In this paper we outline the challenges and preconceptions that we have experienced in “Taking the Artwork Home”, a collaborative research project across art, design and technology. Using a research through design approach to create a Mobile Augmented Reality to not only explore ways to enhance audience engagement with the arts but also to the implications of including the views of the gallery and the artists in all stages of the development process

Coulton, Paul

Murphy, Emma

Murphy, Emma Lee

Glasgow School of Art: RADAR

  Gimmicks, Geeks and Gut: Challenges and Preconceptions from Collaborative Research in Art, Design and Technology. A Case Study Using Mobile Augmented Reality.   Abstract In this paper we outline the challenges and preconceptions that we have experienced in “Taking the Artwork Home”, a collaborative research project across art, design and technology. Using a research through design approach to create a Mobile Augmented Reality to not only explore ways to enhance audience engagement with the arts but also to the implications of including the views of the gallery and the artists in all stages of the development process. Keywords Design Research, Research through Design, Mobile, Augmented Reality, Art, Technology, Museums Introduction The UK research agenda frequently calls for more cross-disciplinary research, and emphasizes the importance of impact beyond academia. This paper exemplifies this kind of collaborative research in the wild, and is based on a research project between an arts organization, design research academics and a Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). Dr. Paul Coulton Imagination Lancaster Institute for ContemporaryArts  Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YW UK p.coulton@lancaster.ac.uk  Dr. Emma Murphy School of Design Glasgow School of Art Glasgow G3 6RQ, UK e.murphy@gsa.ac.uk        technology developer, using Mobile Augmented Reality (MAR) in the development of a prototype application to engage new users with gallery content.  The diversity of these collaborative endeavours can result in novel findings from the research itself (in this case, about the development of an MAR app to engage users and develop new curatorial strategies), as well as new insights into the design and practice of doing this kind of research (in this case, the complexities of doing research in the wild). In addition, such an interdisciplinary workspace can reveal preconceptions from edge audiences, which emphasizes the importance for researchers to collectively reflect, bolster and clearly articulate their approaches and outcomes. About the research This paper will firstly describe the complex nature of this project, in terms of funding landscape, diversity of partners and audiences. It will then outline the challenges experienced, and the implications for these kinds of projects in the future. It will conclude by detailing the novel insights that the project itself has generated in terms of application development.   Challenges Challenges include defining desirable outcomes (e.g. tangible product outcomes versus intangible research outcomes); the paradoxes of research ethics and IP and how these can negatively impact the scope of the research, and the preconceptions of this kind of research from potential audiences. The paper will conclude by describing some novel insights, useful for designing for users with disabilities, as well as the implications for future research. Learning about the process for doing this kind of research is important, as many new and pioneering research calls are geared towards enabling and encouraging this kind of collaboration. We know we should work in this way, but how does it happen? If research projects involve the development of an app, how do we ensure this is research about what could be, as opposed to the development of a market ready project, which could arguably be classed as consultancy.   Relationship between research and design and development of the artifact  The project had to demonstrate both research and development, e.g. there was an expectation that it would produce both research insights for the wider community, as well as an artifact (in this case, an app) that the gallery could use beyond the scope of the project. This meant that there had to be flexibility within the research approach and with the implementation of the artifact.   The research approach closely aligns to Sir Christopher Frayling’s definitions of both ‘research through design’, (cited in Frankel and Racine, 2010) in that research into the possible implementations of MAR were evaluated with different user groups as part of the design process, and ‘research for design’ (ibid) in the sense that the end product is a prototype artifact in which all the thinking that went into producing it is embedded within that artifact, and in the sense that it is not finished ready-to-market app, but more an artifact with implications for designers to take further. One could argue that the artifact represents more divergent thinking of “what could be”, as opposed to a   developer or consultant view of something most possible or practical.  We believe that it is important – and fruitful – for arts and humanities academics to engage in collaborative research activity. In doing so however, it is important to understand that all partners will have differing views on research and development, and could have different notions of value and values underpinning the research. They may also have a different view on desired outcomes of the research. Such complex but constructive and creative dynamics require careful negotiation and cooperation throughout the process.  References  [1] Frankel, L., and Racine, M. (2010). The Complex Field of Research: for Design, through Design, and about Design. Paper presented at Design Research SocietyAcknowledgements We would like to thank Nesta, Arts and Humanities Research Council and Arts Council England for funding this research. We would also like to thank the staff at the Peter Scott Gallery in Lancaster, and the schools and colleges that participated in the research.  

Gimmicks, Geeks and Gut: Challenges and Preconceptions from Collaborative Research in Art, Design and Technology. A Case Study Using Mobile Augmented Reality

  
Gimmicks, Geeks and Gut: Challenges and 
Preconceptions from Collaborative Research in Art, 
Design and Technology. A Case Study Using 
Mobile Augmented Reality. 
 
 
Abstract 
In this paper we outline the challenges and 
preconceptions that we have experienced in “Taking the 
Artwork Home”, a collaborative research project across 
art, design and technology. Using a research through 
design approach to create a Mobile Augmented Reality 
to not only explore ways to enhance audience 
engagement with the arts but also to the implications of 
including the views of the gallery and the artists in all 
stages of the development process. 
Keywords 
Design Research, Research through Design, Mobile, 
Augmented Reality, Art, Technology, Museums 
Introduction 
The UK research agenda frequently calls for more 
cross-disciplinary research, and emphasizes the 
importance of impact beyond academia. This paper 
exemplifies this kind of collaborative research in the 
wild, and is based on a research project between an 
arts organization, design research academics and a 
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). 
Dr. Paul Coulton 
Imagination 
Lancaster Institute for 
ContemporaryArts  
Lancaster University 
Lancaster 
LA1 4YW UK 
p.coulton@lancaster.ac.uk 
 
Dr. Emma Murphy 
School of Design 
Glasgow School of Art 
Glasgow 
G3 6RQ, UK 
e.murphy@gsa.ac.uk 
 
 
 
 
 
  
technology developer, using Mobile Augmented Reality 
(MAR) in the development of a prototype application to 
engage new users with gallery content.  
The diversity of these collaborative endeavours can 
result in novel findings from the research itself (in this 
case, about the development of an MAR app to engage 
users and develop new curatorial strategies), as well as 
new insights into the design and practice of doing this 
kind of research (in this case, the complexities of doing 
research in the wild). In addition, such an 
interdisciplinary workspace can reveal preconceptions 
from edge audiences, which emphasizes the importance 
for researchers to collectively reflect, bolster and 
clearly articulate their approaches and outcomes. 
About the research 
This paper will firstly describe the complex nature of 
this project, in terms of funding landscape, diversity of 
partners and audiences. It will then outline the 
challenges experienced, and the implications for these 
kinds of projects in the future. It will conclude by 
detailing the novel insights that the project itself has 
generated in terms of application development.  
 
Challenges 
Challenges include defining desirable outcomes (e.g. 
tangible product outcomes versus intangible research 
outcomes); the paradoxes of research ethics and IP 
and how these can negatively impact the scope of the 
research, and the preconceptions of this kind of 
research from potential audiences. The paper will 
conclude by describing some novel insights, useful for 
designing for users with disabilities, as well as the 
implications for future research. Learning about the 
process for doing this kind of research is important, as 
many new and pioneering research calls are geared 
towards enabling and encouraging this kind of 
collaboration. We know we should work in this way, but 
how does it happen? If research projects involve the 
development of an app, how do we ensure this is 
research about what could be, as opposed to the 
development of a market ready project, which could 
arguably be classed as consultancy.  
 
Relationship between research and design 
and development of the artifact  
The project had to demonstrate both research and 
development, e.g. there was an expectation that it 
would produce both research insights for the wider 
community, as well as an artifact (in this case, an app) 
that the gallery could use beyond the scope of the 
project. This meant that there had to be flexibility 
within the research approach and with the 
implementation of the artifact.  
 
The research approach closely aligns to Sir Christopher 
Frayling’s definitions of both ‘research through design’, 
(cited in Frankel and Racine, 2010) in that research 
into the possible implementations of MAR were 
evaluated with different user groups as part of the 
design process, and ‘research for design’ (ibid) in the 
sense that the end product is a prototype artifact in 
which all the thinking that went into producing it is 
embedded within that artifact, and in the sense that it 
is not finished ready-to-market app, but more an 
artifact with implications for designers to take further. 
One could argue that the artifact represents more 
divergent thinking of “what could be”, as opposed to a 
  
developer or consultant view of something most 
possible or practical.  
We believe that it is important – and fruitful – for arts 
and humanities academics to engage in collaborative 
research activity. In doing so however, it is important 
to understand that all partners will have differing views 
on research and development, and could have different 
notions of value and values underpinning the research. 
They may also have a different view on desired 
outcomes of the research. Such complex but 
constructive and creative dynamics require careful 
negotiation and cooperation throughout the process. 
 
References  
[1] Frankel, L., and Racine, M. (2010). The Complex 
Field of Research: for Design, through Design, and 
about Design. Paper presented at Design Research 
Society
Acknowledgements 
We would like to thank Nesta, Arts and Humanities 
Research Council and Arts Council England for funding 
this research. We would also like to thank the staff at 
the Peter Scott Gallery in Lancaster, and the schools 
and colleges that participated in the research. 
 


Lancaster E-Prints

Gimmicks, geeks and gut : challenges and preconceptions from collaborative research in Art, Design and Technology. a case study using Mobile Augmented Reality

http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/70465/1/DRHA2014_extended_abstracts_Coulton_Murphy.pdf

Gimmicks, geeks and gut:challenges and preconceptions from collaborative research in Art, Design and Technology. a case study using Mobile Augmented Reality

Gimmicks, geeks and gut:challenges and preconceptions from collaborative research in Art, Design and Technology. a case study using Mobile Augmented Reality

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Glasgow School of Art: RADAR

Glasgow School of Art: RADAR

Lancaster E-Prints