foundationsauthentic research model and, as a result, the practitioner- researchers have had to
adopt various strategies for ensuring that their value- reflecting actions are present in
the research.
it may appear that discussions on the emergence of the practitioner- researcher
community were already undertaken in the 1990s when art schools merged with
universities. at that moment, the academic and practitioner communities combined
their interests in order to create adequate syllabi and curricula. however, this was done
by employing strategies, i.e. through negotiation and compromise rather than through
a re- evaluation of what were the fundamental values of each community. There is
on- going debate about academic research in areas of creative practice, and debate is
symptomatic of negotiation, the result of which is always compromise and, we claim,
some degree of dissatisfaction for all involved. had a fundamental re- evaluation of
values occurred, dissatisfaction would not still be visible.
in the chapter overview we suggest that there cannot be a single research model
that satisfies both communities. We have shown this is because any collaboration
between the two communities would involve negotiation and compromise and this
would lead to dissatisfaction. as an alternative, we propose that there is a third and
distinct community that is the offspring of the two parent communities. in line with the
concept of authenticity, there should be a distinct research model that emerges from
this community’s own distinct values. This is not a third research model that can be
hybridized from the values of the parent community, but instead should be faithfully
linked to the values of this new distinct community of practitioner- researchers.
The practitioner- research community needs to take responsibility for identifying its
practice- academic values and to be critical of any values and conventions they feel
they have inherited from their genealogical roots. once the fundamental values of the
community are visible, then meaningful actions can be identified and the significant
activities conventionalized. in this way it will be clear why the practitioner- research
community does what it does given what it believes and values.^1
Note1 The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the arts and humanities Research
Council (uK) for funding their research into non- traditional knowledge and communication.