researCh training in the Creative arts and designWhat are the skills and the areas of knowledge that define competence as a researcher
in the creative arts and design? i propose a number of headings under which we might
group core research skills and consider the implications for arts research. There has
also been much effort on the part of national and international bodies (for example,
organizations such as Research Councils uK) to define the complement of generic
research skills expected at doctoral level. i consider the challenge these represent to
the sufficiency of project focused research training.
Third, moving from content to delivery, the chapter reflects on the organization
of research training. how can research training programmes be implemented to meet
the specific needs of doctoral students in the creative arts and design? What are
the practical issues those setting up doctoral research training programmes need to
consider? my intention here, as elsewhere in this chapter, is to consider the practical
and pedagogical issues involved, as well as the philosophical principles which underpin
specific provision.
Finally, i want to consider the challenges for the future. What work needs to be
undertaken to further develop the curriculum for doctoral studies? here i look
specifically at three areas: interdisciplinarity; the relationship between arts practice
and writing; and research ethics. it is important that the emphasis on generic research
skills does not work against the development of more specialist methodological
training. Whilst there is a need for a common discourse around research and research
training, greater confidence and maturity in the field should lead to more, not fewer,
institutional specialisms, each with their own unique flavour.
Creative arts and design research and the PhD^2The discussion below regarding the content and shape of doctoral research training
flows from an underlying set of ideas about what it means to conduct research. it
is necessary therefore for me to state how i define research in general and doctoral
research in particular. a paper i wrote previously on this topic prompted the criticism
that it sought to impose a form of logical empiricism on research in the visual arts
and design (Bell 2006).^3 as this was at the time, and remains, a long way from my
intention, and indeed my own research practice, i would like to try and avoid such
confusion here. as i understand it, the confusion resulted from my attempt to offer
a working definition of research that might be useful for students to think with and
around (and whilst i did not say as much, i would not have a problem with efforts
to think against it). The purpose was to prompt students to step back from the
investigative practices they were engaged in and to see how similar, or not, they might
be to practices of research in other disciplines. and, importantly, to begin to develop a
language with which to speak about research. if i was attempting to do the same now,
i would suggest that research requires the presence of two key components – namely
ideas and evidence – and their articulation through argument. at the most general
level, these represent the necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify an activity
as research. ideas are necessary because they give shape and meaning to the research
material. evidence without ideas is simply information or meaningless data (to some
extent the very term ‘evidence’ already implies that the shaping through ideas has
begun). evidence is necessary because without it ideas are mere speculation; in a sense