I am starting to think a lot now about using a DVD as a gateway ‘into’ the world that my thesis will represent. It will be like a house like that lady at the europeana.com portal mentioned… as Viviane Reding, the European Information Minister responsible for its launch, said - '...it's like going into a culture like you go into a house - you enter the door, then go through the corridor and then you have a choice between different rooms with a different, organised way of understanding what you are looking for.' It was originally a French idea, spearheaded by them as an antidote to American dominance culturally, which is spread by Yahoo (when it's working!) and especially Google with its project to put millions of books online after digitising them. I guess that's why they called it europeana. It had to be shut down the same day because of 10 millions hits in an hour! Should be re-opened soon according to the site...
‘We launched the Europeana.eu site on 20 November and huge use - 10 million hits an hour - meant it slowed to a crawl. We are doing our best to reopen Europeana.eu in a more robust version. Meanwhile, the site you're in now is the project development site, with a video to give you a taste of what's on the real Europeana site.’(http://dev.europeana.eu/)
Anyway, I am now thinking of finishing the written forms e.g. the exegesis and artefact, then inscribing them into a DVD along with an architecture that might resemble some idea, metaphor, or symbol of the research outcome? Something in the shape of a house would be too obvious and simple and wouldn’t ‘add value’ to the project like businessmen like to say on the Lion’s Den! Rather I need something connected to the idea of art or education or something new and novel in itself? Perhaps each click on the DVD could help them navigate their way around Guantanamo or Abu Graib prisons? This needs to be developed.
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Reflective Journal Entry: Eight
‘By presenting these pathways or framings on a hybrid DVD-ROM I am ensuring that no single mode of experiencing the project is privileged. The computer monitor becomes a democratic site for the rendering of the material, and the user/reader is empowered to choose the order and manner in which s/he experiences the three pathways, including alternating between them midstream. This is a critical concern for me as it facilitates the imagining and experiencing of this practice-led research as being devoid of a logocentric host.’ (‘Streamgate PhD’ stuff)
Comment on this and think about ways that I can ensure that my project is not viewed in a special way above other parts e.g. the component of a good practise led PhD – ‘ensuring that no single mode of experiencing the project is privileged.’ I will try to present my artefact in a variety of different ways. Perhaps I can use video, audio, Powerpoint presentation slides, other slides, poems, indeed a plethora of eclectic resources, which will be democratically selected. In this way a new narrative can be created - one that is free of the old school academic constraints that have so dogged the universities of the world.
I can present my story about an outsider called Yudhi who (a) defies the typical interpretation of what a terrorist is (a fanatical brutal killer), and (b) re-defines the meta narrative of the world of the terrorist. The reader/hearer/seer will be able to follow the thesis I will present in their own way using the pictures, poetics, academic explanations, hyperlinks, hypertextuality in general, documentary style presentations, and Powerpoint slides. (Add – ‘Claims of originality and contribution to knowledge may be demonstrated through creative outcomes which may include artefacts such as images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions’ below in Differences between Practice-Based and Practice-Led Research ) No one medium will be more privileged. It is in this way that we can see that, in Lucy Lyons words, ‘they are a legitimate way for artists to reclaim their work back from the historians, philosophers and critics by gaining an authoritative, academic voice through the validation of a doctorate.' ("Walls are not my friends: issues surrounding the dissemination of practice-led research within appropriate and relevant contexts" - Lucy Lyons) (taken from - AHRC Research Review Practice-Led Research in Art, Design and Architecture -)
It is this notion of reclaiming that embodies this kind of work for it is only through reclamation that we can begin to re-create new narrative forms using different media and establish for ourselves not only as legitimate ‘practitioning’ researchers, but pioneers in a new aspect of knowledge production and praxis.
Use this:
‘Abstract During the last decade, research in art and design in Finland has begun to explore new dimensions. Artists and designers have taken an active role in contextualising and interpreting the creative process in practice, as well as the products of this process, by looking at the process itself and the works produced through it. From this new point of view, the knowledge and the skills of a practising artist or designer form a central part of the research process, and this has produced a new way of doing research. In this new type of research project, part of the research is carried out as art or design practice. The central methodological question of this emerging field of research is: how can art or design practice interact with research in such a manner that they will together produce new knowledge, create a new point of view or form new, creative ways of doing research? In this article, the making and the products of making are seen as an essential part of research: they can be conceived both as answers to particular research questions and as artistic or designerly argumentation. As an object made by an artist–researcher, the artefact can also be seen as a method for collecting and preserving information and understanding. However, the artefacts seem unable to pass on their knowledge, which is relevant for the research context. Thus, the crucial task to be carried out is to give a voice to the artefact. This means interpreting the artefact. During the process of interpretation, furthermore, the artefact has to be placed into a suitable theoretical context. In this process, the final products (the artefacts) can be seen as revealing their stories, i.e. the knowledge they embody.’ (Maarit MäkeläEmail: makela.maarit@gmail.com)
This again suggests new modes of learning that have to be understood. Making the artefact ‘speak’ is like a ventriliquist trying to get a dummy to say ‘antidisestablishmentarianism’! But it has to be done.
And this:
‘Practice-based Research is an original investigation undertaken in order to gain new knowledge partly by means of practice and the outcomes of that practice. Claims of originality and contribution to knowledge may be demonstrated through creative outcomes, which may include artefacts such as images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions Whilst the significance and context of the claims are described in words, a full understanding can only be obtained with direct reference to those outcomes. A practice-based PhD is distinguishable from a conventional PhD because creative outcomes from the research process may be included in the submission for examination and the claim for an original contribution to the field are held to be demonstrated through the original creative work.’ (http://www.creativityandcognition.com/content/view/124/131/)
In other words, the process is as important as the end product. Or, it’s better to travel than to arrive! And there’s not going to be a bias towards the written form as opposed to visual or aural. There is a democracy at work, which says all elements of the thesis are equal just like people in the eyes of the law of a country! So images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions are all on a par with say, a table of graphs showing e.g. average rainfall in Southern Peru, or the cosine of Pi divided by the square root of 12 trillion to the power of 5, whilst spectacular academically, will not be considered more valuable or satisfactory to the academy as constituting ‘real’ ‘true’ or, ‘more valuable’ than a PhD about the composition of a typical pop song since 1972! More on this as I am leaning now tor\wards a digital PhD thesis where all of the above could figure somewhere in the intertextual milieu that I would like to create therein so that images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions could shoulder to shoulder with a more academic interpretation of the artefact.
Comment on this and think about ways that I can ensure that my project is not viewed in a special way above other parts e.g. the component of a good practise led PhD – ‘ensuring that no single mode of experiencing the project is privileged.’ I will try to present my artefact in a variety of different ways. Perhaps I can use video, audio, Powerpoint presentation slides, other slides, poems, indeed a plethora of eclectic resources, which will be democratically selected. In this way a new narrative can be created - one that is free of the old school academic constraints that have so dogged the universities of the world.
I can present my story about an outsider called Yudhi who (a) defies the typical interpretation of what a terrorist is (a fanatical brutal killer), and (b) re-defines the meta narrative of the world of the terrorist. The reader/hearer/seer will be able to follow the thesis I will present in their own way using the pictures, poetics, academic explanations, hyperlinks, hypertextuality in general, documentary style presentations, and Powerpoint slides. (Add – ‘Claims of originality and contribution to knowledge may be demonstrated through creative outcomes which may include artefacts such as images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions’ below in Differences between Practice-Based and Practice-Led Research ) No one medium will be more privileged. It is in this way that we can see that, in Lucy Lyons words, ‘they are a legitimate way for artists to reclaim their work back from the historians, philosophers and critics by gaining an authoritative, academic voice through the validation of a doctorate.' ("Walls are not my friends: issues surrounding the dissemination of practice-led research within appropriate and relevant contexts" - Lucy Lyons) (taken from - AHRC Research Review Practice-Led Research in Art, Design and Architecture -)
It is this notion of reclaiming that embodies this kind of work for it is only through reclamation that we can begin to re-create new narrative forms using different media and establish for ourselves not only as legitimate ‘practitioning’ researchers, but pioneers in a new aspect of knowledge production and praxis.
Use this:
‘Abstract During the last decade, research in art and design in Finland has begun to explore new dimensions. Artists and designers have taken an active role in contextualising and interpreting the creative process in practice, as well as the products of this process, by looking at the process itself and the works produced through it. From this new point of view, the knowledge and the skills of a practising artist or designer form a central part of the research process, and this has produced a new way of doing research. In this new type of research project, part of the research is carried out as art or design practice. The central methodological question of this emerging field of research is: how can art or design practice interact with research in such a manner that they will together produce new knowledge, create a new point of view or form new, creative ways of doing research? In this article, the making and the products of making are seen as an essential part of research: they can be conceived both as answers to particular research questions and as artistic or designerly argumentation. As an object made by an artist–researcher, the artefact can also be seen as a method for collecting and preserving information and understanding. However, the artefacts seem unable to pass on their knowledge, which is relevant for the research context. Thus, the crucial task to be carried out is to give a voice to the artefact. This means interpreting the artefact. During the process of interpretation, furthermore, the artefact has to be placed into a suitable theoretical context. In this process, the final products (the artefacts) can be seen as revealing their stories, i.e. the knowledge they embody.’ (Maarit MäkeläEmail: makela.maarit@gmail.com)
This again suggests new modes of learning that have to be understood. Making the artefact ‘speak’ is like a ventriliquist trying to get a dummy to say ‘antidisestablishmentarianism’! But it has to be done.
And this:
‘Practice-based Research is an original investigation undertaken in order to gain new knowledge partly by means of practice and the outcomes of that practice. Claims of originality and contribution to knowledge may be demonstrated through creative outcomes, which may include artefacts such as images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions Whilst the significance and context of the claims are described in words, a full understanding can only be obtained with direct reference to those outcomes. A practice-based PhD is distinguishable from a conventional PhD because creative outcomes from the research process may be included in the submission for examination and the claim for an original contribution to the field are held to be demonstrated through the original creative work.’ (http://www.creativityandcognition.com/content/view/124/131/)
In other words, the process is as important as the end product. Or, it’s better to travel than to arrive! And there’s not going to be a bias towards the written form as opposed to visual or aural. There is a democracy at work, which says all elements of the thesis are equal just like people in the eyes of the law of a country! So images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions are all on a par with say, a table of graphs showing e.g. average rainfall in Southern Peru, or the cosine of Pi divided by the square root of 12 trillion to the power of 5, whilst spectacular academically, will not be considered more valuable or satisfactory to the academy as constituting ‘real’ ‘true’ or, ‘more valuable’ than a PhD about the composition of a typical pop song since 1972! More on this as I am leaning now tor\wards a digital PhD thesis where all of the above could figure somewhere in the intertextual milieu that I would like to create therein so that images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions could shoulder to shoulder with a more academic interpretation of the artefact.
Reflective Journal Entry: Seven
Think about actors for my drama - in the great movie I saw recently, Ben Kingsley played the part of the professor, David Kepesh, who meets and falls in love with a beautiful young student played by Penelope Cruz. It got me thinking that Kingsley is the perfect actor to play the part of Yudhi's father, Halim. He has the right skin tone and colour. He has that Middle Eastern/Asian look. He could even be an arab given the right attire so his look is very flexible when it comes to the roles he plays on the screen.
So, my point in writing this down is not to say, like some egotistical idiot, that I'm going to get X Hollywood A-lister to play Y part, but that there is some value in picturing them as real people for it will allow me to write about them more sympathetically, and in a more real and natural way.
Who could I get to play the part of Yudhi? A good-looking Asian looking boy? That guy who was the lead in Hanif Kureshi’s ‘My Beautiful Launderette’? Must find someone and make a real effort to focus on their picture in my mind when I am writing scenes that involve him. I have to start to see this more in cinematographic way; a series of stills that move from their inert places on the page, to a place where the characters actually breathe unassisted by their author like Barthes’ notion of the author being dead.
I imagine the character of Hava like a blonde version of Minnie Driver although now she’s too old, but a younger girl with flaxen hair that as Updike says in Terrorist something that brims over at the top like beer ‘the cedar coloured patch of frizzy hair sticks out, in its moment of capture, above the elastic waistband like the head on an impatiently poured beer.’ (p.162) Ok, the allusion here is sexual and related to her pubic hair, but what I want is a metaphor, similar in the way it captures her ‘overflowingness’, her abundance of something that is both sensual, and full of the joi de vivre of life. She will be the perfect antidote to the life-denying, negaters of life that Achmed and his militants represent.
There would be no shortage of Bollywood actors that could play the ‘baddies’: Achmed, Feran, Imad, Hanif etc. But Malika would be different, someone with flair, an innate sense of self and fully confident albeit a spendthrift.
So, my point in writing this down is not to say, like some egotistical idiot, that I'm going to get X Hollywood A-lister to play Y part, but that there is some value in picturing them as real people for it will allow me to write about them more sympathetically, and in a more real and natural way.
Who could I get to play the part of Yudhi? A good-looking Asian looking boy? That guy who was the lead in Hanif Kureshi’s ‘My Beautiful Launderette’? Must find someone and make a real effort to focus on their picture in my mind when I am writing scenes that involve him. I have to start to see this more in cinematographic way; a series of stills that move from their inert places on the page, to a place where the characters actually breathe unassisted by their author like Barthes’ notion of the author being dead.
I imagine the character of Hava like a blonde version of Minnie Driver although now she’s too old, but a younger girl with flaxen hair that as Updike says in Terrorist something that brims over at the top like beer ‘the cedar coloured patch of frizzy hair sticks out, in its moment of capture, above the elastic waistband like the head on an impatiently poured beer.’ (p.162) Ok, the allusion here is sexual and related to her pubic hair, but what I want is a metaphor, similar in the way it captures her ‘overflowingness’, her abundance of something that is both sensual, and full of the joi de vivre of life. She will be the perfect antidote to the life-denying, negaters of life that Achmed and his militants represent.
There would be no shortage of Bollywood actors that could play the ‘baddies’: Achmed, Feran, Imad, Hanif etc. But Malika would be different, someone with flair, an innate sense of self and fully confident albeit a spendthrift.
Reflective Journal entry: Six
My supervisor (Christine) has pointed out to me that I may be dodging the bullets a bit by not facing head on the problems of terrorists in society today. I responded by saying that it was never my intention to do that, but to focus on other aspects of terrorism e.g. some of the other causes and not the effects of terrorism e.g. economic hardship, repression, coercion, etc., etc. I am now wondering whether I was so wise to be so sure and so quick with my response.
It may be that others do not share my need to focus on the importance of the people who are forced to become terrorists instead of the effects that I mentioned. There are two reasons for this. First is that I think there are already a lot of writers writing about this subject e.g. the effects of terrorism in the world today aka John Updike. The second is that these people do not have a voice, an identity because of this e.g. that others make sure that all is done in absolute secrecy. They are almost never heard because they do their work without the knowledge of their families and wind up dead at the end of things. They only, at the most, give their reasons for those acts by recording them during videos, which we get to see in a news bulletin on CNN or the BBC. Beyond that we know nothing about their motivations for wanting to do it.
My character doesn’t have this luxury as he is never actually told of his status; rather, he is told to do individual acts of which he only half knows will lead to his own, personal involvement in the deed. And I have been looking at other theories about suicide which makes for interesting reading. More on that to come.
It may be that others do not share my need to focus on the importance of the people who are forced to become terrorists instead of the effects that I mentioned. There are two reasons for this. First is that I think there are already a lot of writers writing about this subject e.g. the effects of terrorism in the world today aka John Updike. The second is that these people do not have a voice, an identity because of this e.g. that others make sure that all is done in absolute secrecy. They are almost never heard because they do their work without the knowledge of their families and wind up dead at the end of things. They only, at the most, give their reasons for those acts by recording them during videos, which we get to see in a news bulletin on CNN or the BBC. Beyond that we know nothing about their motivations for wanting to do it.
My character doesn’t have this luxury as he is never actually told of his status; rather, he is told to do individual acts of which he only half knows will lead to his own, personal involvement in the deed. And I have been looking at other theories about suicide which makes for interesting reading. More on that to come.
Reflective Journal entry: Five
I have a structure but am worried that it’s too traditional, too prescriptive, meaning that it will delimit or too narrowly define my project:
Example –
Chapter One – What is an Outsider?
(1) Some common definitions:
(1.1) The Outsider as X loner not fit to live among their peers - examples
(1.2) The Outsider as the bogeyman – fairytales (Africa – white man come to take you away)
(1.3) The Outsider as X banished/exiled e.g. Socrates – ‘What happens when a person refuses to accept the myth of the citizen, and chooses to act within the context of a different , more personal myth?’ (add more here – taken from ‘Essays from the Edge: Citizenship and the Outsider in Literature ...’)
(1.4) The Outsider as X radicalized – e.g. Dostoevsky has related how the individual is so frustrated with his own helplessness that he has become an outsider in a place where he shares his culture, religion and norms with the majority. Yet, the personal dissatisfaction, his spiritual inconsequence in his own mind creates a boundary between the self and the society isolating him from others." (taken from Papers on "Outsiders" and similar term paper topics http://www.academon.com/lib/paper/16512.html)
(1.5) The Outsider as X
(1.6) The Outsider as X
It made me realise that I needed a far more open ended starting point in which to introduce my research. I knew that if I rigidly began a story with too many predefined limits, I would soon be overwhelmed with problems related to narrowness of vision and a limited parochial overall vision of what was to come. At all costs I realized this now had to be avoided.
Example –
Chapter One – What is an Outsider?
(1) Some common definitions:
(1.1) The Outsider as X loner not fit to live among their peers - examples
(1.2) The Outsider as the bogeyman – fairytales (Africa – white man come to take you away)
(1.3) The Outsider as X banished/exiled e.g. Socrates – ‘What happens when a person refuses to accept the myth of the citizen, and chooses to act within the context of a different , more personal myth?’ (add more here – taken from ‘Essays from the Edge: Citizenship and the Outsider in Literature ...’)
(1.4) The Outsider as X radicalized – e.g. Dostoevsky has related how the individual is so frustrated with his own helplessness that he has become an outsider in a place where he shares his culture, religion and norms with the majority. Yet, the personal dissatisfaction, his spiritual inconsequence in his own mind creates a boundary between the self and the society isolating him from others." (taken from Papers on "Outsiders" and similar term paper topics http://www.academon.com/lib/paper/16512.html)
(1.5) The Outsider as X
(1.6) The Outsider as X
It made me realise that I needed a far more open ended starting point in which to introduce my research. I knew that if I rigidly began a story with too many predefined limits, I would soon be overwhelmed with problems related to narrowness of vision and a limited parochial overall vision of what was to come. At all costs I realized this now had to be avoided.
Reflective Journal Entry: Four
I decided this may be used somewhere in the exegesis part of the doctorate:
When I began this project, a number of issues were in my mind. The first was that I was unsure exactly what was meant by a ‘practise led’ PhD and how different it was from the traditional form of research based PhD. More importantly, I was troubled at what I saw as a crisis of legitimacy e.g. the way that this new kind of PhD was lacking in any real sense of validity e.g. coming from the traditional fellows of the academy who at the same time seemed to not accept it as a legitimate form of research and thus as really contributing anything substantive to the academy as a whole. (Add this maybe – As X says, ‘In the Australian context, the creative writing PhD is subject to ongoing political debate about research worth and cultural values for creative practice. National notions of research equivalence (the debate here often led by the sciences) intertwine with internal university problems in valuing creative projects as valid academic pursuit.’ Nigel Krauth) http://www.textjournal.com.au/april01/krauth.htm
And again:
‘We work in a discipline field that abhors conformity - and this fact relates to the continuing powerful significance of creative writing in the culture. Good creative writing continues to get noticed and have central cultural influence precisely because it doesn't give in to anything politically, socially, or theoretically institutionalised. Exciting and valuable creative writing tends to map out the unexamined, the undetermined, and the unfavoured in the culture. The process of shoe-horning creative endeavour into the academic research context is difficult enough without worrying about standardisation of assessment. I have been running a postgraduate writing program where I tell students to break literary and cultural rules and progress thereby, but then I need to get each student aside to explain that the PhD requires adherence to a swagload of academic conformities. I also have to impress upon my students that there are examiners out there who are unpredictable. 'They're worse than critics,' I say. 'They're worse than national literary award judges.' (The Creative Writing Doctorate in Australia: An Initial Survey) http://www.textjournal.com.au/april01/krauth.htm
I had concerns in other areas, too. How should I lay out the findings of my research? Should I write the artefact first and exegesis second? How would they blend together? Should the exegesis be a fully-fledged interpretation of my artefact, a novella length story about a young man forced to become a terrorist, or something else? Should it seek to guide my reader or should it be less directional, less prescriptive and more descriptive, more open-ended and, most critically, open to the reader to decide the meaning and value of the piece themselves?
I also wanted to know how I was going to present the information not having ever seen an actual completed ‘practise led’ thesis. Under normal conditions, I would have been looking at reading around the subject, perhaps 50 to 80 academic articles, as many primary sources as it took to get a feel for the research proposal: taking notes, paraphrasing, summarizing, contextualising, making links where thy were there, and drawing conclusions from what I had thus gleaned. In the ‘practise led’ project, I was starting from a completely different standpoint not really having a clear, identifiable end point in which to aim for, no clear thesis that, with a carefully thought out, pre-planned academic rigorous exercise I would be able to bring out or elucidate. Not surprisingly, for a while I struggled with this anomaly and was slowed down.
Fortunately, however, while I was pondering or researching these problems, I always had the artefact part to work on as it seemed to decide its own limits, its own parameters, its own scope given that it was not bogged down with pre-conceptions that an erstwhile PhD would have been so that comforted me and made realise that ironically the artefact was serving two functions: the first was that it reminded me that the exegesis ought to work along the same lines e.g. that it not be too concerned with traditional academic structure for example, that I didn’t need have say, a table of charts, or a 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc., etc. (find out the exact name here for this), a traditional Literature Review, a few pie charts, or other visual information, perhaps even an abstract if, and this is the important part, if it was primarily there to impress a committee member or reinforce outmoded research protocol.
It also served to remind me that whilst on the one hand, I was banging on about there not being too much obvious planning and obvious rigor and structure, nevertheless ipso facto it already had considerable structure and organisation of its own in the form of a 3-act story structure, characterization, plots, sub-plots, back story, action sequences etc., etc. In other words, what I was realizing was that, whatever way it was written or presented, irrespective of how it was received by my peers or the wider academy, there would be no escaping that there would be a methodology that would be at work and that is something that seems to me is often lost or simply forgotten.
When I began this project, a number of issues were in my mind. The first was that I was unsure exactly what was meant by a ‘practise led’ PhD and how different it was from the traditional form of research based PhD. More importantly, I was troubled at what I saw as a crisis of legitimacy e.g. the way that this new kind of PhD was lacking in any real sense of validity e.g. coming from the traditional fellows of the academy who at the same time seemed to not accept it as a legitimate form of research and thus as really contributing anything substantive to the academy as a whole. (Add this maybe – As X says, ‘In the Australian context, the creative writing PhD is subject to ongoing political debate about research worth and cultural values for creative practice. National notions of research equivalence (the debate here often led by the sciences) intertwine with internal university problems in valuing creative projects as valid academic pursuit.’ Nigel Krauth) http://www.textjournal.com.au/april01/krauth.htm
And again:
‘We work in a discipline field that abhors conformity - and this fact relates to the continuing powerful significance of creative writing in the culture. Good creative writing continues to get noticed and have central cultural influence precisely because it doesn't give in to anything politically, socially, or theoretically institutionalised. Exciting and valuable creative writing tends to map out the unexamined, the undetermined, and the unfavoured in the culture. The process of shoe-horning creative endeavour into the academic research context is difficult enough without worrying about standardisation of assessment. I have been running a postgraduate writing program where I tell students to break literary and cultural rules and progress thereby, but then I need to get each student aside to explain that the PhD requires adherence to a swagload of academic conformities. I also have to impress upon my students that there are examiners out there who are unpredictable. 'They're worse than critics,' I say. 'They're worse than national literary award judges.' (The Creative Writing Doctorate in Australia: An Initial Survey) http://www.textjournal.com.au/april01/krauth.htm
I had concerns in other areas, too. How should I lay out the findings of my research? Should I write the artefact first and exegesis second? How would they blend together? Should the exegesis be a fully-fledged interpretation of my artefact, a novella length story about a young man forced to become a terrorist, or something else? Should it seek to guide my reader or should it be less directional, less prescriptive and more descriptive, more open-ended and, most critically, open to the reader to decide the meaning and value of the piece themselves?
I also wanted to know how I was going to present the information not having ever seen an actual completed ‘practise led’ thesis. Under normal conditions, I would have been looking at reading around the subject, perhaps 50 to 80 academic articles, as many primary sources as it took to get a feel for the research proposal: taking notes, paraphrasing, summarizing, contextualising, making links where thy were there, and drawing conclusions from what I had thus gleaned. In the ‘practise led’ project, I was starting from a completely different standpoint not really having a clear, identifiable end point in which to aim for, no clear thesis that, with a carefully thought out, pre-planned academic rigorous exercise I would be able to bring out or elucidate. Not surprisingly, for a while I struggled with this anomaly and was slowed down.
Fortunately, however, while I was pondering or researching these problems, I always had the artefact part to work on as it seemed to decide its own limits, its own parameters, its own scope given that it was not bogged down with pre-conceptions that an erstwhile PhD would have been so that comforted me and made realise that ironically the artefact was serving two functions: the first was that it reminded me that the exegesis ought to work along the same lines e.g. that it not be too concerned with traditional academic structure for example, that I didn’t need have say, a table of charts, or a 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc., etc. (find out the exact name here for this), a traditional Literature Review, a few pie charts, or other visual information, perhaps even an abstract if, and this is the important part, if it was primarily there to impress a committee member or reinforce outmoded research protocol.
It also served to remind me that whilst on the one hand, I was banging on about there not being too much obvious planning and obvious rigor and structure, nevertheless ipso facto it already had considerable structure and organisation of its own in the form of a 3-act story structure, characterization, plots, sub-plots, back story, action sequences etc., etc. In other words, what I was realizing was that, whatever way it was written or presented, irrespective of how it was received by my peers or the wider academy, there would be no escaping that there would be a methodology that would be at work and that is something that seems to me is often lost or simply forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)