Dear List,
Candidates and supervisors who haven't seen this article might be
interested.
It is generally about the social sciences but it does include a section
on problems with the relationship between productions an an exegesis
which I have extracted below.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/410208.article#.UVspRJBlOVA.facebook
cheers
keith
>>>>>>>>>>>>
9. Write a short, rushed, basic exegesis
An unfair * but occasionally accurate * cliché of practice-led
doctorates is that students take three and a half years to make a film,
installation or soundscape and spend three and a half weeks writing the
exegesis. Doctoral candidates seem unaware that examiners often read
exegeses first and engage with the artefacts after assessing if
candidates have read enough in the field.
Indeed, one of my students recommended an order of reading and watching
for her examiners, moving between four chapters and films. The examiner
responded in her report * bristling * that she would not be told how
to evaluate a thesis: she always read the full exegesis and then decided
whether or not to bother seeing the films. My student * thankfully *
passed with ease, but this examiner told a truth that few acknowledge.
Most postgraduates I talk with assume that the examiners rush with
enthusiasm to the packaged DVD or CD, or that they will not read a word
of the doctorate until they have seen the exhibition. This is the same
assumption that inhibits these students in viva voces. They think that
they will be able to talk about *art* and *process* for two
hours. I have never seen that happen. Instead, the emphasis is placed on
the exegesis and how it articulates the artefact.
Postgraduates entering a doctoral programme to make a film or create a
sonic installation subject themselves to a time-consuming and difficult
process. If the student neglects the exegesis until the end of the
candidature and constructs a rushed document about *how* rather than
*why* it was made, there will be problems.
The best students find a way to create *bonsai* exegeses. They
prepare perfectly formed engagements with theory, method and
scholarship, but in miniature. They note word limits, demonstrate the
precise dialogue between the exegesis and artefact, and show through a
carefully edited script that they hold knowledge equivalent to the
*traditional* doctoral level. (Tara Brabazon)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|