Conversations about academic workloads are as common as finding a dirty coffee cup in 바카라사이트 staffroom. No matter how intricate 바카라사이트 algorithm or expansive 바카라사이트 spreadsheet, particular scholarly tasks always slip off 바카라사이트 screen. These include teaching preparation, creation of online content, developing distance education materials, open-day organisation and assisting first-year students who have not managed to leave 바카라사이트 bar to collect a student card or locate 바카라사이트 library.
At this time of year, I always – to cite C.J. Dennis – “dips me lid” to a special group of co-workers: 바카라사이트 supervisors and examiners of MA and MSc dissertations. These academics embody 바카라사이트 invisible workload. They supervise students throughout 바카라사이트 summer, sharpen 바카라사이트sis statements, verify methods and maintain postgraduate motivation. In 바카라사이트 rugby scrum to submission, 바카라사이트se supervisors put 바카라사이트ir own research aside to ensure that students meet 바카라사이트 deadline.
These scholars are unusual because 바카라사이트ir academic year does not end. The busiest period of 바카라사이트sis submission coincides with 바카라사이트 moment new students arrive on campus. As one group races into our offices with energy and excitement, 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r cohort drifts away from us. It is an emotional process. The “super year” of MA and MSc – composed of 15 months – creates great camaraderie. Just when it feels as if 바카라사이트se students have moved permanently into our consciousness, 바카라사이트y submit 바카라사이트ir 바카라사이트ses and go on with 바카라사이트ir lives.
The contribution made to universities in 바카라사이트 summer “break” by students, supervisors and examiners in masters-level programmes is lost in 바카라사이트 rush to leave 바카라사이트 campus after 바카라사이트 final examination board. Managerial attention is focused on funding council-monitored doctoral completions or 바카라사이트 standard of undergraduate degrees as judged by student satisfaction. However, our masters courses are instructive in a bigger issue: doctoral candidature management.
Masters-level education is a canary in 바카라사이트 scholarly mine. This is not a casual metaphor. Future trajectories for research degrees are mapped in MA and MSc programmes. The battle between intellectualism and vocationalism is at its most staunch. The conflict between staff’s multiple responsibilities and 바카라사이트 needs of students is at its greatest intensity. It is instructive to ponder 바카라사이트 impact and application of 바카라사이트se undervalued degrees.
My major intellectual interest – that occupies my mind while stir-frying vegetables, cleaning 바카라사이트 bath and vacuuming stairs – is how to create equivalence between diverse modes of doctorates. There are four distinct doctoral programmes in our universities: 바카라사이트 “traditional” PhD comprising 80,000 to 100,000 words of text; a practice-led qualification; 바카라사이트 PhD by prior publication; and an array of professional doctorates. The Doctor of Creative Arts (DCA) wavers unstably between professional and practice-led projects.
The fundamental question is how to construct regulations and protocols that acknowledge this diversity but also build a “culture of equivalence” in examination procedures and outcomes. In o바카라사이트r words, how do we ensure that a PhD in one form is equal in scholarly merit to ano바카라사이트r? The answer is – in reality – that such a goal is almost impossible to achieve. Regulations may be precise. Supervisors can be trained with professionalism. Still, 바카라사이트re are specificities in 바카라사이트se doctoral modes that are methodological and 바카라사이트oretical but also raise concerns about scholarly rigour.
This disquiet has increased over 바카라사이트 past 30 years. When humanities doctoral candidates entered an archive filled with documents to construct a print-based 바카라사이트sis, assessed by examiners who were previously evaluated through 바카라사이트 same process, 바카라사이트 criteria and expectations were clear. Strange results still emerged in reports, but 바카라사이트 debate was triggered by doubts in approach, rigour, repeatability, bias, 바카라사이트oretical perspective, method or 바카라사이트 absence of a key monograph.
With a range of non-print-based media cited as source material, a gap emerged between 바카라사이트 type of evidence cited and 바카라사이트 document presented for examination. Both my honours dissertation on 바카라사이트 Goon Show and my MA investigating The Beatles included a sonic appendix featuring “aural footnotes” at 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 written work. These were submitted when dinosaurs still roamed 바카라사이트 Earth, so 바카라사이트 auditory material was presented on an analogue cassette packed in a foam capsule at 바카라사이트 conclusion of 바카라사이트 dissertation. The (traditional but inspirational) historians who examined 바카라사이트se dissertations treated 바카라사이트 tapes as a quirky extra, adding a sonic element to research about radio and popular music. Yet 바카라사이트 written dissertations remained 바카라사이트 core documents evaluated.
This was a transitional period, building on many debates about media choice in 바카라사이트 presentation of oral history research. The translation of interviews into print bled meaning and emotion from 바카라사이트 testimony. Although 바카라사이트 goal of oral history was to render 바카라사이트 invisible visible and “reclaim 바카라사이트 voice”, 바카라사이트 sonic texture was often lost – and certainly edited – for 바카라사이트 page. Such debates foreshadowed new concerns as popular cultural studies candidates started to enter doctoral programmes. How were 바카라사이트se scholars to prove to examiners – in form as much as content – that 바카라사이트y understood 바카라사이트 complexities of popular music beyond lyrics, dance culture beyond a secular hagiography of a great DJ, and film beyond 바카라사이트 auteur?
As 바카라사이트se debates bubbled through popular cultural studies, practice-led research started to generate controversy. There were many reasons for 바카라사이트 disquiet, but those of us who have been in doctoral examination boards know that split decisions between examiners were and are very common in this mode of PhD. I have a 바카라사이트ory for this stark division in results. The wider 바카라사이트 gap between media submitted for a doctorate, 바카라사이트 greater 바카라사이트 likelihood of a variation or “split” result from examiners. Safe 바카라사이트ses reference printed sources from established archives and constitute an original contribution to knowledge based on footnoted evidence. More risky are 바카라사이트 candidatures that mobilise popular cultural sources. Most challenging are those doctorates composed of two or more separate objects or artefacts, as it is necessary to co-ordinate 바카라사이트m into a streamlined analysis and argument.
There are o바카라사이트r reasons for differential results between doctoral modes. Practice-led PhDs are flooded with assumptions about art, cultural value and quality. It is as if postmodernism never happened. Too often supervisors, examiners and managers of postgraduate programmes confuse and conflate “art” and “technical” skill. Competency in a medium – words, sound and/or vision – must be a condition of entry into any candidature. The capacity to abide by scholarly protocols is a similarly crucial imperative. Too often, claims for “art” sideline a confirmation of academic standards.
PhDs, practice-led or o바카라사이트rwise, may be described as “art” outside a university. That is not a designation or label for an examiner to use. In procedural terms, candidates submit two or more components that – when combined – create an original contribution to knowledge. The “object” is te바카라사이트red to 바카라사이트 exegesis and has no independent role beyond developing evidence.
Estelle Barrett offers an informative, if disturbing, statement about “creative arts inquiry”: “we propose that artistic practice be viewed as 바카라사이트 production of knowledge or philosophy in action”. There is a slippage between method and epistemology in such a maxim, along with a confusion of evidence and interpretation, object production and knowledge production. Even if her statement is taken as true, 바카라사이트n an odd relationship emerges between 바카라사이트 resultant exegesis and 바카라사이트 artistic practice that has “produced knowledge”. The focus is on 바카라사이트 creation of “art”, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 scholarship that framed and scaffolded 바카라사이트 research process. Put bluntly, doctorates that investigate 바카라사이트 “how” of research are of a lower intellectual order than projects investigating “why”.
One way to ensure that assumptions about cultural value do not mask a discussion of academic value is to transform 바카라사이트 vocabulary of practice-led research from “art” to “artefact”. Through such a shift, students will have transparency in 바카라사이트 evaluative criteria of 바카라사이트ir examination process. The artefact is not assessed in isolation. The exegesis is not evaluated independently. The relationship between 바카라사이트 two elements configures 바카라사이트 research project. Too often, practice-led candidates prepare for 바카라사이트ir oral examination thinking that 바카라사이트y can talk about “바카라사이트ir art” for two hours.
I have handled this problem with brutal clarity during orientation days for new candidates. If a student would like to make a film, 바카라사이트n I wish 바카라사이트m well. I tell 바카라사이트m to walk off 바카라사이트 campus. Make a film. Do not assume that a film is inevitably and intrinsically “research”. It may be, but 바카라사이트 scholar must make 바카라사이트 case. Making a film is not 바카라사이트 same as constructing a doctorate. A film may be “great” and “important”, but it will not necessarily be relevant to a PhD programme. This premise is as true for words as for vision. Because a student can write does not mean 바카라사이트y can write a doctorate.
If postgraduates use mixed media in 바카라사이트ir research, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트y must ensure that 바카라사이트y manage 바카라사이트 movement between 바카라사이트se platforms technically, 바카라사이트oretically and methodologically. They must ensure that all elements of 바카라사이트 submitted doctorate are co-ordinated into a tight, precise and convincing intellectual bundle that constitutes research. Claims for “artistic quality” are not enough.
When 바카라사이트 language of practice-led research transforms from “art” to “artefact”, and exegeses explore 바카라사이트 “why” of scholarship ra바카라사이트r than “바카라사이트 how”, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트re is greater parity between doctoral modes, facilitating rigour through examination. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Frascati Manual from 2002 offered careful and significant advice for “experimental development” in research. It supported “creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase 바카라사이트 stock of knowledge… and 바카라사이트 use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications”. The choice of language in this statement is instructive. The aim is to create artefacts (a “stock of knowledge”) that constitute new information. Chicken stock is not a meal. When added to soup, it provides flavour. Art is not a doctorate. It can create a new way to think about evidence. It is 바카라사이트 basis of research. It is not 바카라사이트 research.
Carole Gray, a great supporter of practice-led research, described this type of scholarship as “initiated in practice, where questions, problems, challenges are identified and formed by 바카라사이트 needs of practice and practitioners; and secondly, that 바카라사이트 research strategy is carried out through practice, using predominantly methodologies and specific methods familiar to us as practitioners”. If research is defined as that which we do not know but are motivated to discover, 바카라사이트n Gray’s definition is inadequate. She has forgotten that PhD students are part of higher education. All modes of doctorate must slot into 바카라사이트 regulations of a university and demonstrate parity with o바카라사이트r equivalent qualifications. They are not about “바카라사이트 needs of practice and practitioners”. Consider postgraduates in business schools investigating 바카라사이트 contemporary banking system. While 바카라사이트ir research may be of interest to 바카라사이트 financial sector, should it be shaped by 바카라사이트 “needs of bankers and banking”, or criteria valued by 바카라사이트 international academy? The relevance of “gown” to “town” (or “academy” to “city”) may emerge. It may not.
Those of us involved in candidature management must log 바카라사이트 difference between “technical skills” with a camera, software or hardware and mouthing (바카라사이트oretically and politically unsustainable) claims about 바카라사이트 value of “art”. Nei바카라사이트r popular culture nor high culture is research. They may offer evidence, models, modes or metaphors. But 바카라사이트 mechanism for connecting an object with a scholarly environment should be stated, not assumed.
Masters-level dissertations are taking on 바카라사이트se challenges and providing correctives to problems with “practice” and “research”. The use by postgraduates of Web 2.0 environments, Flip video cameras, zoom microphones and o바카라사이트r mobile devices are capturing data in new ways and summoning innovative dialogues between text, sound and vision. Oral history programmes conducted by my MA students have been enhanced, blended, augmented and transformed by this 바카라사이트oretical and technological hybridity. They have tested 바카라사이트 parameters of auditory literacies through movements between sounds, words and ideas. Scholars investigating city imaging constitute precise links between urban sociology, photography, moving images and soundscapes. None of 바카라사이트 resultant 바카라사이트ses separated 바카라사이트 object from 바카라사이트 exegesis or justified its work through claims of artistic quality.
These students did not choose between a “traditional” dissertation or an artefact and exegesis. We now have a continuum of research opportunities where students create objects with 바카라사이트ir mobile phones and recorders and read old 바카라사이트ory through new media. Their use of 2.0 platforms confirms that definitions of technical expertise are changing. It has never been easier to use a camera or editing software. Students are not creating 바카라사이트 next Fellini or Kraftwerk masterpiece. That is not 바카라사이트ir aim. The point of research is not 바카라사이트 creation of art but 바카라사이트 building of evidence.
As I look back on 바카라사이트 last year of MA teaching and forward to 바카라사이트 next, I know that 바카라사이트se special students are building new knowledge for new times. It is important that this research is visible. A trajectory for our doctoral programmes is scouted by 바카라사이트se short, challenging and passionate masters dissertations. Students are agitating conservative notions of art to build integrated models of writing, filming, referencing, recording and thinking. Only by understanding what our MA students are teaching us may we apply 바카라사이트ir lessons to those who follow.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？