This protocol was the draft produced during the running of the Townshend Studio Research Challenge. It was mostly designed as a template following on from the procedures followed that could be developed into a subsequent protocols.io publication for future Group-Based In-Person Research Challenges. At the time of writing (Feb 2026) the protocol was not complete. This document was written with assistance from Claude AI.

Group-Based In-Person Practice Research Challenge Protocol

   Metadata

  Protocol Title:   Group-Based In-Person Practice Research Challenge: Collaborative Practice Exploration Through Intensive Workshop

  Protocol Version:   1.0 (Draft)

  Authors:   Simon Zagorski-Thomas (C21MP), [Additional authors TBA]

  Affiliation:   C21MP (21st Century Music Practice Virtual Research Centre)

  DOI:   [To be assigned upon protocols.io publication]

  License:   CC-BY 4.0

  Protocol Status:   In development

  Keywords:   practice research, group collaboration, intensive workshop, technique development, in-person collaboration, practice-based research, reflective practice, action research, music performance research, video documentation, collective learning, workshop methodology

  Linked Octopus Publications: 

– Research Problem: [DOI TBA]

– Rationale/Hypothesis: [DOI TBA – participant proposals]

– Results/Sources: [DOI TBA – compiled video documentation]

– Analysis: [DOI TBA – group discussion and reflection]

   Abstract

This protocol establishes a structured method for group-based practice research conducted through an intensive in-person workshop. Groups of 2-6 music practitioners work together over approximately 1.5 days, collaboratively exploring a practice concept, technique, or approach defined by a Research Problem. Participants develop individual proposals beforehand, then engage in collective experimentation, documentation, and reflection. The workshop includes dedicated time for re-enacting or demonstrating discoveries for camera. The final half-day is reserved for group discussion and collaborative editing of documentation. The protocol produces a peer-reviewed, DOI-allocated video output via JISC Octopus, documenting both the exploratory process and analytical reflections. This method leverages real-time collaboration, immediate feedback, and collective knowledge-building to generate insights into group-based practice innovation.

   Research Context

  Purpose:   To investigate how collaborative in-person exploration, guided by individual proposals and group interaction, produces functional improvements, extensions, or refinements to music practitioner techniques, strategies, or approaches.

  Methodological Framework: 

– Practice-based research via intensive workshop

– Real-time collaborative learning

– Reflective practice methodology

– Action research cycle: propose ‚Üí explore collectively ‚Üí document ‚Üí reflect ‚Üí edit

  Octopus Publication Chain Integration: 

–   Research Problem  : Set by coordinator (e.g., “How can guitarists develop extended techniques using alternative tuning?”)

–   Rationale/Hypothesis  : Individual participant proposals (written independently before workshop)

–   Method  : This protocol

–   Results/Sources  : Video documentation of exploration and demonstrations

–   Analysis  : Group discussion segment

–   Interpretation  : Optional follow-up group event or individual publications

–   Applications/Implications  : Optional completed works

   Guidelines

  For Participants: 

– Come prepared with individual proposal but open to group direction

– Balance personal exploration with collective goals

– Document process through combination of continuous filming and staged demonstrations

– Contribute to group discussion and editing process

– Be open to unexpected directions and happy accidents

– Share equipment and space generously

  For Coordinators: 

– Frame Research Problem clearly and appropriately for group work

– Secure adequate workshop space with good acoustics

– Set realistic timeline (minimum 1.5 days recommended)

– Facilitate without over-directing

– Ensure all participants have voice in discussion

– Provide technical support for filming and editing

– Call For Participants should specify venue, dates, and accommodation/travel arrangements

  Quality Indicators: 

– Clear articulation of individual and collective goals

– Systematic exploration – although ‘happy accidents’ should also be documented, flagged and explained

– Visible development through workshop duration

– Evidence of genuine group interaction and mutual influence

– Honest reflection on group dynamics and outcomes

– Balance between individual contributions and collective discoveries

   Materials

    Venue Requirements:

– Rehearsal/practice space suitable for group size

– Good acoustics (or adaptable for the practice domain)

– Adequate natural and/or controllable artificial lighting

– Sufficient power outlets for equipment

– Breakout space for discussions

– Editing workspace with computers

– Secure storage for instruments/equipment overnight if multi-day

– Kitchen/refreshment facilities

– Accessible toilet facilities

    For Participants:

– Musical instrument(s) or relevant music practice tools

– Any specific materials referenced in individual proposals

– Laptop with video editing software (at least one per group)

– Headphones for editing

– Note-taking materials

– Personal refreshments/snacks

    For Coordinators:

  Essential: 

– Multiple video recording devices (smartphones minimum, cameras preferred)

– Multiple tripods/stable mounts (minimum 2-3)

– External microphones (for improved audio quality)

– Adequate lighting equipment (if venue lighting insufficient)

– Large screen/monitor for group viewing

– Sufficient storage devices/cloud storage for footage

– Editing workstation(s) with suitable software

– File transfer/sharing system

– Backup power supplies/batteries

  Recommended: 

– Multiple camera angles capability

– Audio recorder for discussion capture

– Whiteboards/flip charts for planning

– Markers/sticky notes for collaborative planning

– Printed copies of all participant proposals

– Clapper board or simple slate for marking takes

– Extension cables/power strips

– First aid kit

– Refreshments for participants

   Safety and Ethics

    Participant Wellbeing:

  Physical Safety: 

– Do not attempt injury-risking techniques

– Ensure adequate breaks (minimum 15 minutes every 90 minutes)

– Monitor for fatigue in intensive workshop setting

– Adequate ventilation in practice space

– Safe storage of equipment and instruments

  Mental/Emotional Wellbeing: 

– Right to withdraw at any stage

– Opt-out from specific activities without explanation

РDocumented failures are valuable data—no pressure to only show success

– Manage group dynamics to ensure all voices heard

– Break if tensions arise; coordinator mediates if needed

– Contact coordinator privately if process becomes stressful

  Group Dynamics: 

– Establish ground rules at outset (respect, listening, time-sharing)

– Monitor for domination or exclusion patterns

– Ensure equitable participation in decision-making

– Address conflicts constructively

    Data Protection:

– GDPR compliant data handling

– Video footage shared only as specified

– Participants control name/pseudonym use

– Right to request data deletion before publication

– All participants must consent to all footage used in final edit

    Intellectual Property:

– Individual contributions to collective work clearly attributed where possible

– Final video published CC-BY 4.0

– Group co-authorship on Octopus publications

– Individual proposal authorship retained

– Any works created may be performed/recorded by any participant with attribution

    Venue and Access:

– Accessibility requirements accommodated

– Adequate access for disabled participants

– Safe environment free from harassment

– Emergency procedures clearly communicated

– Appropriate insurance coverage in place

   Before Start

    Coordinators Complete (4-6 weeks before):

– [ ] Define and publish Research Problem on Octopus

– [ ] Create call for participants with venue, dates, logistics

– [ ] Secure suitable workshop venue

– [ ] Arrange accommodation if multi-day/participants travelling

– [ ] Set up equipment hire/borrowing if needed

– [ ] Prepare proposal template and submission guidelines

– [ ] Establish group size (2-6 participants per group)

– [ ] Brief participants on protocol and schedule

– [ ] Arrange catering/refreshments

– [ ] Create risk assessment for venue/activities

– [ ] Prepare emergency contact information

– [ ] Set up file storage system

– [ ] Test all video/audio equipment

– [ ] Create short title video for participants

    Participants Complete (1-2 weeks before):

– [ ] Write and submit individual proposal

– [ ] Read Research Problem publication thoroughly

– [ ] Read all other participants’ proposals (shared by coordinator)

– [ ] Confirm travel/accommodation arrangements

– [ ] Confirm any dietary requirements

– [ ] Bring required instruments/materials

– [ ] Install editing software if bringing own laptop

– [ ] Review complete protocol

– [ ] Confirm understanding of schedule

    Day Before Workshop:

– [ ] Coordinator: Set up venue, test equipment, arrange space

– [ ] Coordinator: Brief any additional facilitators/technicians

– [ ] Coordinator: Prepare sign-in sheet, consent forms, emergency contacts

– [ ] Participants: Travel to venue, settle accommodation if needed

– [ ] Optional: Informal meet-up evening before (no recording)

   Protocol Steps

  Note:   Timeline can be adapted but minimum 1.5 days recommended. Example schedule based on Day 1 (full day) + Day 2 (half day).

    PRE-WORKSHOP: Proposal Development

     Step 1: Individual Proposal Writing (Rationale/Hypothesis)

  Timeline:   1-2 weeks before workshop

  Objective:   Create theory-informed proposal for individual contribution to group exploration

  Proposal Structure (400-600 words): 

1. Personal Practice Goal  (75-100 words)

   – What you want to explore within the Research Problem

   – How it relates to your current practice

2. Theoretical/Practical Context  (100-150 words)

   – Relevant frameworks or inspirations

   – Why this interests you

3. Proposed Contribution to Group  (150-200 words)

   – What you might bring to collaborative exploration

   – How you imagine group work might develop this

   – What you hope to learn from others

4. Resources/Requirements  (75-150 words)

   – Materials you’ll bring

   – Technical requirements

   – Ideas for group experimentation

  Submission: 

– Submit to coordinator

– Becomes individual Rationale/Hypothesis in Octopus chain

– Coordinator shares all proposals with all participants before workshop

  Coordinator Action: 

– Collect proposals

– Share all proposals with all participants

– Identify any resource/logistical needs

– Look for complementary or contrasting approaches

    DAY 1: COLLABORATIVE EXPLORATION

     Step 2: Workshop Opening and Setup

  Timeline:   Day 1, Morning (9:00-10:00)

  Suggested Activities: 

2.1   Welcome and Introduction   (30 minutes)

– Coordinator welcome and health & safety briefing

– Participant introductions

– Quick instrument/practice domain familiarisation

– Review workshop schedule and expectations

– Establish group agreements (speaking time, breaks, decision-making)

– Emergency procedures and welfare contacts

2.2   Proposal Sharing Circle   (30 minutes)

– Each participant briefly presents their proposal (3-5 minutes each)

– Clarifying questions only (not critique)

– Identify common themes and divergences

– Begin thinking about collective directions

2.3   Technical Setup 

– Position cameras in space

– Test audio levels

– Assign documentation roles (may rotate)

– Establish “filming” vs “experimenting” signals

  Documentation: 

– Film welcome and proposal sharing

– Capture initial reactions and planning discussion

     Step 3: Initial Collaborative Exploration

  Timeline:   Day 1, Morning to Early Afternoon (10:00-13:00)

  Objective:   Begin collective exploration of Research Problem through group experimentation

  Suggested Process: 

3.1   First Exploration Session   (90 minutes)

– Begin working collectively with ideas from proposals

– Try different combinations and approaches

– Follow interesting directions as they emerge

– Document happy accidents

– Camera running continuously or with dedicated documenter

– Don’t worry about staging for camera yet

 Break: 15 minutes

3.2   Quick Review and Refocus   (15 minutes)

– Brief review of footage/notes from morning

– What’s emerging?

– What wants further exploration?

– Adjust direction for afternoon if needed

 Lunch Break: 60 minutes

     Step 4: Deeper Exploration and Documentation

  Timeline:   Day 1, Afternoon (14:00-18:00)

  Objective:   Deepen exploration and begin capturing key demonstrations

  Suggested Activities: 

4.1   Focused Exploration Sessions   (2 x 75 minutes with break)

– Work with most promising directions from morning

– Experiment with variations

– Develop individual and collective techniques

– Begin noting moments to recreate for camera

– Alternate between:

  – Free exploration (camera may or may not record)

  – Demonstration mode (deliberately showing for camera)

 Break: 15 minutes between sessions

4.2   Demonstration Capture Session   (45 minutes)

– Group decides key discoveries to demonstrate

– Stage these for camera with:

  – Brief explanation of what’s being shown

  – Demonstration of technique/approach

  – Explanation of how group arrived at this

  – Individual and/or collective performance

– Multiple takes acceptable

– Clear marking of what each demonstration shows

 

  Documentation Strategy: 

– Continuous documentation of exploration process

– Deliberate staging of key discoveries

– Capture both successful and unsuccessful attempts

– Film group discussions about direction

– Note timestamps of significant moments

 End Day 1: 18:00

  Evening (Optional): 

– Informal continuation if group energy permits

– Review day’s footage

– Make notes for Day 2

РNo pressure—rest is valuable too

    DAY 2: REFLECTION AND COMPILATION

     Step 5: Morning Consolidation (if full 2-day format)

  Timeline:   Day 2, Morning (9:00-12:00) –  Optional if doing extended 2-day version

  Suggested Activities: 

5.1   Reflection and Planning   (30 minutes)

– Review Day 1 discoveries

– Identify gaps in documentation

– Plan final exploration/demonstration session

5.2   Final Exploration   (90 minutes)

– Further develop most promising directions

– Re-stage any inadequately documented discoveries

– Capture individual reflections on process

– Create any final demonstrations needed

 Break: 15 minutes

5.3   Demonstration Completion   (45 minutes)

– Ensure all key elements documented

– Capture alternative angles if needed

– Film any missed explanations

 Lunch Break: 60 minutes (if 2-day format)

     Step 6: Group Discussion and Reflection

  Timeline:   Day 2, Early Afternoon (13:00-15:00 in 1.5-day format, or 14:00-16:00 in 2-day format)

  Objective:   Collaboratively analyse process and outcomes

  Suggested Structure: 

6.1   Discussion Setup   (15 minutes)

– Review footage highlights together

– Each person notes key moments they want to reference

– Agree discussion themes/questions

– Set up cameras for discussion capture

– Decide on format (seated circle, standing in space, etc.)

6.2   Filmed Group Discussion   (90 minutes, to be edited down)

  Discussion Themes: 

 Part 1: Process and Interpretation  (45 minutes)

– How did individual proposals transform in group context?

– What unexpected directions emerged?

– How did group dynamics shape exploration?

– What role did different participants play?

– How did happy accidents influence outcomes?

 Part 2: Outcomes and Analysis  (45 minutes)

– What did we actually discover/develop?

– How do we understand what happened?

– What worked well in the collaborative process?

– What was challenging?

– What insights about practice research methodology?

– What would we do differently?

  Facilitation Notes: 

– Coordinator may facilitate or appoint participant facilitator

– Ensure all voices heard

– Reference specific moments from exploration

– Keep conversational, not formal

– Multiple cameras capture different angles

РAudio quality priority—may use dedicated recorder

 Break: 15 minutes

     Step 7: Collaborative Editing

  Timeline:   Day 2, Late Afternoon (15:15-18:00 in 1.5-day format)

  Objective:   Collectively edit documentation into coherent output

  Suggested Process: 

7.1   Review and Selection   (60 minutes)

– Review all footage together

– Identify essential elements:

  – Proposal sharing/initial ideas

  – Key exploration moments

  – Demonstrations of discoveries

  – Happy accidents

  – Discussion highlights

– Make selection decisions collectively

– Assign rough timings to each section

7.2   Editing Work   (90+ minutes)

– Split into editing team(s) if equipment allows

– Create rough assembly:

  – Title video (provided by coordinator)

  – Introduction and proposals (5-10 min)

  – Exploration documentation (20-30 min)

  – Demonstrations of outcomes (10-20 min)

  – Group discussion (edited to 15-20 min)

– Add titles, annotations as needed

– Ensure audio levels consistent

– Review together and refine

  Target Output: 

– Total length: 60-80 minutes (flexible based on group size and content)

– Format: MP4, 1080p

– Clear structure showing progression

– Balance between process and outcomes

  Note:   

– May need to continue editing after workshop remotely

– Coordinator can provide technical support post-workshop

– Final edit agreed by all participants before publication

    POST-WORKSHOP: Publication Preparation

     Step 8: Finalising Video Documentation

  Timeline:   1-2 weeks post-workshop

  If editing incomplete during workshop: 

– Nominated participant(s) complete edit

– Share draft with all participants for feedback

– Iterate based on group input

– Coordinator provides technical support if needed

  Final Video Specifications: 

– Duration: 60-80 minutes (flexible based on group size)

– Format: MP4

– Resolution: 1080p

– Audio: Normalised levels

– Platform: Vimeo (for Octopus compliance)

– Includes coordinator-provided title video

– Includes acknowledgements and credits

  Quality Checklist: 

– [ ] Shows initial individual proposals

– [ ] Documents collaborative exploration process

– [ ] Demonstrates key discoveries/techniques developed

– [ ] Includes happy accidents with explanation

– [ ] Features group discussion/analysis

– [ ] All participants appear and contribute

– [ ] Clear audio throughout

– [ ] Logical narrative structure

– [ ] Credits all participants appropriately

     Step 9: Octopus Publication Preparation

  Timeline:   2-4 weeks post-workshop

  Publications to Prepare: 

9.1   Research Problem 

– Already created by coordinator

– Defines the practice research question

– Provides context for group exploration

9.2   Rationale/Hypothesis 

– Each participant’s individual proposal

– Published separately, authored individually

– Linked to Research Problem

– Shows diversity of approaches brought to group

9.3   Method 

– This protocol (protocols.io)

– DOI from protocols.io

– Linked to Research Problem

– Authored by coordinator (+ participants as contributors)

9.4   Results/Sources of Evidence 

– Upload final video to Vimeo

– Link in Octopus publication

– Describe workshop conditions:

  – Dates, location, duration

  – Participant names/pseudonyms

  – Equipment used

  – Any deviations from protocol

– Structure of video documentation

– Authored by all participants collectively

9.5   Analysis 

– Reference group discussion segment from video

– May include additional written analysis if desired

– Collective reflections on methodology

– Authored by all participants collectively

9.6   Interpretation   (Optional)

– Follow-up individual or collective interpretation

– May synthesise findings if multiple groups worked on same Problem

– Consider implications for practice research methodology

– Compare group dynamics across different workshops

9.7   Applications/Implications   (Optional)

– Completed musical works created during workshop

– Performance documentation

– Pedagogical applications developed

– Techniques ready for wider adoption

– Authored by relevant creators

     Step 10: Peer Review Process

  Timeline:   Ongoing post-publication

  Octopus Review System: 

– All publications open to post-publication review

– Reviews are themselves publications with DOIs

– Reviewers may assess:

  – Quality of group methodology

  – Documentation effectiveness

  – Analytical depth

  – Transferability of findings

  – Group dynamics management

  Responding to Reviews: 

– Group decides collectively on response

– May reversion publications based on feedback

– New versions get new DOIs

– Original versions remain accessible

   Troubleshooting

    Common Challenges and Solutions

  Challenge:   Group struggles to find collective direction

  Solution: 

– Return to Research Problem

– Try working in pairs first, then reconvene

– Coordinator facilitates without imposing direction

– Accept that divergent exploration is valid

– Document multiple parallel strands

  Challenge:   Dominant participant(s) overshadow others

  Solution: 

– Structured turn-taking in discussions

– Breakout into smaller groups

– Coordinator intervention if needed

– Ensure editing includes all voices

– Address directly if pattern continues

  Challenge:   Technical recording failures

  Solution: 

– Multiple recording devices as backup

– Regular checks of footage

– Willing to re-stage key moments

– Detailed note-taking as backup documentation

– Coordinator monitors technical quality throughout

  Challenge:   Insufficient time for editing

  Solution: 

– Prioritise capturing discussion in workshop time

– Complete editing collaboratively online post-workshop

– Coordinator provides additional technical support

РExtend timeline if needed—quality over speed

  Challenge:   Disagreement about final edit

  Solution: 

– All participants must approve final version

– Consider including multiple perspectives explicitly

– Coordinator mediates if needed

– May need additional discussion session

– Document disagreements as part of research process

  Challenge:   Participant fatigue/overload

  Solution: 

– Enforce break schedule strictly

– Reduce intensity if needed

– Shorten workshop day

– Consider 2 full days instead of intensive 1.5

– Monitor energy levels and adjust

  Challenge:   Venue/acoustic problems

  Solution: 

– Adapt practice to space constraints

– Use directional microphones

– Stage demonstrations in best acoustic spots

– Document constraints as part of context

– Change venue if fundamentally unsuitable

   Data Management

    During Workshop:

– Regular backup of footage to multiple locations

– Organised file naming system

– Secure storage of equipment overnight

– Clear labelling of all takes and demonstrations

– Shared access to footage for all participants

    Post-Workshop:

– Video on Vimeo with persistent URL

– Raw footage archived (coordinator and/or participants)

– Proposals archived with Octopus publications

– Editing files retained for potential revisioning

    Retention Policy:

– Published materials: Permanent (Octopus, protocols.io, Vimeo)

– Working files: Minimum 3 years post-publication

– Personal data: Deleted on request

– Raw footage: Participants’ discretion; coordinator retention optional

   Timeline Variations

    Intensive 1.5-Day Format (Minimum):

  Day 1:   

– 9:00-18:00 Exploration and documentation

  Day 2: 

– 9:00-12:00 Final exploration (optional)

– 13:00-18:00 Discussion and editing

    Standard 2-Day Format:

  Day 1: 

– 9:00-18:00 Setup, exploration, initial documentation

  Day 2: 

– 9:00-12:00 Continued exploration and demonstrations

– 13:00-16:00 Group discussion

– 16:00-19:00 Collaborative editing

    Extended 3-Day Format:

  Day 1: 

– Full day exploration and experimentation

  Day 2: 

– Morning: Continued exploration

– Afternoon: Staged demonstrations and documentation

  Day 3: 

– Morning: Group discussion and reflection

– Afternoon: Collaborative editing with more refinement time

    Weekend Intensive:

  Saturday: 

– Full day exploration (10:00-18:00)

  Sunday: 

– Morning: Final exploration (10:00-13:00)

– Afternoon: Discussion and editing (14:00-18:00)

   Variations and Adaptations

    Different Group Sizes:

  Duos (2 participants): 

– More intimate, focused collaboration

– Easier logistics and scheduling

– May produce more refined outcomes

– Less diversity of approaches

  Small Groups (3-4 participants): 

– Ideal balance of diversity and manageability

– Rich interaction without overwhelming

– Easier to ensure all voices heard

  Larger Groups (5-6 participants): 

– Maximum diversity of approaches

– May need sub-group work at times

– Requires stronger facilitation

– Richer potential for unexpected combinations

– Longer video output likely needed

    Multiple Simultaneous Groups:

– Same Research Problem, multiple groups

– Comparative analysis in Interpretation phase

– Shared final discussion across groups

– Requires more coordinator resources

– Enables broader evidence base

    Different Practice Domains:

– Performance practice

– Composition techniques

– Recording and production methods

– Music business practices

– Pedagogical approaches

– Mixed-domain groups can be very productive

    Remote/Hybrid Variations:

– If in-person impossible, adapt to intensive video conference sessions

– Requires different documentation approach

– Some spontaneity lost but still valuable

– Could combine in-person for some, remote for others

    Follow-Up Workshops:

– Same group reconvenes after interval

– Build on initial discoveries

– Document evolution over time

– Compare fresh vs experienced group dynamics

   Expected Outcomes and Impac

    Research Outputs:

– DOI-allocated publications in Octopus chain

– Peer-reviewed collaborative practice research

– Rich documentation of group process

– Individual proposal citations for all participants

    Knowledge Contributions:

– Documentation of collective practice innovation

– Insights into group dynamics in practice research

– Evidence of real-time collaborative development

– Models for intensive workshop methodology

– Understanding of how individual approaches combine

    Participant Benefits:

– Intensive focused practice development

– Real-time peer learning and feedback

– Community building and networking

– Publication credits and portfolio building

– Experience of collaborative research

– Potential collaborations beyond workshop

    Field Impact:

– Alternative to isolated practice research

– Models for practice research communities

– Evidence for value of collaborative learning

– Transferable workshop methodologies

– Building C21MP research community

   Health and Safety Considerations

    Coordinator Responsibilities:

– Venue risk assessment completed

– First aid provision

– Emergency contact information displayed

– Fire escape routes identified

– Adequate breaks enforced

– Monitor participant wellbeing

– Safeguarding policies if working with under-18s

    Participant Responsibilities:

– Disclose any relevant health conditions

– Bring necessary medications

– Respect own physical limits

– Take breaks when needed

– Alert coordinator to any concerns

    Equipment Safety:

– Secure cable management (trip hazards)

– Safe positioning of stands and equipment

– Appropriate electrical safety

– Instrument/equipment insurance considerations

– Secure overnight storage

   Citation and Attribution

  Citing This Protocol: 

[Author names]. [Year]. Group-Based In-Person Practice Research Challenge: Collaborative Practice Exploration Through Intensive Workshop. protocols.io. https://dx.doi.org/[DOI]

  Citing Octopus Publications: 

Follow Octopus citation format. Note: Results/Sources and Analysis will have multiple co-authors (all group participants).

  Acknowledging C21MP: 

“This research was conducted as part of the C21MP (21st Century Music Practice Virtual Research Centre) Research Challenge programme.”

   Version History

  v1.0 (Draft)   – [Date]

– Initial protocol development

– Designed for groups of 2-6 participants

– Minimum 1.5-day intensive format

– Adaptable to various practice domains

   Contact and Support

  Protocol Coordinator: 

Simon Zagorski-Thomas

C21MP

[Contact details]

  Workshop Logistics Support: 

[Venue, travel, accommodation queries]

  Technical Support: 

[Equipment, filming, editing assistance]

  Ethics and Wellbeing: 

[Participant welfare concerns]

   Acknowledgements

This protocol developed by C21MP (21st Century Music Practice Virtual Research Centre) in collaboration with JISC Octopus for practice-based research publication.

Special thanks to participants in pilot workshops who helped refine this methodology.

  License:   CC-BY 4.0

  Protocol DOI:   [To be assigned]

  Last Updated:   [Date]