Doctoral Writing in the Creative and Performing Arts

by Louise Ravelli (Editor), Brian Paltridge (Editor), Sue Starfield (Editor)

Bringing together student, academic, and institutional perspectives, this book casts light on the unique and challenging form of the doctoral thesis in the creative and performing arts, where the written text is combined with a creative/performed text, to present a unique contribution to research. It provides insights into the nature of doctoral writing across a wide range of creative and performing arts disciplines and enhances understanding of student experiences of doctoral writing. Academic perspectives are provided: that of the examiners, the supervisors, and the institutions. The book also investigates the nature of successful research in these disciplines.

200 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 2014

Reviews

[Cristian Buița · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit abstract at points, but provides a good insight into the state of the creative art writing.

[Tara Brabazon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an infuriating, complex but - actually - productive book. It is working in an area that has been of profound interest and concern to me for nearly twenty years.

How can the creative arts - studio-based art, music and choreography to provide a few more traditional examples - be part of a doctoral programme? The answer is - easily enough as long as the standards of scholarship are maintained.

It is important to recognize that these doctorates - DCAs or creative-led PhDs - are doctorates. They are research degrees.

Adjective. Noun. Research Degrees.

This book captures the desire to blur and challenge the imperative of a research degree. The first section rehearses the challenges effectively. Yet the remainder of this edited collection embodies and applies the dangerous assumption.

What is this assumption?

That 'art' has intrinsic value.

That phrase is debatable outside of universities. In research degree programmes - it is even more debatable.

The questioning of the high cultural bias is outside the brief of this book. High culture is simply assumed to be valuable. I disagree with this assumption. Yet when carried into discussions about doctorates, this ideology is used to question the scholarly standards required in PhDs.

This is an infuriating book - but productively so. I would enjoy another version that recognizes the impact of digitization, popular cultural critiques and web 2.0 platforms.

As I say to my PhD students. Do not assume the argument. Make the argument. Do not assume that art-led practice is intrinsically valuable to universities and research. Make the argument.