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.

Reflective Journal Entry: Three

I have been thinking how to formulate a decent Research Question but have so many competing ideas that I have been seemingly lost in a quagmire of doubt as to whether I can actually identify central, overarching one? I decided to try another tack and think about a possible log line for the artefact component. I reasoned that if I could write a decent log line, then that would help me to identify something resembling a dominant Research Question. Here's the one that I finally settled on after a few attempts. (They are a lot trickier to write than I had imagined!)

Posssible log-line:

What would you do if, one day, you were forced to help kill a family, or face the possibility that your own family would be harmed, or left, penniless? What would you do?


What would you do if, one day, you were faced with a decision that would change your life? If, through an awful twist of fate, you were forced to take part in an act, that would end up in the loss of human life, to help kill a family that was from another culture half way round the world, whom you’d never met, or face the possibility that your own family would be harmed, or left destitute, penniless on the streets of a city that they left years earlier for a better life, and that they now only half know or connect with? What would you do?

So my question remains - how can I find a central Research Question based on this idea?

Reflective Journal Entry: Two

Reflective Journal Entry: Two

I have been struck by these words which I have been reading this morning:

'Lee and Williams, in their compelling 1999 article ‘Forged in Fire’, make the point that the PhD process will almost certainly involve ‘distress’ – that is its nature. Most PhD candidates are forced at some point to confront the fact that they are undergoing a life-changing experience – termed by one supervisor as ‘permanent head damage’. Lee and Williams suggest that...Lee and Williams suggest that this ‘distress’ should be recognised, expected and understood as necessary and productive.
Common metaphors for candidature include becoming, baptism of fire, journey of discovery, process and metamorphosis. The process of PhD development should, presumably, be one of growth in intellectual confidence, independence and originality of thinking. It would be fair to expect it to result in empowerment and ultimate entry to an elite community. These attributes – that we presume are valued by all the participants in the process – by definition are not, and should not, be easy to achieve. Our experiences as a researcher in the field and as an experienced supervisor lead us to claim that the process may involve measures of intellectual conflict and uncertainty, doubt, indecisiveness and fear – but also the beginnings of a sophisticated understanding and the pleasure of finding the voice to speak what we have learned. Supervisors (and faculties) can and should take seriously their responsibility to provide the environment where these things can happen, in a way that will assist candidates through a process of learning to claim their own knowledge.'

I have already told my wife to expect me to be a bit of a 'train wreck' at times given that I will, according to Lee and Williams (1999), be experiencing 'permanent head damage' and the like. I of course expect to benefit from this process as they say, it is 'understood as necessary and productive'. The most interesting idea here however is the last one: 'Supervisors (and faculties) can and should take seriously their responsibility to provide the environment where these things can happen, in a way that will assist candidates through a process of learning to claim their own knowledge.'

Claiming my own knowledge? I like the sound of that. This links in what I have been thinking about regarding the breakdown of the grand meta-narratives aka Derrida et al. Also I have read other things recently that have made me realise that we are all constantly at work in narrative production and whilst the grand narratives have ceased to hold their power over us, the new modes of knowledge production aka PLDs are creating now experiences and praxis elements that open up the spaces between the known areas of academic knowledge and the novel narrative structures which will ultimately replace them.

Blogging the PhD...my reflective journal

This is the area where I will be posting my thoughts on issues related to my PhD. I started this doctorate about 3 years ago and have been grappling with various aspects of it which have been kept in two forms of a reflective journal - a written diary, and an audio based tape recorded version of more or less the same details, observations, ideas, etc., etc. The latter have been and will continue to be put into written form and posted on this site.


Reflective Journal Entry: One

As my PhD is not considered a traditional one whereby a problem is identified, research conducted, and a conclusion made from the other two elements, I wanted to chart the progression of my ideas and indeed the very process of thinking that will end up becoming an artefact or finished product. This idea has come primarily from my reading of Blogging PhD Candidature: Revealing the Pedagogy by Mary-Helen Ward, a Ph.D. Candidate in the Faculty of Education at the University of Sydney and Sandra West, an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery at the University of Sydney.

I am in full agreement with them both when they explain 'the use of blogs to enhance scholar/researcher development, through the foregrounding they make possible of the pedagogical relationship implicit in the PhD process and consequent revelation of some of the hidden pedagogical practices that underpin it.' (http://www.swin.edu.au/hosting/ijets/ijets/vol6num1/pdf/Article4Ward&West.pdf)

I see the blog as a way to unmask some of the process and dynamics that are at work in the creation of new meta-narratives, and which in my view must ultimately replace many of the old narrative structures that have been hailed as the benchmarks for the production of new knowledge and research outcomes. I agree fully with Prof. Julia Evergreen Keefer in 'Searching for a Global Master or Meta-Narrative' who states that 'In our search for a global meta-narrative, perhaps we should start with the golden rule, Love the Neighbor as Thyself, for every religion in the world, monotheistic and polytheistic, includes some version of this truth in its teachings.'

And I also agree completely with Lucy Lyons thus, 'The importance of practice-led PhDs is that 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.' (From "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 - http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:p9siRtV6giwJ:www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Documents/Practice-Led_Review_Nov07.pdf+practise+led+phd+thesis&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=th)'

It is this reclamation of legitimate forms of pedagogy that interests me greatly for what constitutes 'proper' knowledge production has been in doubt from some considerable time and has been largely been allowed to be decided, determined, by those on the inside of the academy, not those practioners who have been actually engaged in these new, hybird forms of research. As she rightly says, 'We have also indicated some areas of inquiry that might be supported to advance the theory and methods of practice-led research. In particular we have come to the conclusion that conventional ideas of contribution to knowledge or understanding may not be serving us well.'

There are two components to this Practise Led doctorate (PLD): the first is a creative component called an artefact and the second is an exegesis or mode of interpretation which connects or links itself to the research question to provide a new mode of knowledge production and pedagogical practise. The following is the original idea some three years ago for my creative component.

My artefact:

'The creative component will consist of a set of short stories of approximately 80,000 words, which aims to address, in a meaningful way, the role of the stranger in narrative fiction, the issues of culture shock and assimilation, while still retaining literary market value. The stories will center around characters who enter the economic and cultural life of a city and, through dramatic events, not only change the city, but also become catalysts for change within themselves.'

This has in fact changed considerably. Now there is only one story and it is called 'The Accidental Terrorist'. I have also retained an analysis of the stranger in narrative fiction (though not insights related to culture shock), and in relation to issues like assimilation, cultural, philosophical as well as psychological insights will also be examined.

The exegesis:

'The exegesis component will be a reflection of the key tensions and issues that arose during the construction of my creative component with reference to the mechanics and craft of writing, and an investigation of the theories that underpin the literature of the stranger. Larger questions raised by Camus about the role of the outsider, concerns about culture shock raised in texts like Almost French, my own writing about these experiences in Thailand, and other academic and literary studies on assimilation by Sartre, Levinas, and Fanon will be examined. With increasing globalization, shared physical as well as cultural space, and the ideological clash between Islam and Christianity, there is now a need for a greater understanding of ‘otherness’ in the world today.'

This part is still very fluid, organic even. It is continually evolving although it is clear that there are several ideas that are starting to appear more salient than others. I am constantly amazed by the changeable nature of this as though it has already been written or exists somewhere else almost like Socrates' idea of the 'Forms' - the epistemological idea that there is no such thing as learning. When we feel that we have learnt something, we are in fact merely remembering it. Hence the idea of the forms is one where there exists a perfect copy of something - call it PF1 (perfect form 1). This would be the thing-in-itself, the version we see in nature. Thus, when you walk into your garden and see a tree, that is an instance of PF1. A painting of this very same tree would be PF2, and say, a dream of a tree, PF3, and so on ad infinitum. Each time we are getting away from the one 'true' form that exists and which we will never see or inhere in.

So I was thinking that there already exists a PF1 of my thesis and even though throughout this process of not having a clue about the nature of how or what the research outcome will be, as a 'practitioner', I am still able to unmask, unearth, uncover, and to borrow Socrates again, to 'remember' or 'recall' what has already existed in some other state or 'Form'. This for me is the most exciting part of the entire project.

Why is life so unfair?

We all think the world should be fair but know that it isn't. Why are some people so talented that they can do almost anything they want? Some people are even multi-talented. David Beckham can play football well and he also is handsome enough to be a world class male model. The Oscar winning actor Jocham Phoenix, star of Ladder 49, and Man in Black recently said that he was giving acting up to become a singer, so again he has at least two major talents. Likewise, Angelina Jolie has also recently said that she's giving up the same profession in order to do something else, probably become a permanent UN Ambassador, so what hope is there for the rest of us who are scraping by on a measley 'Mr. Average' lifestyle?

When I was a lot younger, I questioned how the world must work. I soon figured out that my gain must be someone else's loss. If I become a rich man, then I am in some way taking away the resources of someone else e.g. in the form of food, or money for education or for some other purpose. I still believe that today, and I rationalise it by the fact that the world only works for so long when it's in some kind of harmony, some kind of equilibrium. Once you upset anything in nature, from a bee's nest to an Australian reef, you upset it for good, and it can never be the same as it was. So, if I take not just one resource from a place, but a lot more than I actually need, and waste it on my own personal enjoyment, I am ultimately doing something that is inherently detrimental to the total welfare of the planet. Like the poet said, 'No man is an island unto himself.'

It is in this context that I saw on the news yesterday that those car ('auto' if your American!) executives from Ford, Chrysler, and GM, who went to Washington with their begging bowls almost like Oliver Twist, 'Please can I have some more?' The were asking for a princely sum of 25 billion US dollars. One would have thought that the very least they could do would be to try to find their own ways of reducing their costs, but they apparently all flew in privately owned corporate jets, one of which apparently cost over 36 million dollars! And they had the temerity to ask for (a) free handouts (without any business plan or conditions attached) and (b) that their employees accept that there will be job losses, redundancies, and pay cuts!? Um...the world really is unfair isn't it when people like this can, after all the chatter about the Wall Street banking executives being scourged in the media for their over-the-top bonuses, crowd around the corporate trough? When you think about the greed of these people, and the Bushes, and the Saudias, you can't help thinking about that famous Will Durant quote - 'The political machine triumphs because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority.' That's what the Bush years were all about: the Neo Cons were the minority and us the majority, and we allowed them to turn the world into a giant business run exclusively for their benefit.

Warren Buffet is the second richest man in the world after Bill Gates and said the following which I think is also very clever.

Warren Buffet's opinion (more about how things should work) which I've always loved:

"Let's say that it was 24 hours before you were born, and a genie [magic person] appeared and said, 'What I'm going to do is let you set the rules of the society into which you will be born. You can set the economic rules and the social rules, and whatever rules you set will apply during your lifetime and your children's lifetimes.' And you'll say, 'Well, that's nice, but what's the catch?' And the genie says, 'Here's the catch. You don't know if you're going to be born rich or poor, white or black, male or female, able-bodied or infirm, intelligent or retarded."

If you had that the wish granted by the genie, what kind of world would you create and why?

God Bless America!

Did anyone see that show on Oprah Winfrey about the woman who had been hoarding everything in her house for 13 years? I've never seen anything like it and not because of the sheer volume of things that she collected over that period.

Her 11-bedroom house was wall-to-wall with every conceivable item, though being a woman, the vast majority as you can imagine, was taken up with clothes, shoes, and handbags. Despite its size, you could barely move in the house so cluttered was it with items, many of which hadn't even been taken out of their store wrappers. Even her three garages were completely jam-packed with stuff and could barely be opened because of this. Likewise her huge basement was full of household items, many never even touched from the day were first bought.It took a 10,000 square feet warehouse to store all the items once they were removed by Oprah's team amassing several tons of items in the process.What bothers me most though is not that she was sick and needed the help. (She didn't just need psychological help but medical help as well because, due to the lack of space, air couldn't circulate in the house which resulted in black fungus (the worst kind of fungus) and her's and her husband's health suffered as a consequence.) No, my problem is that here we have a woman who is clearly sick psychologically, and needs help, but who probably never missed a meal in her life (and she looked like she could easily afford to). If you can afford to live in such a large house, and can afford to continuously shop for items you don't need, you are obviously not someone who has any financial problems. Yet what was the result of all this?

Oprah, provided her with a world renowned psychologist, an expert in the area of hoarders like her, who counseled her back to normal health. Then she had her entire house, all 11 bedrooms + kitchen and dining areas (even the toilets) kitted out with the best furniture you could imagine, all free of charge?! Whoa! Wait a minute? She got a complete refurbishment of state-of-the-art furniture for what? Being a rich sick woman? I'm sorry but that's obscene! What about the millions in Dharfur or the Congo or a gazillion other places that don't even have a pot to piss in? Where's the justice in that?

This is one of my pet hates about Americans. They live way beyond their means; they have a Media that feeds them a daily diet of disinformation; they have greedy brokerage houses who not only bankrupt their own firms (Lehman Bros, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac etc.)but in the same breath cause financial volatility around the world and then, when the shit hits the fan, they have well-meaning entrepreneurs who will happily bail them out in order for us to watch great TV. God Bless America!

A Pregnant what? A pregnant man? Get away!

Has anyone seen that guy who just had another baby today? Yes, he apparently already has one. Am I the only person to have never heard about it? Umm...how exactly does that work? I'm no scientist, but I imagine he first needs to have a womb. Actually, our 'mom-to-be' or should that be 'mom-and-dad-to-be' is a transexual, or to give the out the proper term, 'transgender'. His name is Thomas Beatie, and what possessed him to do it is something of a mystery to me. If he was originally a woman, then the obvious question is why didn't he want to have a baby when he was a woman? In other words, why change your pyscho-sexual as well as physical gender, in order to keep your womb?


According to an ABC article (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=5028746&page=1) 'Beatie said he shaves while resting his arm on his baby bump and may even consider having more children.' Yeah? Well I use my beer gut to shave so there you go! He even says, and this is the really funny part, 'It's My Right, Pregnant Man Tells Oprah.'

Something is definitely wrong with the world today. Don't get me wrong - I'm not homophobic, and I support gay & lesbian marriages, but there is something distinctly unwholesome about this, like giving pigs hearts to human patients with angina, or giving free NHS surgery of vaginal 'tucks' and labia corrective surgery to young women in order to make them feel good about themselves by having good looking, tight vaginas. Has the world gone mad?

Am I merely someone showing my age, or do other people think, like me, that this is really odd?