Feb 23, 2026
Two Participant Online Practice Research Challenge: Collaborative Practice Exploration Through Video Exchange
- Simon Zagorski-Thomas1,2,
- Kate Lewis1,3,
- Matthew Chapman1,4,5
- 1C21MP (21st Century Music Practice Virtual Research Centre);
- 2University of West London;
- 3Brunel University of London;
- 4University of the Arts London;
- 5SAE Institute London
External link: https://c21mp.org/
Protocol Citation: Simon Zagorski-Thomas, Kate Lewis, Matthew Chapman 2026. Two Participant Online Practice Research Challenge: Collaborative Practice Exploration Through Video Exchange. protocols.io https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.8epv55mwjv1b/v1
Manuscript citation:
Citing This Protocol:
Zagorski-Thomas, S., Lewis, K., Chapman, M. (2026). Two Participant Online Practice Research Challenge: Collaborative Practice Exploration Through Video Exchange. protocols.io. https://dx.doi.org/[DOI]
Citing Octopus Publications:
Follow the Octopus citation format for each publication type in the chain.
Acknowledging C21MP:
"This research was conducted as part of the C21MP (21st Century Music Practice Virtual Research Centre) Research Challenge programme."
License: This is an open access protocol distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Protocol status: Working
We use this protocol and it's working
Created: February 18, 2026
Last Modified: February 23, 2026
Protocol Integer ID: 243629
Keywords: practice research, video exchange, collaborative exploration, technique development, online collaboration, practice-based research, reflective practice, action research, music performance research, video documentation, peer learning, collaborative practice exploration through video exchange, collaborative practice exploration through video exchange this protocol, participant online practice research challenge, collaborative practice research, music practitioners through asynchronous video exchange, practice research output via jisc octopus, structured method for collaborative practice research, practice concept, transferable insights into practice innovation, allocated practice research output, practice innovation, tacit practice knowledge, filmed discussion, own practice, music practitioner, video, asynchronous video exchange, participant, research, minute video, compiled video, technique, transferable insight, peer, partner
Abstract
This protocol establishes a structured method for collaborative practice research between two music practitioners through asynchronous video exchange. Participants independently develop proposals and create 10-minute videos exploring a practice concept, technique, or approach. Videos are exchanged, prompting each participant to create a second 10-minute response exploring how their partner's work stimulates new directions in their own practice. The process concludes with a 20-minute filmed discussion analysing interpretative choices and outcomes. The protocol produces a 60-minute ±10% compiled video (10+10+10+10+10+10 structure) serving as peer-reviewed, DOI-allocated practice research output via JISC Octopus. This method makes tacit practice knowledge explicit and generates transferable insights into practice innovation.
Guidelines
For Participants:
- Film the actual exploration, not polished performances
- Show unsuccessful attempts alongside successes
- Document thinking through voiceover/annotations
- Respond genuinely to the partner's work
- Film in landscape format
- Maintain sufficient audio/video quality for analysis
For Coordinators:
- Frame the Research Problem clearly
- Set timelines and deadlines appropriate to the challenge
- Match participants thoughtfully
- Provide clear technical specifications
- Call For Participants should link to the upload platform for completed video sections and final edit
- Facilitate discussion scheduling
Quality Indicators:
- Clear articulation of practice goal
- Systematic exploration - although 'happy accidents' should also be documented, flagged and explained
- Visible development over time
- Thoughtful engagement with partner's ideas
- Honest reflection on outcomes
Materials
For Participants:
- Musical instrument(s) or relevant music practice tools
- Video recording device (smartphone minimum)
- Tripod or stable mount
- Adequate lighting
- Video editing software (free options acceptable)
- Internet connection for file transfer
- Video conferencing access (Zoom/Teams)
For Coordinators:
- Secure file transfer system (eg: onedrive, googledrive etc)
- Communication platform
- Video conferencing with recording
- Video editing software (for technical support if needed)
- Timeline management system
- Proposal and submission information to send to participants
- Short title video for participants to add at the start
Troubleshooting
Problem
Participant struggles to generate ~10-minute content
Solution
When possible, focus on the process, not perfection. Using a voiceover to explain the thought process can be valuable in providing insights. Consider showing incremental developments. Including "failures" and happy accidents‚ can also be insightful.
Problem
Technical quality is inadequate
Solution
Review lighting and camera position. Test audio levels before the main recording to ensure suitable clarity and be free from extraneous noise. Consider an external microphone when possible. Multiple takes are acceptable. The research coordinator can also offer technical support.
Problem
Difficulty connecting to partner's work
Solution
Don't force direct imitation of the partner’s work. Look for conceptual stimulation as a catalyst for connection to the work. Small connections are valid. Documenting an honest response, even if minimal, is suitable.
Problem
Discussion runs over/under time
Solution
If over time, edit down to the required length (±10%). Gentle timekeeping during discussion is encouraged. The coordinator can prompt additional points if needed. Focus on quality over strict timing.
Problem
Participant Withdrawal
Solution
Data protection requires the ability to withdraw. Try to find a replacement if it's early in the process. This may result in individual rather than paired output. Document the circumstances in the method publication.
Problem
Scheduling conflicts for discussion
Solution
The coordinator provides multiple format options. Allow an extended window for scheduling. Consider a written alternative if filming is impossible. May extend timeline if needed.
Problem
Video compilation exceeds 66 minutes or under 54 minutes
Solution
Edit discussion segments to adjust length. Ensure the title video is appropriately brief. The coordinator assists with the final edit if needed. Document the final length in the results publication.
Before start
Coordinators Complete:
- Define and publish the Research Problem on Octopus
- Create a call for participants with upload platform links
- Establish timeline and deadlines (tailored to each challenge)
- Set up file sharing infrastructure
- Match participant pairs
- Brief participants on protocol
- Create a short title video for participants
Participants Confirm:
- Read the Research Problem publication
- Understand the complete protocol
- Test recording equipment
- Verify editing software capability
- Confirm adequate practice space
- Review deadlines
Proposal Development
Begin proposal writing (Rationale/Hypothesis)
Timeline: Set by coordinator
Objective: Create a theory-informed proposal for practice exploration
Proposal Structure ≈ 200-300 words:
1. Practice Goal (c. 50-75 words)
- Specific technique/approach to develop
- What prompted this exploration
2. Theoretical Framework (c. 50-75 words)
- Relevant pedagogical/theoretical perspectives
- Why this approach should yield results
3. Proposed Method (c. 50-75 words)
- Specific practice activities
- Variations to explore
- Progress indicators
4. Expected Outcomes (c. 50-75 words)
- Anticipated functional changes
- Success criteria
- Potential challenges
Submission:
Submit to coordinator (NOT to partner)
- Becomes Rationale/Hypothesis in Octopus chain
- Work in complete isolation from the research partner at this stage
Coordinator Action:
- Collect proposals
- Provide feedback if clarification is needed
Initial Video Creation
Practice Exploration and Documentation
Timeline: Set by coordinator
Objective: Explore the proposal through practice and document the process
Suggested activities are as follows:
Initial Exploration
- Begin working with the proposed approach
- Try variations and experiments
- Note what works and what doesn't
- Don't worry about filming yet‚ explore freely
Focused Documentation
- Film practice sessions showing:
- Initial attempts
- Refinement process
- Unexpected discoveries
- Both successes and failures
- Happy accidents (flagged and explained)
- Accumulate 30-60 minutes of raw footage
- Continue refining technique/approach
Review and Selection
- Review all footage
- Identify key moments showing development
- Select material demonstrating:
- Your initial idea
- How experimentation generated new insights
- What didn't work and why
- Emergent results and happy accidents
Video Editing (First Video)
Timeline: Set by coordinator
Objective: Create a coherent ~10-minute video
Recommended content is as follows:
Introduction (1-2 minutes)
- Briefly state your practice goal
- Reference theoretical framework if relevant
- Explain what you're attempting
Exploration Process (5-6 minutes)
- Show experimentation sequence
- Include unsuccessful attempts
- Demonstrate how ideas evolved
- Flag and explain happy accidents
- Use voiceover or annotations to explain thinking
Emergent Results (2-3 minutes)
- Demonstrate what you've developed
- Need not be polished‚ instead show a coherent idea
- Explain implications or potential applications
Technical Specifications:
- Duration: Approximately 10 minutes (±10% acceptable)
- Format: MP4, MOV, or AVI
- Resolution: Minimum 720p (1080p preferred)
- Audio: Clear enough for analytical listening
- Orientation: Landscape
- File size: Under 2GB (if possible)
Editing Guidelines:
- Can combine multiple camera angles
- Use titles, annotations, arrows, and circles as needed
- Voiceover or on-screen text for explanation
- Don't over-produce‚ authenticity > polish
- Ensure audio sync
Quality Checklist:
- Shows initial idea clearly
- Documents the experimentation process
- Includes unsuccessful attempts and happy accidents
- Demonstrates emergent outcome
- Runs approximately 10 minutes (±10%)
- Audio/video quality adequate
- Filmed in landscape
- Title video added
First Video Submission
Deadline: Set by the coordinator
Submission Process:
1. Upload video to the coordinator's designated platform
2. Filename format: `[YourName]_Video1_[Date].mp4`
3. Confirm receipt with the coordinator
Coordinator Action:
- Verify all videos received
- Check technical specifications
- Match pairs for exchange
- Prepare for distribution
Video Exchange and Response
Receiving Partner's Video
Timeline: Set by the coordinator
Suggested Process:
1. Coordinator sends partner's Video 1
2. Watch the video in full without interruption the first time
3. Watch again, making notes on:
- What interests you
- What stimulates your own thinking
- Connections to your practice
- Questions or curiosities raised
Important:
- Approach with genuine curiosity
- Don't feel obligated to imitate
- Look for conceptual stimulation, not just technical copying
- Note surprising or unexpected elements
Reflection Questions:
- What aspect of their work most intrigues you?
- How might their approach inform your practice?
- What would happen if you applied their logic differently?
- What connections do you see to your own exploration?
Response Exploration
Timeline: Set by coordinator
Objective: Explore what the partner's work stimulates in your practice
Suggested activities are as follows:
Initial Response
- Experiment with ideas sparked by partner's video
- Don't force connections‚ follow genuine interest
- May be radically different from their approach
- May extend/contradict/reframe what they did
Development
- Deepen exploration of stimulated ideas
- Film practice sessions
- Accumulate 20-40 minutes of raw footage
- Note relationship to partner's work
- Document happy accidents
Review and Selection
- Review footage
- Select moments showing responsive development
- Identify a clear connection to the partner's stimulus
Video Editing (Second Video)
Timeline: Set by coordinator
Objective: Create a ~10-minute response video
Recommended content as follows:
7.1 Connection to Partner (1-2 minutes)
- Acknowledge what in their work caught your attention
- Explain what stimulated your thinking
- Be specific about the connection
7.2 Your Response Exploration (5-6 minutes)
- Show how you explored the stimulated ideas
- Demonstrate the development process
- Include attempts that didn't work
- Show how your response evolved
- Flag happy accidents
7.3 Outcome (2-3 minutes)
- Demonstrate what emerged
- Explain the relationship to your partner's work
- Note unexpected developments
Same technical specifications as Video 1 (see 3.4)
- Duration: Approximately 10 minutes (±10%)
- Add the title video at the start
Quality Checklist:
- Clear connection to partner's work articulated
- Shows genuine exploration (not imitation)
- Documents response development
- Demonstrates emergent outcome
- Runs approximately 10 minutes (±10%)
- Maintains quality standards
Second Video Submission
Deadline: Set by the coordinator
Objective: Submit video 2
Submission:
1. Upload to the designated platform
2. Filename: `[YourName]_Video2_[Date].mp4`
3. Confirm receipt with the coordinator
Coordinator Action:
- Collect all Video 2 submissions
- Ensure upload folders are only available to the 2 relevant partners (i.e. no looking at other videos until the end)
- Schedule final discussions
- Begin planning compilation support
Reciprocal Viewing
Viewing Partner's Response
Timeline: Set by coordinator
Suggested Process:
1. Receive partner's Video 2 (their response to your Video 1)
2. Watch the video in full without interruption the first time
3. On second watch, reflect on:
- How they interpreted your work
- What they focused on
- Surprises in their response
- Connections you hadn't considered
Preparation for Discussion:
- Note questions for partner
- Identify moments to reference
- Consider what you learned from their interpretations
- Reflect on the overall exchange arc
Collaborative Discussion
Discussion Scheduling and Preparation
Timeline: Set by coordinator
Coordinator Responsibilities:
- Provide discussion prompts
- Confirm technical setup (recording enabled)
- Brief participants on the structure
Participant Preparation:
- Schedule a 45-minute Zoom/Teams session with partner
- Review all four videos
- Prepare notes on key moments
- Consider discussion questions
- Test video conferencing setup
- Find a quiet location with a stable internet connection
Discussion Structure (40 minutes + 5 minute buffer):
Part 1: Interpretative Choices (edit down to 10 minutes)
- How did you each interpret the Research Challenge?
- What informed your respective approaches?
- How did you react to each other's work?
- What surprised you about the exchange?
Part 2: Analytical Reflection (edit down to 10 minutes)
- How did your decisions shape outcomes?
- What role did responding to each other play?
- What worked well? What didn't?
- What did you learn about practice research?
Facilitation Tips:
- Keep to time allocations
- Reference specific video moments
- Balance speaking time
- Be honest about challenges
- Focus on process, not just outcomes
Wider Interpretation/Reflection
Timeline: Set by coordinator
Note: This step is left to the discretion of coordinators. Options include:
Option 1: Paired Discussion
- 45-minute Zoom/Teams session between partners
- Record and edit down to 20 minutes (2x10-minute segments)
- Participants conduct and edit themselves
Option 2: Group Discussion
- Filmed Zoom/Teams discussion with some or all participants
- May include invited experts
- Can happen immediately or asynchronously
Option 3: Written Feedback
- Participants provide written reflections
- May include feedback from invited experts
- Can be submitted after publication of other components
Option 4: Hybrid Approach
- Combination of filmed discussion and written feedback
- Allows for both immediate and considered responses
Technical Setup (if filmed):
- Platform: Zoom or Teams with recording enabled
- Video: Cameras on, good lighting
- Audio: Clear microphones, quiet environment
- Recording: Start before the discussion begins
- Participants are responsible for recording and initial editing
Outlines for conducting the discussion are as follows:
Part 1: Interpretative Discussion (edit down to 10 minutes)
Opening prompt: "Let's start by exploring how each of you interpreted the challenge. Where do you think your approach came from?"
Discussion points:
- Initial interpretations of the Research Problem
- Sources of inspiration for proposals
- Reactions upon seeing partner's first video
- How exchange shaped thinking
Part 2: Analytical Discussion (edit down to 10 minutes)
Opening prompt: "Now let's analyse what actually happened‚ how your decisions and approaches shaped the outcomes."
Discussion points:
- Decision-making process during exploration
- Impact of partner's stimulus on direction
- Unexpected outcomes or discoveries (including happy accidents)
- Insights about practice research methodology
- What would you do differently?
Quality Indicators (if filmed):
- Specific references to video moments
- Honest assessment of process
- Analytical rather than merely descriptive
- Balanced participation
- Insights about methodology
Compilation and Publication
Video Compilation
Timeline: Set by coordinator
Note: Participants will have already compiled the edits. Coordinators can offer technical support if required.
Coordinator responsibilities are as follows:
Technical Support
- Available to assist with compilation if needed
- Guide final assembly
- Review quality if requested
Materials Provision
- Provide a short title video for the start of the compilation
- Provide descriptions for video platform (Vimeo)
- Provide acknowledgements text
- Ensure compliance with Octopus cookie policy (Vimeo preferred over YouTube)
Assembly Structure (60 minutes, ±10%):
- Title video
- Participant A Video 1 (~10 min)
- Participant B Video 1 (~10 min)
- Participant A Video 2 (~10 min)
- Participant B Video 2 (~10 min)
- Discussion Part 1 (~10 min)
- Discussion Part 2 (~10 min)
OR an alternative discussion format as determined by the coordinator
Final Video Specifications:
- Duration: 60 minutes (±10% = 54-66 minutes acceptable)
- Format: MP4
- Resolution: 1080p
- Audio: Normalised levels
- Platform: Vimeo (for Octopus compliance)
Octopus Publication Preparation
Timeline: Set by coordinator
Publications to prepare are as follows:
Research Problem (if not already published)
- Already created by the coordinator
- Defines the practice research question
- Provides context and rationale
Rationale/Hypothesis
- Compile both participant proposals
- Linked to the Research Problem
- Authored by respective participants
Method
- This protocol (protocols.io)
- DOI from protocols.io
- Linked to Research Problem
- Authored by coordinator (+ participants as contributors if appropriate)
Results/Sources of Evidence
- Upload 60-minute video to Vimeo
- Link video URL in Octopus publication
- Describe conditions: dates, locations, equipment used
- Detail the exact structure of the video
- Note any deviations from protocol
- Authored by both participants
Analysis
- Link video URL in Octopus publication to discussion segments (Part 1 & 2) or alternative analysis format
- May include additional written analysis if needed
- Summarise key insights without interpretation
- Authored by both participants (and invited experts if applicable)
Interpretation (Optional but encouraged)
- Participants may submit individual interpretations
- The coordinator may facilitate a group interpretation event
- Can happen immediately or asynchronously after other publications
- Synthesise findings across multiple pairs if applicable
- Consider implications for practice research methodology
Applications/Implications (Optional)
- Any completed musical works emerging from the process
- Performance documentation
- Pedagogical applications
- Business practice innovations
- Recording techniques developed
- Authored by creators
Peer Review Process
Timeline: Ongoing post-publication
Octopus Review System:
- All publications open to post-publication review
- Reviews are themselves publications with DOIs
- Reviewers assess:
- Clarity of methodology
- Quality of documentation
- Analytical rigour
- Insights generated
Responding to reviews:
- Authors may re-version publications based on feedback
- New versions get new DOIs
- Original versions remain accessible
- Review the history preserved
Data Mangement
File Storage and Sharing
During Challenge:
- Coordinator maintains secure cloud storage
- Separate folders for each participant pair
- Access is limited appropriately (no cross-pair viewing until the end)
- Regular backups
After Publication:
- 60-minute video on Vimeo and the C21MP.ORG website
- Persistent URL for Octopus linking
- Proposals archived with Octopus publications
- Raw footage retained by participants (optional coordinator archive)
Retention Policy
- Published materials: Permanent (Octopus, protocols.io, Vimeo)
- Working files: Minimum 3 years post-publication
- Personal data: Deleted on request or after project completion
- Raw footage: Participants' discretion
Timeline Example
| Phase | Activity | Example Deadline | |
| Proposal | Write Proposal | 2nd Jan | |
| Video 1 | Explore and create first video | 15th Jan | |
| Exchange | Receive partner's video 1 | 17th Jan | |
| Video 2 | Respond and create second video | 25th Jan | |
| View | Watch partner's video 2 | 29th Jan | |
| Discussion | Schedule and record/write discussion | 9th Feb | |
| Compilation | Compile final video | 19th Feb | |
| Publication | Prepare Octopus publications | 1st March |
Variations and Adaptations
This protocol can be adapted for different contexts:
Multiple Pairs:
- Same Research Problem, multiple pairs
- Enables comparative analysis in the interpretation phase (see section 11)
- Facilitates group discussion event
- Increases replication evidence
Different Practice Domains:
- Performance practice
- Composition techniques
- Recording and production methods
- Music business practices
- Pedagogical approaches
- Any music practitioner activity
Different Instruments:
- Protocol works across any instrument or practice-based discipline
- Adjust technical specifications for medium (e.g., visual art, dance)
- Research Problem frames the domain
Extended Timeframes:
- Allow longer between videos for complex explorations
- Adjust word counts in proposals
- May produce deeper outcomes but requires commitment
Alternative Discussion Formats:
- Written exchange instead of video discussion
- Asynchronous recorded responses
- Group panel discussion (if multiple pairs)
- Expert commentary alongside participant reflection
Solo Variant:
- Single participant responds to Research Problem
- Creates Video 1
- Self-reflective analysis
- Can contribute to wider interpretation
Expected Outcomes and Impact
Research Outputs:
- DOI-allocated publications in Octopus chain
- Peer-reviewed practice research
- Replicable methodology documentation
- Potential completed works (music, recordings, business innovations)
Knowledge Contributions:
- Explicit documentation of tacit practice knowledge
- Insights into practice innovation processes
- Evidence for pedagogical approaches
- Transferable research methodologies
- Documentation of happy accidents and unexpected discoveries
Participant Benefits:
- Structured practice development
- Peer learning and stimulus
- Publication credit and portfolio building
- Research skills development
- Community connection
Field Impact:
- Models for practice-based research
- Alternative to traditional publication formats
- Open access knowledge sharing
- Collaborative research culture
- Applicable across all music practice domains
Acknowledgements
This protocol was developed by C21MP (21st Century Music Practice Virtual Research Centre) in collaboration with JISC Octopus for practice-based research publication.
Thank you to:
Scott McLaughlin
James Gordon
Matthew Bannister
Stuart Ironside