The methodology and methods of practice research are still in a state of what theorists of the Social Construction of Technology call Interpretative Flexibility: that early phase when the goals and proposed ends of the project are still being contested and negotiated. Several key areas need to be explored:

• The nature of embodied knowledge and how and whether it can be represented. Are there representational systems that go beyond text and verbal language and could represent the knowledge and understanding of affect theory and phenomenology?
• Are we aiming to transfer such embodied knowledge or to transfer an understanding of how it might be acquired or nurtured?
• How much, if at all, the finished artefact or performance is important in practice research or whether our focus should be on the practices and processes that produce the artefact or performance.
• If uniqueness and originality are often the stated goals of a practice researcher, then what can be gained by others from sharing a single case study of unique and original practice? What is the nature of the new knowledge that we are creating and sharing?
• How can we theorise aesthetics as a pro-active and creative process rather than post-hoc reflection?
• Despite a relatively uneasy truce in the UK whereby the term ‘Practice Research’ has been mostly adopted, what is the relationship between practice research, artistic research and research creation – not to mention all the practice-as, -through, -for, -led terminology and the overlapping areas of autoethnography and emic ethnography?

Further to this, there are also questions about how we should best survey and represent the research (and practice) context of our work? How do the methods of ‘data’ collection impact the type and quality of the information acquired and how much does it interfere with the practice? How can or should we structure an experimental process of development? How and when should we be analysing the practice? How best can we incorporate the development of aesthetics and value judgments about the results of the practice into the research process? Can we, and, if so, how can we, use multiple practice research case studies to create clusters of interpretation and shareable knowledge about how practice works?