Strategies for evidencing the Frascatian notion of systematic creative work contributing to the body of knowledge: An example in ‘academic’ cabaret

Creativity maintains an uncomfortable alliance within research. On the one hand, definitions of research suggest that the process generates ‘new’ knowledge, while on the other hand, publication of research is imbued with traditions that sometimes discourage difference and creativity. Creative works and specifically performative creative works, following publication of the Frascoti criteria (2002), are understood to be research. The inclusion of the word ‘systematic’ in the definition of what makes performative work research may present a hurdle to some creative researchers. While they may acknowledge that their creative work contributes to knowledge, they may also struggle with processes needed to demonstrate systematic development. Action inquiry and practice-led inquiry are both examples of post-positivist research. Action inquiry is recognised, among other features, by its iterative cycles (Zuber-Skerritt, 1993). Practice-led inquiry is recognised by cycles of action and reflection instigated by practice (Gray, 1996). Both investigative processes invite documentation strategies that may prove useful in demonstrating systematic development of the inquiry issue. Each of these documentation strategies are relevant for evidencing the research involved in developing creative works. This paper focuses on cabaret as a particular example of creative research. It illuminates the systematic development of the notion of an academic cabaret using a reflective practice tool of provenance. Secondly, it demonstrates how utilising cycles in an action inquiry model can also provide evidence of systematic development of an idea. Together these strategies provide evidence of the research involved in developing, writing and presenting academic cabarets