These distinctions between practice-led-based are at best fuzzy. I'm not keen on using the terms exclusively. There are many ways of doing a PhD with creative practice as a key element and to try and distinguish between two models ignores the diverse approaches and methods that can be employed. One of the advantages of creative practitioners doing PhDs is that they are not as methodologically constrained as those working in many other more conventional academic subjects. Hybridity is default in this area and the methods any one candidate might work with can vary, depending on the epistemological frameworks they are engaging. I rarely find PhDs that are weak because of their methodology. That is to say, they might be weak in method, but that is not where the problem began. Usually it starts with the theoretical basis, framework, context of the project. If the project lacks such focus then its methods are likely to lack rigour simply because there are no criteria against which to measure an outcome without a theoretical context. The place to begin a PhD is at its end, understanding who will be reading it and why. The end of the PhD is at its beginning, being able to articulate that from the outset.
best Simon Sent from a mobile device, thus the brevity. Simon Biggs [email protected] [email protected] http://www.littlepig.org.uk On 23 Jan 2013, at 10:52, Cecile Chevalier <[email protected]> wrote: In response to Keith... Unfortunately Practice-Led or Practice-Based research are themselves lost in translation from one field/institution/individual/reference to another, which in my opinion is one of the problem art practice has as research - if basic terminologies and definitions such as 'Practice-Led' or 'Practice-Based' could be agreed or constant - we would get a clearer impressions of "how we [as research practitioner]manifest in the world" of art practice as research. Another definition, find online, that reflected some of the readings done in the early stage of my PhD... http://www.creativityandcognition.com/research/practice-based-research/differences-between-practice-based-and-practice-led-research/ "If a creative artefact is the basis of the contribution to knowledge, the research is practice-based" "If the research leads primarily to new understandings about practice, it is practice-led." (and therefore no absolute in having a final artefact produced) Cécile ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of keith armstrong [[email protected]] Sent: 23 January 2013 01:55 To: [email protected] Subject: [-empyre-] practice-led Hi All Its a curious thing trying to follow a list that balloons dramatically overnight and contracts also entirely when Im awake (European predominance!) with various threads that intermingle: interesting too that some single posts don't make the digest and vice versa as far as I can see. I can say Adrian Miles never sleeps (or maybe he's in Europe?) as he's onto the thread beautifully! There seem to be also many voices that speak but garner no response - quite understandably .. all in a days list work I guess! Clearly we are up against a range of very diverse positions that don't necessarily see what we do as either artists, creatives or academics or blends thereof in similar lights as you'd expect. To note I don't think anyone with some form of university support (even with other tasks thrown in) should underestimate how valuable that can be for being able to keep ongoing focus on research (which is about 'contribution') : its truly a privilege .. allowing more capacity, regardless of load, to turn good artwork into transmissible forms of research (lets just think of this not as an imposition maybe but as generous extra layers of communication we can provide for others / as well as additional capacity for understanding 'whats actually going on') - - in my mind this does not 'necessarily' have to mean a train load of papers 'on top' - there are many other ways .. that include statements for database recordings, web site entries, lectures and plain old conversations amongst peers. Interestingly too, to add - there is also a clearly understood fact from psychology that the impressions of who we think we are and how we act rarely match with how we manifest in the world. (e.g. I may think Im quite green and tell you so because I recycle my bottles, and yet I might make 5 international flights a year ..) In terms of distinctions of research this may be helpful" Practice-led research is that in which the creative practice leads the research in such a way that its major findings reside in the practice itself, which then becomes a central component of the examinable outcome. The thesis comprises more than 50% (up to 75%) of creative practice and less than 50% (to a minimum of 25%) of accompanying written text or exegesis, which illuminates / interprets / contextualises the creative practice. The research occurs through the practice which informs methodology, content, context and conceptual frameworks. Practice-based research also places practice at the centre of the research, but its findings provide insights about the practice even if they are discovered through the practice. The creative practice itself is not normally an examinable component of the thesis even if the creative process may be a major part of the methodology. A documentation of the practice becomes part of the thesis but not the practice itself. The word length is normally the same as a written thesis. Cheers Keith _______________________________________________ empyre forum [email protected] http://www.subtle.net/empyre _______________________________________________ empyre forum [email protected] http://www.subtle.net/empyre
