>
> > [Actually, Beryl, what do you mean by "formal research".? When is
>> research formal - or when is it not? Are you meaning academic, which
>> I guess I am taking this to mean?]
>>
>In theory we all may want to agree with the most universal and commonly
>accepted definition of formal research as a critical inquiry based on the
>premise of hypothesis and that is set to produce (or contribute to
>systematic production of) verifiable new 'knowledge'? The inquiry is
>conducted with the use of some sort of methodology which allows to verify
>the newly produced knowledge as knowledge?
Yes, but this definition excludes a large amount of practice-based
research that has always taken place in the arts and humanities. One
of the long-running issued that has marginalised practice-based arts
research is that it is not often, or explicitly, hypothesis driven.
(Note, even, the poor AHRB allocations to practice based programmes)
Indeed, some of the most interesting collaborations that I have been
involved in between arts and science are with scientists who define
their research practice as being discovery-based rather than
hypothesis-based.
The issue with methodological structures in practice-based arts
research is that they are also not always transparent or explicit.
Often by the nature of the work that is conducted they are emergent.
Sometimes this is made obvious through a self-reflexive operation but
not always.
This is what I have been rather clumsily trying to express: for me,
as a curator in a research context, my job is in part to draw out
what methodologies are being applied, how and why. And especially in
interdisciplinary collaboration and multi-partner projects this is
not always easy - or rather, this is the main challenge.
The outcome of the artistic work is not always easy to verify as
being an original contribution to knowledge. We can say that all art
work contributes to knowledge, but the qualities that the artist is
striving for, the depth, the resonance and the complexity, may escape
that kind of verification. It is the process through which the work
is made , ie the application of the methodology[ies], that can be
examined and contribution to knowledge can be asserted. I see this as
a crucial role of a curator in a research context.
In new media practices and other emergent forms this is extremely
important. Because we are often in new territories, or exploring
pre-existing territories with new approaches. And innovative practice
can easily be claimed but needs to be substantiated.
Peter
--
********************************************************************
Peter Ride
Co-Director & Senior Research Fellow
Centre for Arts Research Technology and Education (CARTE)
University of Westminster
70 Great Portland Street, W1N 7NQ
http://www.carte.org.uk
and
Artistic Director
DA2 Digital Arts Development Agency
http://www.da2.org.uk
|
