This week has been spent learning more about what it means to be undertaking a Practice-Led PhD. Exciting, and challenging, and daunting, and “it’s a rational approach”, are some of the feelings that have jumped around as I read my materials. Okay, so, at the moment I am working on the Literature Review, and I am almost bodily embedded (my brain is definitely absorbed in the spaces between the words) in the section that I am calling something like:
Exploration of Research methodologies for creative practice-based projects
Note the name change I have made – creative practice-based. Okay, let’s think about that. One of the problems is this ongoing academic debate about practice-led research vs traditional research, which I think of as being one of language and the continuing use of a Cartesian binary. (Arnold:2012) And yet not, because of course, naming and other terms come loaded with meaning, which is also loaded with meaning depending on where you are situated within or without academia. So, do I change my exegesis heading to Practice-led research? No, not yet, because I am using the term as defined by Linda Candy, 2006:1. So long as I document what I am doing it will be helpful to anyone who reads my exegesis (big thought there I know) anyway, it will be helpful if they understand what the term means, and that I understand that by using that term I am setting this section in my exegesis within a specific context. However, having made that choice if I think the term/heading should be changed, would benefit from being changed, then I will make that move, but it will be supported by a rational explanation. Well, rational to me that is, as I am undertaking a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Thesis Incorporating Creative Production(Historical Novel) at the University of Canberra.
Le me know if you have faced similar issues:)