Articulation as Continuation: Rethinking Peer Review for Non-Screen-Based Creative Practice Research

Abstract

This article examines the methodological challenges of peer review in non-screen-based creative practice research and proposes a practice-led alternative grounded in articulation rather than evaluation of fixed artefacts. Existing scholarship highlights a persistent epistemic tension: while creative practice produces knowledge through embodied, material and temporally extended processes, traditional peer review assumes explicit, propositionally framed research contained within stable outputs. Drawing on literatures addressing implicit knowledge, documentation, and research visibility, as well as REF contextual statement analysis, practitioner interviews, and an experimental IJCMR pilot project, the article argues that articulation—through writing, reflection, documentation and dialogue—is not supplementary to creative practice but a continuation of its research process. The IJCMR pilot developed and tested a workflow in which the research statement, rather than the creative work itself, becomes the primary site of peer review and revision. The resulting transparent research dossier, including reviewer comments and author reflections, provides a more robust and discoverable record of creative research while supporting the development of shared evaluative literacies. The article concludes by proposing a dialogic ecology of peer review that foregrounds articulation, enables meaningful engagement with process-based and ephemeral practices, and better reflects the epistemic realities of contemporary creative practice research.