< Back to Events and Reports

Research into Practice conference, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, July 2000.

Some brief notes and thoughts

This conference showed that there is still some confusion about what constitutes research in art and design and how it differs from practice. This was emphasised by the sorts of questions the organisers asked when calling for papers:

* 'Should Picasso get a PhD?'

* 'What is the role of writing in the PhD submission?'

In response to questions like these, there appeared to be two schools of thought.

* Those that believe that a framework for a PhD is clearly defined for all subjects and therefore offers a model for research in art and design

* Those that feel that practice itself is research.

Ceramic artist - PhD student

I met an old friend of mine who is a successful young ceramicist and is currently working on a practice based PhD. He appears to be an example of the latter school of thought. When I asked him what his research was about he said, "My work, It's practice based".

I said, "What about your work?"

He said, "Well, I'm just making work at the moment and then I'll reflect on it".

When I asked him if he intended to write anything, he said, "I'm not sure, I'd quite like to".

This conversation shows a strong belief that the making of artwork is in itself researching. There was no research question or defined area of research and it did not appear that he felt any obligation to communicate the results of his research in a written format.

Anne Douglas - Senior research fellow, Gray's School of Art, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.

Anne Douglas was the first recipient of a PhD from Sunderland University. In her paper 'Research through practice: positioning the practitioner as researcher' she articulated several points that she felt were important in Art and Design practice based research:

* Practice is a critical part of the methodology.

* Research question or issues are articulated from the outset

* Research is intentional not assumed.

* A methodology is identified with an analysis of the research

* Published as an augment which is text and visually based.

Anne felt that this approach is legible and negotiated with the academic community as well as with sectors of the professions involved in culture, cultural policy, museums, art administration, and design management. She also suggested that this approach differs from practice, where research is fused with creative development as an assumed unpublished activity, as in the above example.

David Durling - Staffordshire University

David Durling emphasised this distinction between practice and research with following points:

* Research seeks primarily to extract reliable knowledge and articulate it in a way that others can re-use it.

* It asks questions, selects appropriate methods, tests the questions, analyses the results subjectively, and disseminates the results unambiguously.

Durling believes that practice does not have these goals and that if practice is part of research it must be grounded in clear intentions. Therefore in order to clear away the confusions about the nature of research a focus on the requirements of research may help. At present the lack of clarity in some institutions may mean that some people are awarded PhD's for something that is not really a PhD.

So should Picasso get a PhD? …

My practice based PhD training and subsequent work on practice based research proposals and projects followed the approach described by Douglas and Durling as outlined above. Therefore, I do not believe that Picasso should have been awarded a PhD, simply because he did not do one. Picasso was a high level practitioner and benefited greatly from the rewards of this.

In relation to Cubism for example, if Picasso registered for a PhD, articulated a research question or problem, described and analysed his methods, set his work in a wider context, identified and communicated his original contribution to knowledge, identified areas for further research, and successfully defended all of this at a viva voce examination then, yes give him a PhD. As he didn't, then don't. An honorary doctorate in recognition of services to the field is of course different and would be relevant in Picasso's case.

As During states the high level practitioner is not obliged do the above but the researcher is. The PhD is a training in how to do research therefore the research student should do all of the above to qualify for the award.

And what is the role of writing in the PhD submission?

The written aspect of a practice based PhD submission supports the practical work. The writing should communicate clearly a research question or problem, describe and analyse the methods or approaches used, set the work in a wider context, identify and communicate the original contribution to knowledge, and identify areas for further research. This is important so the research can be used by others.

In my view if a body of artwork can do all of the above, unambiguously in visual terms without any writing at all, then that's fine. However, I find it hard to imagine the type of artwork that could do this. Therefore, I think some form of supporting written material or equivalent (spoken word on video or tape?) will always be needed.

Dr Kevin Petrie <kevin.petrie@sunderland.ac.uk>

< Back to Events and Reports