It seems to me that they both aim at the uncovering of truth behind layers of ignorance. Artistic research battles against aesthetic ignorance, and scientific research battles against epistemic ignorance.
The philosopher Francis Sparshott once characterized a species of riddle as "seeming conundrums with irregular answers" and he gave this example:
Q: Why is Winston Churchill like Father Christmas?
A: They both have beards, except Winston Churchill.
As far as research funding and recognition are concerned, your question is that kind of riddle. :D
For me, a remarkable similarity would be that both of them are invitations to explore new ways of approaching to the human wisdom.
This might be a naive response, coming from a qualitative researcher, but it bothers me that positivist research is searching for absolutes but still dependent on human interpretation of results and the limitations of existing technologies. It might be clear enough whether a result is black or white but shades of grey are harder to place on a continuum and to interpret. In artistic research, we are also grappling with human interpretation and multiple truths. But how true your previous respondent's comment is - that both approaches contribute to human knowledge and (hopefully) wisdom.
However, as your second respondent commented, none of that will impress a funding body!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research