throughout the duration of the process.
What differs from the definition above and our work on Data Stories, is that researchers on the project are not artists. Rather, artists are contracted at the start of the process to help shape decisions around case study selection and workshop design. This means that the researcher, with a pre-defined research agenda, and an artist, with a pre-defined practice, collaborate. The following schema demonstrates variations on the relationships:
One approach to research creation is Foley’s (2016) ‘inreach’ research design. In this situation, a ‘foil’ oversees a research creation process, and a ‘catalyst’ is the stakeholder interested in exploring something (see also Kitchin [2023] summary of this process). Collectively, the foil and the catalyst work together to develop a ‘seed’ for a workshop, the seed being an issue to be explored. In the case studies we are conducting, the artist + researcher pair bring in the stakeholder later in the process. Meaning, the artist + research pair provide a frame for the stakeholders to explore a pre-designated seed. A more impactful research creation model where stakeholders are inculcated in the process and contribute their voice to selecting a research question and determining the artistic medium to explore the question would look like this:
Of course, the artist, the researcher and the stakeholder each have different modes of working, timelines, rhythms and pressures that structure their ways of thinking and being. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that a simplified schema would exhibit variations in collaboration styles:
One way to think through these complications is to embrace Loveless’ (2019) concept of research creation being less about the identity (who is doing what), or the act (what is being produced and how) and more about the output of the research (research + creation + experiment). When considering output as focus, the schema looks like this, where research creation (RC) is at the heart of the process:
Having now gone through variations on the process of research creation, we are also encountering the benefit of process over outcomes. It is within this space where novel thinking has emerged. Perhaps the perceived benefits of process over outcome reflect the stage we find ourselves at this point in time in Data Stories. The researchers and artists are in the process of wrapping up the first set of case studies and are thus in the space of thinking through what occurred. Outcomes of our efforts are yet to be determined, and some, such as changing ways of thinking, may manifest much further down the line in ways that might not display direct links to Data Stories, but where Data Stories may have been catalytic.
Acknowledging the above, Carla wrapped up the presentation by specifying the exploratory nature of the presentation but highlighting how the topic is ripe for theory. Gordon (2008) comments on the importance of research creation for expanding ways of seeing that are “less mechanical, more willing to be surprised and to link imagination with critique” and McCormack (2008) discusses the importance of research creation in creating thinking-spaces that allow one to learn to become affected. In this way, research creation can invite stakeholders (as well as the artists and researchers) to reflect on their data practices and to allow space for speculative thinking and flexing the imaginary to consider what kinds of places they want to build and how to get there.
The Data Stories team aims to contribute to the development of new theories and methodologies around research creation. However, we’re still in the early stages of our work in this area and this blog post is an open-ended reflection. Please contact us if you would like to discuss this topic further and have insights to share. We are interested in hearing from scholars and artists engaged in research creation so to develop an organised session around this theme at the AAG or a similar conference of international standing.
