The term research-creation comes up frequently in my reflections. But where does this articulation come from? Did it emerge from research or from creation? My approach is certainly rooted first and foremost in a creative practice. Since the mid-2000s, I have studied and practiced design — and, more broadly, creation. I say “more broadly” because my practice has never been strictly limited to design: it has always been wider, more transversal. In comparison, my research approach, as it materialized in a research-creation doctoral project, only officially began in the early 2020s. Perhaps I could say that if I came to this research-creation practice, it’s because the research dimension had always been underlying in my creative activity. This may be due to the training I received. Or perhaps I simply gave a name, retrospectively, to an already existing practice, just as I formally enrolled in a doctoral program, thereby making explicit and formalized a process that was already underway but as yet unnamed.
But ultimately, the exact origin doesn’t matter much. What matters is having recognized, named, and legitimized this research dimension to place it on equal footing with creation. This allows me to better share what drives and interests me.
What seems important to highlight — and what constitutes a structuring characteristic of my approach, directly influencing my methodology — is that my research practice was born out of a creative practice. At my core, I am someone who creates before I research. My way of approaching a project, my tools, my stance — everything begins with the act of creation: building, making, tinkering. And I believe this colors how I conceive of research, giving it a particular form. This is merely a hypothesis. I don’t have a clear point of comparison, and perhaps it’s unnecessary. But it’s worth stating: my research-creation is rooted in a creative approach.