[-empyre-] practice-led

Adrian Miles adrian.miles at rmit.edu.au
Thu Jan 24 11:28:36 EST 2013



On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 7:06 AM, Keith Armstrong wrote:

> In terms of distinctions of research this may be helpful"
> 
> Practice-led research is that in which the creative practice leads the research in such a way that its major findings reside in the practice itself, which then becomes a central component of the examinable outcome. The thesis comprises more than 50% (up to 75%) of creative practice and less than 50% (to a minimum of 25%) of accompanying written text or exegesis, which illuminates / interprets / contextualises the creative practice. The research occurs through the practice which informs methodology, content, context and conceptual frameworks.
> 
> 
> 
> Practice-based research also places practice at the centre of the research, but its findings provide insights about the practice even if they are discovered through the practice. The creative practice itself is not normally an examinable component of the thesis even if the creative process may be a major part of the methodology. A documentation of the practice becomes part of the thesis but not the practice itself. The word length is normally the same as a written thesis.

These distinctions are useful but also do my head in! :-) I also really struggle to understand models where there is a thesis *and* an exegesis as my first reaction (which is based on no actual experience with such a model) is that this seems to be quite confused about practice, projects, research. A thesis for me is a research output or artefact relevant to one lot of disciplines. An exegesis relevant to another. 

But I think the more interesting problem these discussions raise is whether there is some sort of insecurity here where rather than think is the fault of the academy/peers/academics/governments/extra-terrestrials is just ours. After all we are the ones who peer review and assess the work in these fields, so this is very much our problem that we've created, not anyone else's. 

So in the spirit of Occam's Razer does it really matter that deeply how or what it is defined (as Simon points out, the diversity and catholicism of approaches is one of the qualities of research in these areas) as so long as in the research artefact (thesis, exegesis, paper, etc) clearly as a part of its role as research makes a legitimate case for itself, on its terms? If the researcher believes it is practice led research, then isn't it up to them to say so and show how and why it is so? And proceed from there? 

Of course it is interesting and often useful to argue and haggle over the minutiae of definitional argument, but this can easily slide into confusing literal compliance to an audit culture's values (neoliberalism writ small in university administrative procedures) with doing research. If the work is legitimate, and good, and meets the key *large* demands (in my university's case for a PhD original work, "A significant and original contribution to knowledge of fact and/or theory, Independent and critical thought, and the capacity to work independently of supervision") then in many regards what happens in the research can be (and should be?) defined by the researcher? 
-- 
an appropriate closing
Adrian Miles
Program Director Bachelor of Media and Communication (Honours)
RMIT University - www.rmit.edu.au
http://vogmae.net.au/



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130124/3ab7229b/attachment.htm>


More information about the empyre mailing list