researCh training in the Creative arts and designacademy (more perceived than actual one might argue) has led, unproductively, to
arguments against writing generally, and the phd thesis specifically, as suitable forms
for the communication of arts- based research. i want to return to the question of writing
below, so i will limit my comments here, but given the importance of communication
and methodological transparency to the definition of academic research it is important
to acknowledge that notwithstanding the significance of visual, spatial and sensory
forms of communication to research in the creative arts and design, communication
through language remains an important element. practice can without question form
a significant element within a phd submission, but i am sceptical of claims that it is
possible to dispense with words entirely and still meet the requirements of the phd
form. it is worth noting that this is one area where students in the creative arts and
design often need more support and encouragement. This can be partly a result of lack
of familiarity with, and facility in, certain forms of academic communication. it can
also be a lack of willingness born out of a conflict between the value research places on
transparency and clarity of argument, and the autonomy practitioners wish to grant the
object. similarly, in her contribution to this volume, annette arlander notes the lack
of ‘habits of documentation’ in the performing arts and attributes this, in part at least,
to ‘cherishing the perishable moment’ (Chapter 18). Whilst there is a genuine debate
to be had about the forms of communication and documentation, this can sometimes
simply be a result of confusion over the purpose of writing within some kinds of arts-
based phd, which should not reduce a creative work to mere illustration.
having begun to define the skills that are required to define the trained researcher,
and considered some of the issues these raise for arts- based research training, it is
important to acknowledge one way in which this framework could be problematized.
so far i have worked from a definition of research outwards, but over recent years
there has been an attempt to conceptualize the doctorate from the opposite direction,
working back from what might be required of an individual trained at the highest
academic level to a more appropriate doctoral experience. This approach is based
on the argument that, whatever the output of the doctorate in terms of a research
contribution, it has in some way been failing to equip graduates with the skills required
for the complex modern world outside the academy, in which many of them will find
themselves working. as a result, an increasingly wide range of generic and transferable
skills are now considered part of a comprehensive doctoral training programme.
The uK Research Councils Joint skills statement is an outcome of this approach.
it contains seven skills areas: research skills and techniques; research environment;
research management; personal effectiveness; communication skills; networking and
teamworking; and career management. of these seven categories, three at least are
only implicit within the framework i have set out, and many could not be derived from
a definition of research alone, for example: ‘understand one’s behaviours and impact
on others when working in and contributing to the success of formal and informal
teams’ (RCuK 2001).
although it does not appear to have explicitly informed the RCuK Joint skills
statement, there is another more subtle argument, developed by others in this
volume (e.g. Chapter 4) that supports a broader skills agenda. The particular appeal
for researchers in the creative arts and design of what is referred to as ‘mode 2’ or
transdisciplinary or practice- based research, that is research which takes place in the