addressing the ‘anCient quarreL’perhaps as a result of these institutional arrangements, and because the medium of
writing results in outputs that can seem to comply with traditional research products
in traditional forms (written language), the particular ways in which creative writing
is mobilized for research outcomes has received rather less attention than its cousins
in the disciplines of visual and performing arts or in the humanities (and especially in
literary and cultural studies). however, the problem of whether – and, if so, what –
creative writing can deliver in the knowledge domain, and how this can be achieved,
has a very ancient lineage. Famously, the problem begins with plato, and what in
the Republic he termed ‘the ancient quarrel of poetry and philosophy’ (plato 1924:
Republic 607b). his answer was to expel the art form from his ideal city on the grounds
that it was unreliable, and based on intuition and mimesis rather than on actuality
and philosophical reason.^1 a generation later, aristotle articulated the opposite point
of view: that poetry – or, more generally, mimetic creative works – do offer clarity and
have the potential to generate knowledge, because (as he wrote) an audience’s pleasure
in mimesis is bound up with the opportunities it offers for learning (aristotle 1984:
poetics 1448b–9b). This division has continued down through the millennia, and to a
large extent continues to inform the positioning of writer- academics in contemporary
universities.
in this chapter, we trace the ancient quarrel between poetry and philosophy in
the contemporary context of practice- led research in order to: assess which offers
the best account of being (and, therefore, knowledge); outline the context in which
writing operates as both knowledge and aesthetic discipline; and discuss the issues,
opportunities and problems associated with contemporary creative writing in the
knowledge environment.
the ancient quarrel in the present context: research imperatives for writers in
universities
For creative writers based in universities, the problem of knowledge has taken on
great significance because of governmental and institutional imperatives for all parts
of the academic community to contribute research outcomes and outputs. in most
industrialized countries, how to measure and evaluate the level and quality of research
produced by universities has emerged as a key higher education policy issue over
the past years (oeCd 1998). at the same time as public funding has decreased or
otherwise been constrained, the higher education sector has expanded and demands on
this funding have escalated. in response, governments have implemented increasingly
complex and, seemingly, ever-shifting mechanisms to allocate funding in relation to
measurable university research output and/or performance. These mechanisms include
the Research assessment exercises (Rae) in the uK and hong Kong, the excellence
in Research for australia programme (eRa), and the performance Based Research
Funding programme (pBRF) in new zealand. as these and other higher education
quality assurance mechanisms are developed and refined, they are increasing in scope,
level of organization and powers, and are consequently permeating all aspects of activity
in the higher education sector. These powers include not only auditing, evaluation
and recommending ‘more rigorous criteria ... based around strengthening the link
between teaching and research as a defining characteristic of university accreditation