[-empyre-] practice-led

[Keith Armstrong]

I agree with Simon that these distinctions of methodology - especially written in three lines - can only form a rough starting point .. as with any definition it begins to falter the moment it is tested in the relational world. Most of what we do criss-crosses both perspectives and, being practitioners, means we most likely draw upon a host of other methods as we both need them and feel the need to critique, meld and cross fertilise them - some of these methods in one's tool-belt may also find their parallels in more traditional research schools - eg hermeneutics or grounded theory .. 

But, the powerful thing about these methods should be that they actively align with the processes, practices, insights and operations of the practice and the practitioner.  Whilst nothing is easy - everything, similarly, shouldn't be strange. Nobody arguably needs to sit there after the fact scratching their cap and asking, so what was/were my methodology (ies)? 

And as Simon says, knowing why you are doing it (the context, the theory, dare I say it the NEED dammit) must be the core sustaining factor of any research process. 

The road will be long whichever series of guides you draw upon ..   I'm not personally big on the shopping around for a fast and easy way to get the piece of paper (most often I fully understand this is because someone has been told to, or need to to get some kind of promotion, or quite simply, because right now everyone else on staff now has one..). 

Pragmatics of course is everywhere, and some see doing what needs to be done as their life path: ok;   but as artists (and reflective researchers) I think that we know something else -  that sometimes/often the wholly impractical often leads to the extraordinary.  Our practices in many cases and reputations are built on going where others may fear to tred.  And so a phd (or an artwork for that matter) (and/or a research process) conducted without the drive and passion (that all artists know and fear in themselves) .. is going to be an ugly road for both practitioner and their poor supervisors alike.

I finished my Phd in 2003 and in 'those days' much was yet to be discovered .. So - for me it was three major projects I had to get significant funding first for,  and then a 80,000 word dissertation spread over a tidy 7 years. (Oh how things have changed .. my supervisor was so sweet, supportive and patient throughout ;) )   and .. I did it because I was train-driven to do work I believed in, for reasons I thought had a significant public need - 

These days Im of course happy not to have to lead others down tracks into such workloads,  - but I have to say it was a process that focussed, strengthened and changed my practice, and probably life direction (again that drive inside we all fear!) immeasurably.  I needed the time and the space to understand why? Ive been asked many times if I regret doing a doctorate 'before' .. and the answer is of course not :)

Picking up on another note then - should we see the Phd as an entry point into a research career or the magnum opus/magna opera of the candidate. Pragmatically its the first but see comments above. The second option really depends where they are in their career and how things pan out - but if its not as significant an outcome as some of their best work previously then Id find that disappointing. Id be asking if the candidate was the right one.. 

If we lose our passion and our raison d'être under the heft of the bureaucracy and 'metric-slated' imagination, then frankly - we are likely to slide towards mediocrity (cementing the popular if rather unfair wisdom that failed artists need universities to survive). Should then we be doing something else?

Cheers  Keith