• Mark Edward


In this chapter, I focus on how artists engage with reflective methodologies when creating performance. The focus is on methodologies in its plural form, recognising the postmodern assortment of academic thought processes that are all intertwined with self as researcher, artists and performer. I argue that methodologies relating to experience and subjective life events are inevitably less scientific leading to fluid outcomes. The process of creating performance is complex and multiple. Heuristic, autobiographical and autoethnographical research methodologies are individualist and subjective. I consider myself as the researcher researched or researched researcher, and I discuss the duality of both roles, encapsulating the notion of self as part of the research process: mesearch.


Methodologies Researcher Autoethnographical Reflexivity Mesearch Heurism 


  1. Butler, J. (1993) Bodies That Matter. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, J. and Harbord, J. (Eds.) (2002) Temporalities, Autobiography and Everyday Life. New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  3. David, M. (2003) Personal and Political: Feminisms, Sociology, and Family Lives. Stoke on Trent, UK and Sterling, VA: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  4. Dobie, J F. (2010). ‘Heuristic Research: Autoethnography, Immediacy and Self- Reflexivity’. Freeman, J. Blood, Sweat and Theory. Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Fisk, A. (2014) Sex, Sin and Ourselves. Oregon: Pickwick Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Gómez-Peña, G. (2000) Dangerous Border Crossers. Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heddon, D. (2006). Autobiography and Performance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Heddon, D. (2005). ‘Beyond the Self: Autobiography as Dialogue in Wallace, C. (Ed.) Monologues: Theatre, Performance, Subjectivity. Litteraria Pragensia: Prague. pp. 157–187.
  9. Hiles, D. (2002) ‘Narrative and Heuristic Approaches to Transpersonal Research and Practice’. Delivered at the Conference CCPE, London. pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  10. Jolly, M (2005) ‘Speaking Personally, Academically’ in Feminist Theory, 6(2). pp. 213–220.Google Scholar
  11. Kershaw, B. and Nicholson, H. (2011) Research Methods in Theatre and Performance. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Laz, C. (1998) ‘Act Your Age’ in Sociological Form, 13(1). pp. 85–97.Google Scholar
  13. Leder, D. (1990) The Absent Body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Parker-Starbuck, J. and Mock, R. (2011) ‘Researching the Body in Performance’ in Kershaw, B. and Nicholson, H. (Eds.) Research Methods in Theatre Studies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pearson, M. (2006) “In Comes I”: Performance, Memory and Landscape. Exeter: Exeter Press.Google Scholar
  16. Probyn, E. (1993) Sexing the Self: Gendered Positions in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rambo Ronai, C. (1997) ‘On Loving and Hating My Mentally Retarded Mother’ in Mental Retardation, 37. pp. 417–437.Google Scholar
  18. Skeggs, B. (2002) ‘Techniques for Telling the Reflexive Self’, in May, T. (Ed.) Qualitative Research in Action, pp. 349–77. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Spelman, E. V. (1988) Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  20. Spry, T. (2001) ‘Performing Autoethnography: An Embodied Methodological Praxis’ in Nagy Hesse-Biber, S. and Leavy, P. (Eds.), Emergent Methods in Social Research. London: Sage. pp. 183–211.Google Scholar
  21. Sullivan, G. (2010) Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in Visual Arts, Second Edition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Thomas, H. (2013) The Body and Everyday Life. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Edward
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Performing ArtsEdge Hill UniversityOrmskirkUK

Personalised recommendations