 |
 |
Dear Martin, I'm happy, as an examiner, to be instructed in how to approach a PhD project. I work as a theorist and I work as a poet - so, I traverse, when asked. What I wouldn't like to be told, as an examiner, is that I'm not allowed to argue that the proposition "I should approach the project in a certain way" is possibly invalid, useless, contrary, or just not necessiary. Poets who send their poems handwritten to editors, get their handwritten poems thrown into the grabage bin. That is, the proposition that there is knowledge embedded in the artefact is not self sustaining - it has to be argued both in the object and in the accompaning text. I accept that objects can embed knowledge that is able to be read in the engagement with the object. What I don't accept is that any proposition, separate to the object, is able to directly point to such knowledge. That is, the text that is accompaning the artefact also requires that its embedded knoweldge is able to be read. The connections between these texts (artefact as text; text as text, can be more relatively indirect or more relatively direct. Asking me to approach these connections from the perspective of one of the objects is ok, as far as it goes. Both are objects; the realtionship is fundamentally indirect. My responsibility, as an examiner, is to then address three objects. The priority that I might give to any one or two or three of these objects and their indirect relationships is the tale of my examining. Perhaps my approach to the job of examining is why I don't usually get asked twice to review in creative areas. cheers keith <<SNIP>>>> "Salisbury, Martin" <[log in to unmask]> 11/04/13 6:08 PM >>> I was horrified, by the way, to read of the examiner who ‘bristled’ at being asked to read/ experience a viva submission in a particular order and refused to do so. This is rather indicative of the difficulties we have in finding suitably qualified examiners. In my experience, it is absolutely essential that candidates submit their work in a manner that does not give the examiner that choice, and in a manner that does not encourage the idea that the written element is the ‘research’ and the creative outputs are a sort of byproduct. The way that the dialogue between word and image/ artifact is presented is crucial. Best wishes from Cambridge and welcome back! Martin Professor Martin Salisbury Director, The Centre for Children's Book studies Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration Cambridge School of Art 0845 196 2351 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------