Craig Batty and Susan Kerrigan’s book Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry explores screen production—filmmaking and screenwriting—as a research method. Made up of a collection of essays by international experts in field, the book defines and provides case studies of screen production research and defends its place in the academy. As editors, Craig Batty and Susan Kerrigan used their extensive knowledge on creative practice research and their passion for linking film theory and practice to create this comprehensive and timely guide for students and scholars alike. Craig Batty is associate professor of screenwriting at RMIT University, Australia, and is an award-winning educator, researcher, and supervisor in the areas of screenwriting, creative writing, and screen production. Susan Kerrigan is an associate professor at the University of Newcastle, Australia, and is a screen production scholar who specializes in creative practice research methodologies. Batty and Kerrigan participated in this interview via email in summer 2018.
Ashley Spillane: Please tell us about your book, Screen Production Research.
Craig Batty and Susan Kerrigan: Our book is intended to provide a robust, rich–and dare we say, foundational–account of what it means to do screen production research; what that looks like; and how it can be articulated. In particular, it is aimed at giving other practitioner-researchers a variety of ways of doing academic research with and through screen production, and writing about it in ways that suit the requirements of academia. The book features a range of practitioner-researchers from around the world, and covers all forms and genres, from the feature film to the screenplay, and from documentary to mobile media filmmaking.
AS: Who is your target audience?
CB and SK: The core target audience is researchers who use screen production methods in their work, which includes faculty and research (PhD) students. We are also trying to reach out to master’s and honours students, and those undergraduates who are considering a research pathway, to educate them on the growing field of creative practice research. Even some practitioners working in the screen industry might be interested in the topics presented.
AS: While preparing for this interview, I discovered that you wrote and contributed to several books and journal articles relating to screen production as well as creative writing and media practice research. How has your previous work writing and researching informed your work on Screen Production Research?
CB and SK: In many ways, this book is a culmination of all our previous work, individually and collectively. We come from similar but different backgrounds–Susan in television and documentary, Craig in writing, film, and fiction–and met at an academic conference, where we shared an interest in ramping up the quality of screen production research. We had worked together on many articles and journal special issues, and knew there would–or should–be a book in the area. After a while we thought, “We should be the ones to do this book!” We knew what needed to be covered and how, and also whom to approach to write what we hope is a set of excellent chapters.
AS: Discuss the organization of Screen Production Research. Why did you choose to structure the book into two parts, and how did you decide the order of the chapters?
CB and SK: We felt strongly that there first needed to be a part that defined the field, and explained some of the core aspects of screen production research, including methodology and examples of how it can be found in different forms (screenplay, feature film, etc.). Then we wanted to show how all this plays out via a series of case studies. So, in a way, the second part of the book is about “showing” the “telling” in the first part. We were keen to mix up the order geographically and stylistically, and end on an honest and sophisticated account of doing a PhD in the area–which we feel will be a big market for the book (other PhD students).
AS: Craig, in chapter five, “Screenwriting as a Mode of Research, and the Screenplay as a Research Artefact,” you explain that discussions of screenwriting as research in academic settings have been relatively rare. How do you plan to continue to help expand the field of “screenwriting studies” in the future?
CB: Well, yes, this is one of my missions! I’ve already published a lot on this, including with PhD students, and my plan is to keep developing the field of (what I am calling) screenwriting practice research. A project I am currently working on, for example, is to start mapping the screenwriting practice PhD and theorize what it looks like, how methodology is defined, what the scripts come out like, etc. I really hope to make screenwriting practice research a rich and exciting field internationally.
AS: And, Susan, for the creative practice researcher, the central question is “What should I make and how should I make it?” (10). The answer to this question depends on the researcher’s ontological and epistemological positioning, or his/her understanding of what there is to know and what and how we can know about it. What advice would you give to researchers who aim to discover their ontological and epistemological positioning?
SK: Understanding a researcher’s philosophical positioning, that is understanding your ontology and epistemology, will make filmmakers better researchers. Describing one’s ontological and epistemological positions helps to explain the filmmaker’s motivations using a research framework, so the philosophical underpinnings that motivated them in the first place contribute to deeper understandings about filmmaking practices. Most filmmakers aim to make films to share new understandings about the world around us, while researchers want to share their knowledge with other researchers. The academy should seek out filmmakers who are able to defend their research positions, as it helps describe the why and the how of filmmaking research, which is more than just making a film–it is contributing to more sophisticated understandings of the complexity of filmmaking and what filmmakers do.
AS: Describe your experience working with the book’s contributors. How did you decide on whom to invite to contribute? What was it like to collaborate with experts who all share a passion for connecting film theory and practice?
CB and SK: We invited filmmaking researchers to contribute to the book, and chose people who we knew had interesting things to say and who could deliver, though we also hunted around for some new voices, to help fill some topic-based and geographical gaps. All of the contributors were thrilled to be involved, and to help us move the discipline forward and share ideas and practices. There were some interesting, perhaps surprising, views on some aspects–such as methods versus methodology, and what constitutes new knowledge–but this helped us to keep the book alive and keep the debates going. We really are very grateful for the generous contributions and time that people took to redraft their chapters and expand their thinking.
AS: In his chapter “Method in Madness: A Case Study in Practice Research Methods,” Erik Knudsen acknowledges a certain “animosity in some institutions between ‘film practitioners’ and ‘film theorists’” (124). Why do you think tension sometimes exists between those who solely practice or research film? Do you think this collection has the potential to alleviate some of that animosity?
CB and SK: The theory/practice divide is something that is prominent in media and communication teaching and learning and research; but theory and practice should not be pitted against each other, and the tensions described by Erik Knudsen’s chapter point out the maturity of film theory and the emerging and dynamic area of creative practice research, which is breaking new ground. The authors contributing to this edited collection are providing examples that illustrate the best way for screen production to draw on film theory and harness the insights gleaned through creative practice research. The book uses a number of research methodologies, such as practitioner based inquiry and practice–based research, which demonstrate ways that creative practice research can advance understandings that will improve understandings about the relationship between film theory and filmmaking practice.
AS: In the introduction, you state that the purpose of Screen Production Research is to “provide a milestone in screen production research, staking a claim for definitions and offering useful case studies in the hope that the discipline can be confident about what it does and inspired about where it is going” (3). Has the book achieved its intended purpose? How do you feel about the future of screen/media/video production?
CB and SK: Well, we hope so–only readers will know for sure, and hopefully they will tell us! But actually, even in the six months since publication, we have received some very positive feedback, and many people have said that it is a book that was needed. This is probably especially true in countries where creative practice research is only beginning to emerge; where researchers, research managers, and students are likely to be searching for models, theories, ideas, and examples. We really hope they look to our book! It is also worth noting that originally, this book was intended to be a research-focused text that would appeal mainly to tenured researchers and PhD students. However, through the process of peer review, it became clear that the book would also be useful for undergraduate and master’s students–hence, the publisher decided to print the book in paperback. So, we hope it will be used in the classroom as well as by researchers and research students. We hope that, like the discipline of creative writing has achieved over the past twenty years, screen production research will flourish in universities and there will be a lot more written about it.
AS: Finally, what’s next for the both of you?
CB and SK: We are already working on another edited collection, this time with three other editors as well, on the topic of screen production–covering practice, research, and teaching. We are also working on funded projects, journal special issues, and other projects related to screen production. We are both in university leadership positions, which is great because it allows us not only to share out knowledge and help develop research in creative disciplines, but also to encourage others to develop their ideas and publish on them. We are also keen to take our work to an international market (beyond Australia and the UK), so are always seeking ways to do this–conferences, publications, new projects, etc.
Author Biography
Ashley R. Spillane is an Honors student at the University of North Carolina Wilmington majoring in film and minoring in digital arts. When she is not watching, making, or writing about films, she enjoys reading, painting, and experimenting with graphic design.
