JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  March 2013

PHD-DESIGN March 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Writing Research Requires Words (or 'Let the Teapot Speak')

From:

"Salisbury, Martin" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:17:12 +0000

Content-Type:

multipart/related

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines) , Innovation_Arts small[7].png (122 lines) , 12DP cover457[7].png (122 lines)

Dear Ken,

Your typically erudite and lengthy manifesto is written very much along the lines of ‘this is how it is’ rather than ‘here are my views’ (I guess we are slipping back into the ‘I am right, you are wrong’ mode). The things that you disagree with or dispute, you generally refer to as ‘mistakes’. You reassert eloquently opinions that you have asserted many times before.

As, I suspect, is the case with many subscribers, I wouldn’t dare to challenge your authority. But I do wish to humbly put forward a few thoughts and questionsaround the many assumptions you appear to make about the primacy of the word in conveying knowledge. I was particularly conscious of this during recent discussions on this list which trawled around possible definitions of ‘design’ before going on to descend into debate around definitions of the word ‘definition’. I appreciate that you are here referring specifically to ‘research communications’ and ‘communicating research to the research field’. However, my views and observations are in the general context of the evolution of the PhD in the field of Art & Design and the growing focus on the nature of knowledge and ‘knowing’.

Some time ago on this list, you elucidated on the subject of practice-led research:

“The terms “studio research,” “artistic research,” and “practice as research” also appear in this context, but these terms generally refer to work that avoidsarticulating or theorizing what emerges from the design activity or practice. Instead, the position associated with these terms suggests that activity or practice is itself a form of research and the resulting artifact is a research output. This is instantiated, for example, in the claim that a teapot, a toaster, or a piece of software might count as research. This also leads to the occasional claim that it should be possible to get a PhD for making a teapot, a toaster, or a piece of software, presenting the artifacttogether with a short essay incorrectly labeled as an exegesis.”

As I see it, one great advantage of words over images and artifacts is that they can be used so easily and effectively to obscure as well as reveal truths (and in the case of some contributors to this list, to demand 'evidence' to support anything that they disagree with, whilst repeatedly failing to supply any to those who ask for the same). On the surface, it is difficult to dispute the factual correctness of the above statement. But by using examples such as teapots or toasters it is possible to suggest something slight or insubstantial and we can also generalise about ‘short essays’ as if to suggest that this is what is usually submitted in the case of a creative, practice-led PhD. We can also give theimpression that an artifact or design (or perhaps a very large body of working drawings and storyboards?) ‘avoids articulating or theorizing’.

A few months back, during a periodic return to denouncement of Chris Frayling’s early text on the possibilities of research into/ through/ for/ Art & Design, you were taken to task by another contributor for describing Frayling’s document as a ‘pamphlet’. Of course you were able to explain quite accurately that the publication was indeed a pamphlet by any definition of that word. The unsaid bit is of course that we will associate‘pamphlet’ once again with something slight or insubstantial. We can only speculate as to whether a similar sized publication which contained words that you thoroughly agreed with and approved of would also be referred to as a ‘pamphlet’. Similarly, Frayling was described as an expert on spaghetti westerns, which indeed he is, among other things. But choosing this particular aspect of his work in order to tell us ‘who Frayling is’ allows us to infer that his ideas should not be taken seriously.

I am not suggesting that all of this smoke and mirrors is necessarily deliberate or conscious. But it tends to leave me confused as to why there should be such faith in the ‘privileging’ (I’ve been dying to use that word) of words over artifacts as reliable conveyors of knowledge.

In your recent post, you explain to Mattias Arvola that he has made a ‘mistake’ in describing the discussion around verbal and visual language as an age-old debate.

“The debate began when people with no research background and no publications found themselves required to deal with research issues. Those people did not understand the kinds of questions involved in research. Rather than learn about research, some decided to assert what research meant based on personal preferences or sheer ignorance. In that context, a significant number of people did not know the difference between communicating design outcomes and communicating research outcomes.”

Is the unthinkable possible here, in that it may be you who has made a mistake and this debate does precede the merging of Art & Design institutions and polytechnics with universities? It may go back to and beyond Ben Shahn’s exploration of the subject in his Charles Elliot Norton lectures given to students at Harvard in the late 1950s (in particular ‘Artists in Colleges’ and ‘The Shape of Content’):

“For it is just such inexact knowing that is implicit in the arts. And actually I believe that it is toward this kind ofknowing that the classifications of the classroom reach, if sometimes unsuccessfully.”
(Shahn, 1957)

An alternative interpretation of the issue of languages of design to that which you expound in your paragraph above mightperhaps go something like this?-

“The debate began when people with no practical art and design experience saw a tempting career opportunity at the time of the absorption of Art & Design institutions and polytechnics into universities. Those people did not understand the kinds of questions that are inherent in creative, practice-led thinking. Rather than learn about thinking and knowing through practice, and how best to disseminate that knowing, they took the easy career option and gained traditional academic PhDs, rather than seeking to establish clearly what ‘research’ and the PhD might mean in the context of creative practice.”

You state (dare I say it, somewhat dogmatically):

“But images and objects alone cannot communicate the mental acts of research because they cannot describe the metanarrative of research.”

Once again, is it possible that you have made a ‘mistake’? Is it possible that detailed working drawings and storyboards may be able in certain contexts to communicate research outcomes far more effectively than words?

In the field of picturebooks, words and pictures are interdependent. In a successful picturebook, neither would normally make any sense when experienced without the other. In picturebook research, the term ‘visual text’ has become commonplace in relation to this multimodal form. Research through practice is, in my humble opinion, badly needed to offset some of the skewed research of those generating theory 'from outside'.

Another version of your paragraph in the context of the above might be:

“But words alone cannot communicate the mental acts of research because they cannot describe the metanarrative of research.”

You say:

“Many research reports require images and illustrations.”

Well of course they do! But it is important to distinguish between ‘illustrations’ that are designed to clarify the words and illustrations that are part of the research itself.

It’s time to listen to the teapot, Ken!

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

[cid:3C0AE6E4-D59E-48ED-8A52-8210ED98A9E7]

http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html

The Twelve Dancing Princesses, illustrated by Sheila Robinson- now available from our online store:
 www.anglia.ac.uk/12dancingprincesses<http://www.anglia.ac.uk/12dancingprincesses>

[cid:B65AB424-928D-44BE-BF68-C20C6F6E0203]


--





EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, 


more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally 


Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 


'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; 


English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; 


History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & 


Administration. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. 





This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named 


recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in 


error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show 


them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and 


then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions 


expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 


represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University.


Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are 


free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing 


practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. 


Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which 


may not be a 100% secure communications 










-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager