Artistic research is a twofold process: Research has to be carried out, and next, it needs to be documented and disseminated. Dissemination is an editorial process where elements are selected, prepared and organised in order to communicate the research clearly and convincingly. There is a rhetoric element to dissemination, as suggested by several of the terms used by Michael Schwab to describe sharing of artistic research: Staging, performing, unfolding, exposing, exhibiting or curating.

Several scientific disciplines structure publications according to the IMRaD model. The IMRAD model first emerged in the writings of Luis Pasteur, and Robert A. Day argues that Pasteur's most significant contribution to the development of science was his ability to argue. The IMRAD model may be effective at disseminating research, but it does not necessarily provide a chronological overview of how the research developed. In general, there is a potential danger if models for dissemination of research gets retrofitted into how the research itself is expected to unfold. The research process is seldom as neat, tidy, structured and linear as the dissemination might suggest.

This paper proposes an alternative model for reflecting on the artistic research process as it unfolds. It combines six categories or perspectives. It considers (1) Research Question, (2) Context and (3) Methods. 4) Results are often temporary and site-specific, and hence (5) Documentation is essential. Finally, the term (6) Reflection is preferred rather than Discussion. The proposed model emphasises how all six dimensions interrelate, inspired by a similar relational didactic model by Hiim and Hippe. The model invites reflection on the research process, emphasises relationships between categories, and acknowledges the research as a complex and dynamic process where none of the categories comes first. Instead, developing the research implies that all six dimensions develop.