Methodology
From Pragmatism to Piracy
I must start by stating that I had never done research as a means to an end within my practice before. I had always gone with my gut or accumulated knowledge as a process towards a final outcome. Blinded by my own random thoughts, I had no notion whatsoever of the insights the research could provide to a creative designer/illustrator. I believed fiction and innovation had to be all new things and that there was no gaining from whatever was already done since it was indeed already done. I found out I was extremely wrong as soon as I began.
My method starts with reflective research. I found that it always begins with an emotion, a doubt or an impacting visual that triggered me in some way - just like in the creative process - followed by thorough objective research or an attempt to improve an issue I might have encountered (Mainemelis, 2002). After such I go back to reflecting on my findings.
My objective research allowed me to understand my focus subjects, helped to inform my search with quality texts from reliable and viable sources such as academic books and peer-reviewed articles. This objective search also showed proofs to my reflection, it defended my point of view and, sometimes, it even changed my view of certain subjects with the provided knowledge. It made sure that whatever I was writing about was not biased or incorrect since there were random things I used to believe in when I was young and now I question all of it till proof is given.
I have little use of subjective research since I made no extensive interviews nor any enquiries. I noted responses to my work for one of my blog posts because they were the focus of the experiment and the rest of the subjectivity within the posts is more reflective and critical.
In terms of reliability I focus on peer-reviewed texts as I believe they are at the top of the hierarchic chain of quality references due to their trustworthy content. However, when I gathered subjective research such as in the “Visual Irony” post, I asked colleagues, friends and family members for their insights knowing how their education, culture and beliefs would bias their responses. Opinions could easily vary but, as a designer, the public’s take on what is produced is a must for it to be effective.
From my recent reading on research methods, I found out I’ve leaned towards the grounded theory method by gathering theoretical sampling. This because, just like Glaser and Strauss in the sixties, when a problem would arise, I would gather the evidence from what is directly there by questioning its content in order to prove a point and find a solution to it (Bell & Waters, 2018). New data would always test my ideas in order to add to or break my theory. Once the solution was found, I would distance myself in order to see its faults since it is my belief that the best tool we have rests in our brains, in reflecting on the issues that we stumble upon.
On the other hand I believe I could have gone deeper as I acknowledge that by being critical and reflective I don’t do as much objective research as I think I should in order to support my theories. There is, also, a lack of originality in terms of research methods in my opinion.
Being very introspective, I found reflection to accompany me everywhere I went and in whatever I researched, either for visual inspiration or for when I stumbled upon situations that intrigue me. I used subjectivity when describing the feelings that I experienced so I could show the idea behind most posts as I wanted the reader to feel what I felt. I inspect my research in the end of each post where I relate the objective research I gathered to final concluding thoughts. Nevertheless I do not examine my argumentation’s effectiveness since I would lean towards overthinking and auto-validation until now.
Some of my posts have books defending their subject that might not be considered by all researchers since they might be mirroring my own opinion specifically. Even though I mention the contrasting thoughts on the studied subjects, I lack the consideration of other researchers views when referencing.
Leaving out most of the visual experimentation was my biggest foul provided that my master bases itself on visual language as a priority.
I am, though, limited by my interests, my understanding of only four languages (some articles I might only get access as a pdf of a scanned version where there is no way to translate it) and my education and formulate most conclusions based on my experience since it is my belief that, as I said in the “The Growth of an Idea” post, our actions are connected to us as rational beings since most of our research route’s choices depend on our gut, knowledge or personal taste.
Now, I like to think of my method as an adventure. A journey where I jump on my imaginary boat filled with tools in order to gain knowledge. I stumbled upon some obstacles in the way, gathered more tools and kept drawing my way. I might not even know to where it will lead me. In this sea of research the aim might be reaching land or finding a treasure but I ultimately believe that the richness we end up achieving comes from the whole experience of roaming this ocean of research.
To conclude, I trust it wasn’t only the research itself but the research methods that made me grow as an illustrator and designer opening paths I never knew before.
References:
Bell, J. & Waters, S. (2018) Doing your Research Project: a Guide for First-time Researchers, Open University Press
Mainemelis, C. (2002) “Time and Timelessness: Creativity in (and out of) the Temporal Dimension.” Creativity Research Journal. [Online] 14 (2). pp.227-238. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_9?needAccess=true [Accessed: 21st November]














