Contextscontext of application rather than within a narrow disciplinary framework, also implies
the need for broader skills, including the ability to communicate to non- specialists
and collaborate with non- academic partners. along with Borgdorff (2009a), i do not
believe that there is any necessary or straightforward alignment between research in
the creative arts and design and ‘mode 2’ (i also do not see a sharp divide between the
two modes, hence my placing of them in quotation marks), but it does nevertheless
further contextualize the research skills debate.
What are the implications of these arguments for the framework i have set out
above, and for creative arts research more generally? The key issue to consider is to
what extent these skills are embedded in the programmes of research being followed by
doctoral students. Clearly, this will vary according to which skills are being discussed,
but i think it is useful to distinguish three levels: first, those skills which are central to
research and which all students would be expected to develop as part of the conduct
of their doctoral research, for example ‘the ability to recognize and validate problems’.
second, generic skills which are important to the student’s development as an effective
researcher, for example the ability to ‘develop and maintain co- operative networks and
working relationships with supervisors, colleagues and peers, within the institution and
the wider research community’. Third, those skills which go beyond what might be
considered essential for successful research, but which would nevertheless be desirable
for a highly qualified individual, for example the ability to ‘effectively support the
learning of others when involved in teaching, mentoring or demonstrating activities’. if
one defines the doctorate as requiring a reflexive competence, then at the first and second
levels, it is desirable for the skills to be embedded within doctoral programmes. That is
not to say there is not further work to be done here of course. Whilst a programme that
did not equip students with first order skills would clearly to failing at a very basic level,
the development of doctoral students as competent members of an academic research
community does require thinking beyond the individual research project and towards
a sense of the research career. i would argue that active researchers are best placed to
guide students in this area, but this kind of broader skills development does require a
deliberate and conscious effort, and does not happen simply by a process of osmosis.
The recent emphasis in uK higher education on extending personal development
planning (pdp) to doctoral students represents an attempt to focus both supervisors
and students on this aspect of research training. skills at the third level, however,
need to be treated in a different, if complementary, way. Research supervisors may
not be best placed to deliver such skills training, and, furthermore, not all students are
likely to benefit equally from such provision. The assumption of a young career-minded
academic hovers behind some of these definitions and one should be mindful of the
diversity of the research student body in the arts and humanities.
These questions begin to move the discussion away from a definition of the trained
researcher and towards the organization and delivery of research training at institutional
and subject level.
the organization and delivery of research trainingThe organization and delivery of research training has been an area of considerable
debate and development across all academic fields, and there are a number of different