Although M\u00e4kel\u00e4\u2019s article is neither recent nor well-known, I include it within the bibliography because it closely aligns with my own notions of how the praxis component of the \u201cDirections for Archival Interfaces in Virtual Reality\u201d project should be positioned. M\u00e4kel\u00e4, a ceramic artist and associate professor at Aalto University, provides a succinct and accessible overview to the field of practice-led (design) research, though the brevity of the article requires her to assume a degree of familiarity on the part of the reader with the experience of art or design practice. As a companion to the other two books, it introduces design research in a third disciplinary context \u2013 within fine arts \u2013 and attests to the pluralistic nature of the field. Given that the current stage of the project is aimed at developing a prototype, Laurel\u2019s and Blessing and Chakrabarti\u2019s texts offer more in the way of concrete steps for embarking on the process \u2013 but M\u00e4kel\u00e4\u2019s article critically articulates a conceptual stance for the project, one in which the act of making is a process of inquiry and the product created is not only evidence of that process but also an argument<\/em> (159). Moreover, her brief summary of the theoretical origins of practice-led research hints at the further possibilities presented by incorporating \u2018designerly ways of knowing\u2019 into archival theory and practice, which is regrettably outside of the current scope of the project.<\/p>\n In describing the role of artefacts in practice-led research, M\u00e4kel\u00e4 makes a distinction between \u201cthe constructive, solution-focused thinking of the artist or the designer\u201d from the analytic, problem-based thinking associated with verbal and numerical communication (159). While the act of making is understood as a consequence of thinking in conventional research, \u201cinvention comes before<\/em> theory\u201d in practice-led research (159). M\u00e4kel\u00e4 describes a \u2018retrospective look,\u2019 or the act of setting the artefact and the creative process that generated it within a theoretical framework for interpretation (161); in establishing the steps of the design research process for the current project, then, the \u2018retrospective look\u2019 may play a key role. At one point, M\u00e4kel\u00e4 proposes that the artefact is not only an answer to a research question and argumentation on the topic, as established by existing literature on practice-led research, but also \u201ca method of collecting and preserving information and understanding\u201d (158). She does not, unfortunately, elaborate upon her hypothesis but for the recordkeeping profession, it is a provocative idea worth investigating.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\u00e4kel\u00e4, Maarit. 2007. \u201cKnowing Through Making: The Role of the Artefact in Practice-Led Research.\u201d Knowledge, Technology, & Policy; New York 20 (3): 157\u201363. http:\/\/dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca\/10.1007\/s12130-007-9028-2. Although M\u00e4kel\u00e4\u2019s article is neither recent nor well-known, I include it within the bibliography because it closely aligns with my own notions of how the praxis component of the \u201cDirections for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":43676,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6809],"tags":[3611],"class_list":["post-72","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bibliography","tag-methodology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/openarchiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/openarchiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/openarchiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/openarchiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/43676"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/openarchiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/openarchiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":165,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/openarchiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72\/revisions\/165"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/openarchiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/openarchiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/openarchiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}