[iDC] Praxis-based Ph.D.s

Sat Jan 13 12:40:45 EST 2007

A whole range of pertinent questions are posed by Danny.

In response to 1, it is true that there is no correct approach to a PhD.
Such an idea would fly in the face of what a PhD is meant to be. If
something is to be presented as an original contribution then one cannot
strictly hold it to prior conventions. However, Universities are
conservative institutions at heart. The manner in which knowledge economies
function are intrinsically conservative. New knowledge is welcome but it is
only accepted after rigorous review. When the knowledge is conventional then
that process of review will follow conventional paths. When the knowledge is
radically different then new processes of review need to be developed. This
takes a long time, not as a function of the methods themselves but in the
process of establishing a concensus around their validity.

In the case of practice based PhD's this process is still in development. It
will probably never stop if such PhD's are of value, but as a new approach
to formal research this PhD model is in an intense period of discovery and
uncertainty. Evaluative methodologies are in flux and debate over what is
and isn't appropriate rages (as well as any academic debate can rage?).

But to address the specifics of your question. Practice can be research in
itself. This is a well established case in the area of music composition,
where the work or works composed can be presented as the main output of the
research. The argument is that as a language music can contain knowledge,
including new knowledge, and also present that knowledge within a research
context. However, I am a little uncomfortable with this. Having studied
music at University level I found this approach tended to stifle creativity.
I also find it strange that some institutions do not require an analysis of
the composition(s). This is a critical component of a conventional PhD as it
is the primary means of reflection upon value and where that value is found.
It is also where the main attempt is usually made to ensure that knowledge
is not personal but shared, this being critical to what the usual purpose of
a PhD is. Therefore one has to conclude that a PhD in music, as it is
pursued in some institutions, is very different to a conventional PhD. The
question here is whether these PhD's are then perceived to be of compromised
value. My experience is that they are well received in the world of academic
musical composition, so I guess they meet the needs of that community.

Perhaps here we have a suggestion of how a delicate balancing act has to be
established between the creative process as a means to research, as an
object of research and as a research outcome. Too much of any one of these
and it is possible that the creative element will be snuffed out through
over formalisation. I like to think of this as a little like particle
physics, where it is not possible to observe directly the thing you wish to
observe without recognising its non-existence. Therefore you need to
construct complex systems that will engage with the phenomena you are
seeking to study and then observe the resulting interactions. The idea of
the metanarrative here is important as it allows you this "other system" to
reflect on the work. The conventional medium of the metanarrative is
language and the conventional form of that, in a PhD, is the thesis. Whilst
it might not be radical to contextualise the work with a thesis it is
proven.

The second question regarding Professional PhD's is a timely one. These are
becoming popular in UK institutions, particularly in traditionally
non-academic subjects (business studies, nursing, engineering, etc). They
clearly have a role when they are properly setup (some are not and these are
in danger of compromising the perceived value of such degrees). Is this
model appropriate to creative practitioners? I have no direct experience of
this type of PhD, although I have attended study days where examples have
been presented and evaluated. I have also had colleagues who have completed
them. It seemed to me that the same issues around validity were being
struggled with but that the methods involved in such research were distinct
from those involved in practice based PhD's.

The comment on benchmarking of practice based PhD's is also timely. This is
in process in the UK right now. An independent academic study, commissioned
by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, was completed at the end of the
last calendar year addressing exactly this question. It has been submitted
to the AHRC and I hear they are currently digesting its contents before
making it public. Apparently it contains some difficult conclusions for the
AHRC and they need to consider it quite carefully. Whatever, hopefully this
document will be in the public realm soon and some concrete data and
conclusions on the relative merits of various PhD models will be available
for discussion.

I guess we just have to watch that space...

Regards

Simon

On 13/1/07 04:01, "Danny Butt" <db at dannybutt.net> wrote:

> A couple of questions which I think are fundamental to the practice-
> based PhD:
> 
> 1) The PhD is fundamentally a research training qualification, and in
> different countries and institutions the research/creativepractice
> homologies are more or less developed. Is the practice component seen
> as i) research in itself, ii) somehow equivalent to research but not
> exactly the same, or iii) not research but a reflexive form of
> practice which requires academic writing to secure its contribution
> to knowledge (or transferability)? In my view, there are no right
> answers to these questions but they are more or less determined by
> the institutions responsible for the money, with governments taking a
> much stronger role in the Commonwealth countries than in the US, and
> a range of different approaches among the non-English speaking
> countries which others will know more about than me. The point is
> that one needs to have a viable definition of research, and be
> prepared to make a strong case for the role that practice plays in
> the research qualification.
> 
> 2) There are a whole lot of useful questions in other professions
> that are relevant to this discussion. In particular, I'm intrigued by
> why there isn't more discussion of professional doctorates such as
> those found in disciplines like engineering, business administration
> or clinical psychology; which seem to have similar issues about the
> inseparability of the professional domain from disciplinary
> leadership, and could provide useful models. My gut feeling is that
> there is a lot of anxiety about branding and the PhD is surely the
> most exclusive brand among research qualifications, with a near-
> mystical appeal for the artist-academic who may or may not have a
> very strong academic research orientation in their work. I'm
> surprised at how little benchmarking with other professions seems to
> have taken place with some of these qualifications (which vary
> greatly from institution to institution as far as I can tell).
> 
> Another off the cuff:
> 3) What role does laboratory practice and training play in the hard
> sciences, and how would those be equated with craft skills in the
> creative sector? Would this question have implications for how we
> conceive practice-based creative research?
> 
> Anyone interested in this discussion may wish to check out the PhD
> Design list which has a whole bunch of experienced people discussing
> these issues:
> 
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/phd-design.html
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Danny
> 

Simon Biggs

simon at littlepig.org.uk
http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
AIM: simonbiggsuk

Research Professor, Edinburgh College of Art

s.biggs at eca.ac.uk
http://www.eca.ac.uk/