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

[Phi Shu]

@AdrianMiles


>  If the examiners are to figure out if the work 'qualifies' as research
> what happens if it isn't?
>

usually the candidate is simply told to go away and do some more, this
would be called "major corrections."


> With an exegesis the examiner never has to wonder or decide if it is
> research or not, only (!) the merit of the research.
>

What about the merit of the having addressed problems, faced challenges,
and crossed hurdles in an attempt to resolve both aesthetic and technical
issues? You don't need to read about any of that, it should
be self-evident in the work, and a qualified examiner should know how to
tease all of this out through examining the work and
questioning the candidate (the latter being the purpose the viva).


> The advantages of this can be that if the art work/s are failures (for
> whatever reason) it might not mean failing the PhD.
>

In this instance, it would most likely not be an automatic fail, at worst
if it's a total disaster they would be asked to resubmit, and maybe get
6-12 months to sort the issues out. Additionally, a work can be a failure,
and be successfully submitted as such, IF the candidate has been
advised correctly regarding how to document such failures. Things don't
always work out as planned, and there are reasons why, these should be
discussed, it's not about creating a series of master works.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> On the other hand if the PhD is treated as a qualification, and this is
> what is in spite all the nonsense about how important it is (as a former
> supervisor of mine many years ago counselled, "it is only a licence to
> drive on the academic highway") then if the art work itself is the only
> thing judged what does it become a qualification for?
>

The examiners identify whether the candidate has worked through issues that
are pertinent to creative practice at doctorate level. Three years, maybe
more, to produce work, they have to do nothing else, no admin, no teaching
(ideally), no distractions, what they do with that time is important. They
demonstrate through their outputs that they have made a serious commitment
to creative "research" and this should be evident in their work (and
perhaps in the accompanying document). If they get through all of that
unscathed (without losing the plot) would you begrudge them
the qualification? With the kind of creative freedom an open ended PhD
offers, there is a certain responsibility, you have to be on top of your
game, it's very easy to lose your way, but then again, its the supervisor's
job to make sure that doesn't happen.

Does anyone care to chance wondering if music and code work are
> sufficiently 'writing' like (they would appear to have reasonably well
> defined rules of what I'll lazily for a Saturday morning before a family
> picnic call grammar) that the 'score' can be read critically?
>

It depends who's reading.




> ****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> 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/20130126/907d9c7c/attachment.htm>