[-empyre-] FW: FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three, January 21-28

Phi Shu phishu at gmail.com
Fri Jan 25 20:26:57 EST 2013


>
> @ Adrian Miles
>
> ** **
>
> On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 12:08 AM, Phi Shu wrote:****
>
> Quite clearly, in the context of creative practice, knowledge can
> be communicated in many different ways, therefore upholding the written
> word as the de facto method of assessment is a mistake and I think it is
> the duty of academics in this area to communicate to those holding the
> purse strings that actually, the written word is not the only means
> of communicating valid research outcomes.****
>
> ** **
>
>
> ** **
>
> The problem is whether this knowledge is research. The sky is blue today
> is a knowledge claim. Perhaps part of a SMS art work. But that is not yet
> research.*..*So for me the problem I'd raise is while art objects in
> themselves clearly express knowledge this knowledge might not yet be
> research.
>


Yes, but the point is, especially with regard to PhD examination, that the
examiners are supposed to be expert enough in their field
to discern whether or not a practice based output qualifies as research,
and without having to read why this might be so in
an accompanying document. Yes, they may need something in
writing, because it is still required, but it is  ultimately the work that
is judged. That was my experience of things, and I was led to believe it
was how things were done when dealing with practice based doctorates, in my
discipline, at my university. Of course another aspect of this is ensuring
that an external examiner that supports this approach is selected,
otherwise it might not be as straight forward.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130125/79d6e29c/attachment.htm>


More information about the empyre mailing list