I felt that Beryl Graham was very clear in defining her challenge, but David
Durling's recent contribution would appear (apologies David if I misunderstand)
to frame the challenge in terms that Beryl and others, myself included, are
keen to avoid.
The challenge is not to "provide evidence of good/poor examples" (David's
words), but "give me an example of a recently
completed art/design Ph.D. with a strong practice element, which they think is
really GOOD (or has good points)" (Beryl's words). There's a crucial difference
here which determines the nature and style of the discussion that follows.
Beryl's stated reason for her challenge was simply to find examples as "these
things are difficult to locate" and that "PhD students are rare beasts at
conferences". Responding further to this positive challenge (in a positive
way!) a further couple of leads...
At last year's European Academy of Design conference here at Sheffield, were
presented a number of papers on practice-centred research, a couple of which
were working papers based on continuing PhD research. Some of these are
available to download from the conference website:
http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/ead/abs.htm
In particular I would suggest that the paper by Malins, Ure and Gray is worthy
of attention, as is the paper by Harris which arises from a practice-centred
investigation at the Royal College of Art.
Yes, examples of poor practice-based PhDs are thin on the ground, but there is
a good reason for this. They fail. I know of two recent cases where such
submissions were failed on the basis of their highly questionable methodology.
In my view, and based on my experience, the system of research degree
examination in the UK is doing its job effectively to uphold standards.
Positive greetings from Sheffield
Mike
_________________________________
Professor Mike Press
Head, Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Tel: (+44) (0) 114 225 2719
Fax: (+44) (0) 114 225 2603
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|