Research-Creation in Music as a Collaborative Space

Sophie Stévance

Professor in musicology, Faculty of Music, University Laval, Canada Research Chair in Research-Creation in Music

Serge Lacasse

Professor in musicology, Faculty of Music, University Laval


The expression ‘research-creation’ (RC) is relatively new in the scientific and artistic world, and suggests a close interaction between (scholarly) research and the enriching of the (artistic) creative process. [1] Its meaning and acceptance in scholarly vocabulary have been the topic of complex epistemological discussions in which a unifying definition seemed unable to encompass the plethora of uses. Moreover, we find a number of other expressions that are often associated to the concept of research-creation, such as “arts-based research,” “research-led practice,” “practice-as-research,” etc. [2] Yet, these terms – that can be used rather interchangeably – usually refer to the specific kind of ‘research’ inherent to any artistic activity, leading many to confuse the process of scholarly research with the kind of investigation essential to any form of music practice (in particular performance, composition and improvisation). [3]

In Canada, a number of initiatives have been undertaken in order to tackle the question of research-creation. Subsequent to the FCAR/FQRSC initiative (1992), and the Focus Group (1998) mandated to study arts sector financing whose task was to define RC and related terms, SSHRC began, in 2000, to reflect upon the integration to their funding sources of creators present in the university setting. To the great satisfaction of researchers, RC funding programs were established in 2003. SSHRC later financed a conference, Mo(n)des de pensée (2010), which lead to a report linking the humanities and the arts. Since then, other focussed activities have taken place: in 2010 at Université Laval (Créer à l’université? ), in 2012 at ACFAS (La recherche création dans l’université du 21e siècle), in 2014 at UQÀM (La recherche création: territoires d’innovation). These approaches bear witness to the vitality of the field and focus on the artistic practices of university creators. Some authors have thus addressed RC by concentrating on analysis from the individual creator’s standpoint. [4] The position taken here wishes to complete these perspectives: In line with Hazel Smith and Roger Dean, who note that “[c]reative practitioners sometimes join forces with a researcher more specifically oriented towards basic research work,” rather than focussing on individuals, this article will briefly explore RC in music as a collaborative territory. [5] We thus envision RC in music as a collaborative space between researchers, researcher-creators, and creators working towards realizing projects involving both musical (artistic) and academic (scholarly) components.

In our (musical) context, RC coincides with the intersection of research in music (including musicology, but also research in music education, music technology, acoustics, etc.) and musical creation (including composition, performance, improvisation, recording, etc.). In musicology, more specifically, research is understood to be scholarly activities such as those generally applied in the social sciences (philosophy, anthropology, etc.) and natural sciences (acoustics, cognitive sciences, etc.) – from which musicology, as a multi-stranded discipline, draws its methods for understanding the musical object according to its nature and the objectives set forth – in order to advance knowledge about humanity and society, by equipping ourselves with established academic procedures or their close adaptations. [6] By “creation,” we are referring, in music, to the process leading to a singular musical output (or any multimedia production involving music/sound) that will be directly presented to society. [7] In fact, we can speak of results, whether they are musical or musicological. Thus, even if there is a form of research in the creative process (that we could call ‘artistic reflection’ or compare to an investigation), and a form of creation in the process of research, we consider, in musicology, that the process leading to musicological (scholarly) results is what we will name ‘scholarly research,’ while the one leading to musical (artistic) results is creation. [8] Both processes involve, of course, a brand of creativity that differs from artistic creation. [9, 10] Indeed, most human activities involve a form or another of creativity, including artistic creation and scholarly research. To summarize: 1) both musicological research and artistic creation involve a lot of creativity; however, 2) academic research and artistic reflection are two distinct epistemological processes (one tending toward the general, the other toward the singular), even though 3) both processes lead to (academic and artistic) results that might contribute, each in its own way, to the advancement of knowledge, or, to put it another way, to alternative visions of the world. That said, 4) RC can be considered as an interdiscipline where both processes coalesce in many possible ways. [11]

Accordingly, we distinguish RC in music from research projects that wish to study the creative process (e.g. the analysis of a composer’s creative process): these constitute projects in which there is research (on one side) about creation (on the other). [12] We will not be pursuing projects that assess only artistic creation, or more precisely: we will not consider this type of (otherwise valid) study as RC, since there is no intended and intimate relationship between the two (more on this interaction in a moment). In short, while we acknowledge the interest of projects where artistic creation is studied “in the process of creation,” our RC projects in music pay particular attention to the participants’ reciprocal intellectual commitment. Indeed, while RC projects –involving both scholarly research and artistic creation leading to both academic and artistic outputs – might be realized by a singular individual (the researcher-creator, or creator-researcher), it is also often the case for RC projects to be conducted by a group of individuals, consisting of a combination of creators, researchers and researchers-creators – as long as both research and creation are ‘represented’ and interacting. [13, 14]

In our approach, RC is dependent on, and influenced by, the research, both during the very process of creation, as well as in the dissemination of the realized projects. From our perspective, in a RC project in music, research and creation are interdependent and their interactions, at moments when both are active, cause new modes of working to emerge. [15] This ‘fruitful’ point of intersection between the processes of research and creation, made possible by RC, along with the manner in which participants (musicologists, researcher-creators, musicians) can collaborate in raising awareness of analogies between these approaches, cultivate the theoretical framework that we wish to develop in our projects, particularly in music. [16, 17,18]

For us, collaboration between participants comes in the form of mutual commitment to coordinate and bring together various types of expertise so that a single project can produce scholarly and artistic results that are of value to each contributing member. [19] As already mentioned, our approach excludes neither the case of researcher-creators working individually who, due to their training or experience, combine the two approaches, nor the fact that the artistic process can constitute a form of knowledge in its own right by stimulating new concepts and methodological avenues. [20] These are, in fact, the methodological paths followed by labs like Hexagram or Matralab in media arts, or in visual arts by Manning’s Immediations team: considering that the knowledge stemming from the artistic process “cannot be transmitted by the traditional form of dissertation” belonging to conventional research, they seek to “transcend the limits of language.” [21] While we recognize the potential validity of these approaches (and wish to establish ties with them), our approach to RC takes into account other (complementary) aspects different from the views of artists-creators working in universities: rather, we focus on a collaborative vision of RC in a musical context, combining the efforts of participants within projects in which their interactions are studied, and leading to results that are both musical and musicological in nature, and intimately interrelated. [22]

If RC in music’s inherent bi-directional approach requires that a single researcher-creator undertaking a solo project possess dual expertise as both musician and researcher, then a higher number of university musicians having the musicological skills to conduct alone the research portion of an RC project should be encouraged. [23, 24] However, the relative disinterest of these musicians in conducting scholarly research is counterbalanced by their manifest interest in participating in RC projects in music as artists (which is the case, for example, with many of our colleague musicians at Université Laval). In these circumstances, in order to respect the dual expertise so indispensable to the field, the favoured approach most often involves bringing creators and researchers together within a single project in which they pool their expertise, in the spirit of collaboration. [25] For example, in September 2013, we collaborated with Inuit artist Tanya Tagaq during the mixing of her latest album, Animism (Polaris Prize 2014 and Juno Awards 2014). This project took place at the Laboratoire audionumérique de recherche et de création (LARC, dir. Serge Lacasse) in association with the Groupe de recherche-création en musique (GRECEM, dir. Sophie Stévance), both of which are located at Université Laval’s Faculty of Music.

In the Studio with Tanya Tagaq

For ten days (September 4–14, 2013), artist Tanya Tagaq, guest musician Serge Lacasse, producer Jesse Zubot, mixers Jesse Zubot and Serge Lacasse, sound engineer Serges Samson, musicologists Sophie Stévance and Serge Lacasse, ethnomusicologist Gérald Côté, postdoc in musicology/RC Ariane Couture, as well as students in RC all gathered in the studio, literally night and day. Several specific forms of media, such as videos and audio recordings, were used to capture and document different aspects of the studio session, such as movement, gesture and conversation. Moreover, Tagaq has granted us access to all audio files (including separated audio tracks). These data helped our analysis of Tagaq’s music, and our comprehension of Tagaq’s cultural context, which straddles both Inuit culture and culture of the ‘South.’ Between takes, we had the opportunity to have informal discussions, which led to questions about her practice that we were observing, as well as on her practice in general, by presenting our own analysis of her improvisatory practice realized up to this point. [26]

For example, we asked about her method of recording traditional Inuit songs, notably a katajjaq, on her albums Sinaa (2005) and Auk/Blood (2008). Considering the fact that, traditionally, katajjaq is sung by two women, the question deserves to be asked. In fact, in the traditional context, during a katajjaq, two women stand face to face holding each other’s arms or shoulders. They use the opponent’s mouth as a resonator, most notably in order to accentuate the impression that both performances mingle as one sonic unity. With a fast and continuous rhythm, each woman will produce a sound that will be imitated, completed or modified by the other giving rise to a highly interactive process. The sounds and formulas used are generally low and throaty, and can include the imitation of animal cries, laughs, rattles, sighs, or grunts. This vivacious alternation is broken when one of the women makes a mistake or can no longer follow the beat. [27] While in a traditional context two female players sing together in such an intricate way that listeners are not able to distinguish between the two voices, Tagaq sings alone and uses overdubbing techniques in the recording studio. Interestingly, in a few tracks, as was the case on her album Sinaa, Tagaq sings all parts of the traditional katajjait. Because of the multitrack recording process, improvisation is, of course, losing ground in favour of a more constructed vision, since tracks are produced in sequence by the same singer, and (obviously) not in real-time – as would be the case in a traditional performance involving two singers. In addition, where certain details are impossible to perceive in the context of the katajjaq tradition, they become obvious with work in the studio, such as the timbre of her voice, both inhalation and exhalation, and sounds placed in the chest, throat, mouth or nose. Tagaq thus creates a new game in which she interacts with and responds to herself with the help of recording technology. She said: “It’s really cool because I can achieve things that I can’t on stage in the studio. That’s a part of one of the stems of an album that might be coming through: bridging the gap between the two and/or breaking down the bridge between those two and letting them be as separate as possible.” So we see here that it is the creation that influenced the musicological research. Through the discussion of our findings and ongoing research with Tagaq about her improvisation, we can observe that research and creation are mutually enriching. In our previous work, we showed that Tagaq constructed her performance improvisations on a structure consisting of localized improvisations or varied segments that are integrated within a larger formal structure and adopts a traditional frame leaning toward composition. [28] When we presented our transcriptions to Tagaq in the studio between two takes, her reaction was: “Hey, you can write my music?!” We then had the opportunity to further explain how we had to create these transcriptions in order to highlight her improvisations and recurring motifs. Tagaq then returned to record a track, after which she joined us and said: “The patterns that you have shown me in your analyses, well, actually . . . it’s my bed. I understood them instantly, while singing. I’ve always known them, and they come at specific times when I improvise . . . The next time I feel them coming, I will try to remember why I have sung them at this moment ‘T.’” About six months later, when we received the songs just before the release of the album, we noticed that most of the patterns were gone; at least we could identify fewer than before. We then spoke with Tagaq and pointed out our observation to her. She responded: “it is because I got up from my bed.”

Our goal with this project is to consider different and multiple perspectives – in fact, the most perspectives possible, which is an important reason for uniting musicologists, researcher-creators, and musicians under the umbrella of this collaborative style of research. As musicologists, we had to get some answers in order to better understand if there was, indeed, recurrent patterns in her improvisations, and, if yes, why? And as researchers in the field of RC in music, we had to have some indication that research can make artists aware of elements of their practices, by inviting artists to verbalize or articulate aspects of their own practices, thus influencing creation. In fact, on the research side, this experience has also showed us how flexible method has to be, in order to adapt to, and to exploit, as much as possible, the artistic environment. For example, most answers emerged from informal discussions (e.g., around good wine and meals) rather than more formal activities. Also, in the context of the overall process, some participants (e.g., Lacasse) were constantly ‘changing hats,’ from researchers to creators. This movement has of course a direct impact on both the research and the creation processes and outputs. The next section is addressing some aspects (and more) of these methodological issues.

Methodological Approach of RC

We can say that the studio is a privileged space to foster informal exchanges, close or intimate relationships between united individuals, relations that could not easily take place in the context of semi-structured interviews. Ethnography can therefore occur at any point in time, which has allowed us, together, to articulate and develop, through critical thinking, both theory and practice, all while observing their mutual influences. Moreover, with Tagaq, the recording studio becomes a transcultural space where dialogues that are hardly conceivable in other contexts can be established. The recording studio and the collaboration between performer/ producer/ songwriter/ engineer/ musicologist is important for the singer. During the 2014 Polaris Music Prize ceremony (awarded annually to the group or artist who produced the best Canadian album), Tagaq began her speech by insisting on the indispensible role of the work in the studio (when recalling some of the strong moments experienced in Quebec City while working in the LARC). [29]

In these perspectives of collaboration, the work in RC that we conducted with Tagaq allowed us to better understand not only the way she thinks and works in studio, but also the ‘microcosm’ of the studio or the ‘microspace,’ which grants us access to Tagaq’s universe, one that we called, in other contexts, ‘cosmopolitan.’ [30, 31] Studio work with Tagaq and all the people involved in what Ettlinger has also called the ‘daily practices of work,’ is, for us, a privileged space of RC: it is a space where we can understand “the technical and creative roles they perform, the performance of emotional labour, and the networking activities.” [32, 33]

These observations emerge from the interactions between the participants involved in researching the creation as it is being made, as well as those involved in the act of creation that is the object of research. We must first remember that we cannot understand this microcosm of the studio if we, the researchers, do not make ourselves part of it. [34] While studies have mainly emphasized the collaboration that takes place in the studio between performer/ producer/ songwriter/ engineers, it is rare that a researcher is integrated as an active participant in the collaboration of a RC perspective. Even ethnomusicologist Beverley Diamond puts distance between her studio observations and scientific discourse in her work on Native American musicians. [35] Yet, the team of Zagorski-Thomas united in the framework of his project Performance in the Studio, or even Thompson and Lashua have recently demonstrated that if recording studios can be places of creativity, they can also be spaces of academic research and foster collaboration not only between musicians but also with the ethnographer prior to, or during, the data gathering process. [36, 37] However, while interesting in particular because it addresses issues and strategies for conducting ethnographic fieldwork in music recording studios, Thompson and Lashua’s study does not reflect on the recording studio’s capacity for RC. RC in music suggests close interaction between research (scientific) and the act of enriching the creative process (artistic). As such, from a methodological perspective (not a disciplinary one), our collaboration with Tagaq during the mixing and realization of her album Animism is similar to Kemmis and McTaggart’s model of “Participatory Action-Research” (PAR). [38] PAR is a method that enables individuals to work collectively to develop their practices, their understanding of their practices and the situations in which they live and work. PAR is a process of systematic collection an analysis of information, of data, with the goal of taking action and informing action throughout the process, leading to awareness. PAR is realized in, through and by a collaborative practice that is aimed at modifying the research as much as the action of the participants, while also adjusting the methods of interacting in a shared social space. Thus, this is a process where one learns by doing, and where one learns with others; it’s a space where everyone’s knowledge and expertise is valued.

Furthermore, this project with Tagaq is, in some ways, typical of a reflection of how people work in the studio. At the same time, when musicologists are present in the studio to analyse the creative process they attend to, when they interview people in the context of discourses, formally and informally, when the singer and the producers talk about their practice with researchers and seem considering, in their creation, comments from musicologists about what they are creating, it appears that the creation and the research as it takes place influence the other. We would go further and even argue that it grants a place for the experience of researchers in the creative process, and a place for creators in the research process, and enables us to observe their mutual influences and interactions. In such an RC configuration, not only can the participants change hats: in fact, RC asks for these hats to simply disappear, in order to foster collaboration according to each member’s actual abilities (whether artistic and/or academic), and not according to their pre-supposed role (as musicologist, musician, technician, etc.). From this perspective, RC promotes ‘undifferencing’ of participants’ roles during the experience, that is, it aims at abolishing entirely the traditional (and supposedly ‘objective’) frontiers between ‘observers’ and the ones ‘being observed.’ In fact, the very act of wanting to attenuate such a frontier (in participant-observation as a method for RC, for example) is already pointing at some kind of differencing among participants. Here, we wish to favor a complete coalescence of roles by not even identifying them in the first place: that will be the responsibility of the ‘research output’ side of the project once the collaborative experience is done. It is only then that the different disciplinary hats might want to take action. In short, an RC project becomes an occasion, an opportunity, an ideal space for such an undifferentiated collaborative action to take place, an action, once completed, we may (or may not) want to theoretically differentiate.

To put it another way, our RC project in music demonstrates that RC is not the discipline of the researcher-creator; rather, it should be considered from the point of view of the project around which many skills are coalesced (whether within a single individual or distributed among a group). For example, as our RC project with Tagaq progressed, each other’s roles that were expected initially were gradually redefined depending on the discussions, observations, findings, but also according to affinities between (originally expected) researchers, creators or researchers-creators. For example, while Lacasse started the project primarily as researcher (wanting to have access to isolated recorded tracks for further musical and comparative analysis), he gradually started to interact more closely with Jesse Zubot during the mixing process, to the point that the growing affinity between Zubot and Lacasse lead the latter to collaborate more and more closely to the mix, as well as playing some additional (and originally unplanned) musical parts (percussion). [39] This, of course, also led Lacasse to interact in a different way as expected with Stévance in their further reflection about RC (this article constituting an additional step toward our reflection about collaborative methods in accordance with our definition of RC). Similar types of diverse configurations are observed in other projects, and for which Stévance has (or will) act either as creator (e.g., as violist or lyric singer), as researcher (e.g., when studying Tagaq’s or other artists’ creative process), or even as research-creator (e.g., when participating as singer in a recording project – opera singing in popular music –for which she also reflects on its aesthetic implications). In short, rather than being determined by who is realizing the RC project (as it is currently reflected in criteria adopted by most funding agencies), the notion of RC should find its foundations in the very nature of the project – the participants involved and the methods used will then arise therefrom. This is how we propose to approach RC. [40]


1. We will refer to “research-creation” by its abbreviated form, “RC,” throughout the article.

2. Hazel Smith and Roger Dean, eds., Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009); Estelle Barrett and Barbara Bolt, eds., Practice as Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry (London: I. B. Tauris, 2010); Robin Nelson, Practice as Research in the Arts: Principles, Protocols, Pedagogies, Resitances (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); Patricia Leavy, Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practice, 2nd edition (New York: Guilford Press, 2015).

3. This points to the importance of defining as clearly as possible the terms one refers to rather than using them indistinctively. See Rubén López Cano and Úrsula San Cristóbal Opazo, Investigación artística en música: Problemas, experiencias y propuestas: 44–45, For example, Doğantan-Dack writes: “Throughout the volume, the conceptual referents of the terms ‘practice-led research’, ‘practice- based research’, ‘practice as research’, ‘artistic practice as research’ and ‘artistic research’ remain consistent, and local context makes any intended difference of meaning between them clear.” Mine Doğantan-Dack, “Introduction,” in Artistic Practice as Research in Music: Theory, Criticism, Practice, ed. Mine Doğantan-Dack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 3.

4. See, for example, Chris Bannerman, “Reflections on Practice as Research,” Digital Creativity 15, no. 2 (2003): 65–70; Monik Bruneau and André Villeneuve, eds., Traiter de recherche création en art (Montreal: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2007).

5. Hazel Smith and Roger Dean, “Introduction: Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice – Towards the Interactive Cyclic Web,” in Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts, ed. Hazel Smith and Roger Dean (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 8.

6. Vincent Duckles et al., “Musicology,” Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, accessed April 26, 2015,

7. Antoine Hennion, La Passion musicale. Une sociologie de la médiation (Paris: Métailié, 1993).

8. Marcel Fournier, Yves Gingras, and Creutzer Mathurin, “Création artistique et champ universitaire: Qui sont les pairs?,” Sociologie et sociétés 21, no. 2 (1989): 63–74.

9. Howard Gardner, Creative Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity Seen through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravisinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi (New York: Basic Books, 1993); Mihályi Csíkszentmihályi, Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery (New York: Harper Collins, 1996); Margaret S. Barrett, “Creative Collaboration : An ‘Eminence’ Study of Teaching and Learning in Music Composition,” Psychology of Music 34, no. 2 (April 2006): 195–218; Keith Sawyer and Stacy DeZutter, “Distributed Creativity: How Collective Creations Emerge from Collaboration,” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 3, no. 2 (2009): 81–92; David Hargreaves, Dorothy Miell, and Raymond MacDonald, eds., Musical Imaginations: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Creativity, Performance and Perception (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

10. Pierre Hamelin, La Création en milieu universitaire (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1991); Marie-Thérèse Lefebvre, “La création musicale à l’Université de Montréal,” in La création artistique à l’université, ed. Joël de la Noüe (Québec: Nota Bene, 2000), 77–80.

11. Sophie Stévance and Serge Lacasse, Les enjeux de la recherche-création en musique: Institution, definition, formation (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2013), 183–86.

12. See, for example, the French team “Analyse des pratiques musicales,”

13. This distinction between “researcher-creator” and “creator-researcher” may be founded on the approach the individual wishes to privilege.

14. Stévance and Lacasse, Les enjeux de la recherche-création en musique, 122.

15. Walter Gershon, ed., The Collaborative Turn: Working Together in Qualitative Research (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2009).

16. Fournier, Gingras, and Mathurin, “Création artistique et champ universitaire,” 7.

17. Mats Alvesson and Kaj Sköldberg, Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research (London: SAGE, 2000).

18. Stévance and Lacasse, Les enjeux de la recherche-création en musique.

19. It should be noted that research has shown that the stereotypical figure of the individual creator working alone is just a romantic myth. See Pamela Burnard, Musical Creativities in Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). As Galenson notes, “artistic innovations are not made by isolated geniuses, but are usually based on the lessons of teachers and the collaboration of colleagues.” See David Galenson, Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Lifes Cycles of Creativity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 66. In the end, both collaboration and creativity affect all areas of research and artistic practice. See Vera John-Steiner, Creative Collaboration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

20. Michael Biggs and Henrik Karlsson, eds., The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts (London: Routledge, 2000); Baz Kershaw and Henri Nicholson, eds., Research Methods in Theatre and Performance (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University, 2011).

21. Cléa Desjardin, “L’art comme forme de connaissance” (2013), accessed January 15, 2013, Our translation.

22. Helena Gaunt and Heidi Westerlund, eds., Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2013); Margaret S. Barrett, ed., Collaborative Creative Thought and Practice in Music (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2014).

23. Huib Schippers, “The marriage of art and academia: Challenges and opportunities for music research in practice-based environments,” Dutch Journal for Music Theory 12, no. 1 (2007): 35; Nelson, Practice as Research in the Arts.

24. Huib Schippers, “Musical Practice in Slow-motion: Emerging Directions for Australian Research in Music,” Sounds Australian 64 (2004): 26–27,

25. Hazel Smith and Roger Dean, eds., Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts.

26. Since 2007, Stévance has been working on and with Tagaq as part of research projects that have, over time, evolved into a larger program in RC in music. See notably, among numerous presentations in international conferences, Sophie Stévance, “The Inuit Katajjaq in Popular Culture: The Canadian Throat-Singer Superstar Tanya Tagaq,” Itamar. Revista de Investigación Musical: Territorios para el Arte, no. 3 (2011): 79–85; Sophie Stévance, “À la recherche de la recherche-création: création d’une interdiscipline universitaire,” Éditorial, Intersections 33, no. 1 (2014): 3–12,

27. For more on the traditional katajjaq, see, among others, Nicole Beaudry, “Le Katajjaq, un jeu traditionnel,” Études/Inuit/Studies 2, no. 1 (1978): 35–53; Bernard Saladin D’Anglure, “Entre cri et chant: les katajjait, un genre musical féminin,” Études/Inuit/Studies 2, no. 1 (1978): 85–94; Beverley Diamond and Anna Hoefnagels, eds., Aboriginal Music in Contemporary Canada: Echoes and Exchanges (Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press, 2012).

28. Sophie Stévance, “Tanya Tagaq: l’ethno-pop comme mise en spectacle,” in Quand la musique prend corps, ed. Monique Desroches, Sophie Stévance, and Serge Lacasse (Montreal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 2014), 309–330.

29. “Aesthetic Cosmopolitanism in the Microcosm of the Studio: Research-creation in Music with Tanya Tagaq” (additional multimedia material), Groupe de recherche-création en musique (GRECEM), accessed June 23, 2015,

30. Nancy Ettlinger, “Cultural Economic Geography and a Relational and Microspace Approach to Trusts, Rationalities, Networks and Change in Collaborative Workplaces,” Journal of Economic Geography 3, no. 2 (2003): 145–71.

31. Sophie Stévance, “Tanya Tagaq: l’ethno-pop comme mise en spectacle”; Serge Lacasse, “Le cosmopolitisme esthétique de Tanya Tagaq,” Conference “Célébrer les singularités musicales du monde,” Institut du patrimoine culturel (IPAC), Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec, June 1, 2014; Serge Lacasse, “Le cosmopolitisme esthétique de Tanya Tagaq: Racines inuites, technologie et isomorphisme expressif multiple,” 19th Inuit Studies Conference, “Qaumaniq – Enlightening Knowledge,” Université Laval, Quebec City, October 29–November 1, 2014.

32. Ettlinger, “Cultural Economic Geography,” 156.

33. Alan Watson, Cultural Production in and Beyond the Recording Studio (London: Routledge, 2014), 191.

34. Paul Atkinson and Martyn Hammersley, “Ethnography and Participant Observation,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), 248–61.

35. Beverley Diamond, “Media as Social Action: Native American Musicians in the Recording Studio,” in Wired for Sound: Engineering and Technologies in Sonic Cultures, ed. Paul D. Greene and Thomas Porcello (Middletown, CT.: Wesleyan University Press, 2005), 118–37.

36. “AHRC Research Network on Performance in the Studio (PitS),” Association for the Study of the Art of Record Production (ASARP), accessed June 23, 2015,

37. Paul Thompson and Brett Lashua, “Getting It on Record: Issues and Strategies for Ethnographic Practice in Recording Studios,” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 43, no. 3 (April 2014): 746–69.

38. Stephan Kemmis and Robin McTaggart, “Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action and the Public Sphere,” in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005), 559–604.

39. Serge Lacasse, “Le cosmopolitisme esthétique de Tanya Tagaq”; “Le cosmopolitisme esthétique de Tanya Tagaq: Racines inuites, technologie et isomorphisme expressif multiple.”

40. Sophie Stévance, “À la recherche de la recherche-création: création d’une interdiscipline universitaire.”


Sophie Stévance is the Canada Research Chair in Research-Creation in Music at University Laval (Faculty of music, Quebec City), where she is Associate Professor of Musicology. She is also head of Groupe de recherche-création en musique ( and French-editor for Intersections: Canadian music review. Her filed of study is research-creation in music and she has done research into modernization of Inuit throat-singing (with Tanya Tagaq) and creative processes in music production and new technologies. She is the author of several books, including the recent publications Quand la musique prend corps, co-edited with M.Desroches and S. Lacasse (2014), Les enjeux de la recherche-création en musique, with S. Lacasse, 2013), Musique actuelle (2011), Composer au XXIe siècle (2010), Duchamp, compositeur (2009), Tessier, L’Itinéraire du timbre (2006). She has received two awards from The Académie Charles-Cros (2006 and 2010), was finalist for the 2014 Prix Opus, and was awarded several research grants (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and Quebec Research Funds Society and Culture).

A popular music specialist, Serge Lacasse is Full Professor at Laval University in Quebec City, where he teaches popular music theory and history, research methodology, as well as songwriting and mixing. In addition to his teaching activities, Serge is head of both the Laval site of the Observatoire de création et de recherche en musique (OICRM-ULaval) and the Laboratoire audionumérique de recherche et de création (LARC). He has recently co-authored with Sophie Stévance Les enjeux de la recherche-création en musique: Institution, définition, formation (PUL) and co-edited with Monique Desroches and Sophie Stévance Quand la musique prend corps (PUM). Serge, who is currently member of the editorial board for several scholarly journals (Popular Music, Intersections, Musicologies, Copyright Volume, etc.), was the French Editor for the Canadian University Music Review from 2002 to 2006. Besides his academic career, he is still active in the recording industry as a producer, songwriter, and arranger.