|
Midlands PARIP Meeting 16 November 2002, University College Northampton Introduction | Chamberlain | Bacon | Harrison and Rutland | Ramsay | Midgelow | Conclusion | Back to Region-Based Working Groups This was the inaugural meeting of the Midlands PARIP sub-committee. This initial forum placed practice at the heart of the day by including four items of practice in order to focus discussions. Whilst other regional groups have already met and reported back to PARIP suggesting further meetings that have such a structure, we believe that this is an indication of the mature PaR engagement within the region, particularly in the area of dance and interdisciplinary work. The examples of practice were generously offered to allow fruitful discussions to emerge and we were mindful of the parameters around these discussions and that our remit was not to ‘assess’ the work on offer. This report follows
the agenda and was collated by Jane Bacon (PARIP regional co-ordinator)
from notes provided by participants who kindly volunteered to act as
scribes for each session. I have chosen to represent as much of the
meeting as possible by attaching comments to participants and by leaving
questions without an answer. These are purposeful choices meant to give
the reader a ‘snapshot’ of the day, the questions we were
debating and the areas where there appeared to be no ready solutions.
Whilst the day was overfull with debate and practice, it was considered
to be successful and a useful starting point for future developments
(see conclusion). Interested in play
and the issues in categorisation. Practice is embodied knowledge that
cannot be communicated in just any way. Raising concerns regarding documentation, he suggested that we are in danger of valuing of the visual over other modes of communication. In this argument, the closer we get to reality (the event) the better the documentation is judged to be. It would seem that a ‘panel of experts’ whose task was to assess PaR would have to have such a range and variety of performance modes so as to appear to be an untenable solution to the assessment of PaR. Victor Ukaegbu: Practice should be as legitimate as more traditional literary modes of research. Jane Bacon: But in what way? We need to be clearer about our methodologies/ epistemologies, etc. Someone working in the field of Ethnography, for example, can articulate something about their methodology that must take account of the ‘practice’ as a necessary aspect of the research (participant observation) but because the practice is embedded in the methodology embraced by a discipline with a long academic tradition it is not problematic. It appears to become problematic only when we move to use the practice as our mode of research outcome. Jo Breslin: the problem is that the research has to be articulated in some form usually taking the form of a ‘product’. Franc Chamberlain: where does the framework for the evaluation of the work come from? Don’t believe there is only one frame. Jane Bacon: Issue- establishing and assessing quality of the research Vida Midgelow: Difference between professional practice and PaR. Can we clarify what this is? Gordon Ramsay: we need to be able to argue/write/look at others work in order to support and fight for value of PaR. Should feel happy to jump through any hoop necessary to achieve what we believe can be innovative and developmental in PaR. ‘The Choreographic Lab’: Jane Bacon, Director of the Choreographic Lab, Artistic Director of redleaf and Course Leader for Performance Studies and Dance at UCN, will discuss the aims of the Lab and show fragments of work created. Discussion: ‘What kinds of resourcing/plant/infrastructures are needed for practice as research?’ and ‘Must practice as research include some form of disseminable reflection’. (compiled by Sophia Lycouris) A performance presentation that included improvised talk about the phases of her creative process/research and video that was in-camera edited that stands as both performance and documentation. The work has been developed in the frame of the Choreographic Lab, a Lottery funded project. In this sense it is both PaR and professional work. The Lab seeks to blur the distinctions between these areas believing that PaR is a necessary aspect of development for the professional sector. The Lab is currently
seeking status as a Research Centre within UCN plus additional funding
from AHRB and charitable organisations. To create work PaR needs access to specialist studio space as well as time. This can be supported by the institution but might also be usefully attached to professional funding bodies such as the Arts Council who have a R&D funding programme. It must be recognised that the distinctions between the academic and professional world of performance are very blurred (I would argue, necessarily) but it is possible to articulate the differences whilst still operating within both worlds. Vida Midgelow: If you wrote an article you would select the appropriate journals for submission and that would be refereed by peers that you felt were in a similar field and so suitably knowledgeable in the area of your research. If we work in the realm of PaR we are in danger of establishing a group of peers to review this work that are the equivalent of one refereed journal rather than the many that may be required. Jane Bacon: Why are there so few people here at this meeting who are in positions of power within the regional institutions. They are the ones with the power to change institutional criteria for the assessment of PhD or determine RAE submissions. Vida Midgelow: It is only a matter of time until there are sufficient PaResearchers who are in positions to examine PhD work or RAE submissions. This will affect some of the current concerns such as raised by Susan Melrose. Jane Bacon: Even when this change comes about, it is important that the individual have a say in who assesses the work (advocate/peer review/external review). This would ensure clarity in assessment criteria for each project rather than assuming that PaR is a sufficient framework in which to assess the work. This would require a move from the current status to a larger group or panel of reviewers from a range of institutions and a range of disciplines. Prof. Jonty Harrison (U. of Birmingham) and Heather Rutland (U. of Birmingham and freelance choreographer) present a reduced version of their recent AHRB project — Mappings — to design an interactive sound and movement environment using MAX ... This is a very exciting tool for interactive performance work across disciplines. They will run a short workshop presentation of the system using movement improvisation. (compiled by Jane Bacon) A sound and movement environment created by a computer programme called MAX. The sounds are responsive to movement within a defined area. Jonty explained the system and the sections of work undertaken in the AHRB funded project. Heather demonstrated by improvising with movement in the environment to section in the environment. ‘The writer as werewolf’ Gordon Ramsay (U. of Loughborough) (compiled by Victor Ukaegbu) Gordon delivered a paper that he suggests is practice as a response to the demands of theory. Having completed his PhD he feels that playwriting can be considered as PaR because all the forms discussed throughout the day require the artist to engage in a creative process that the author often does not understand or can articulate until after the work is created. He suggested that this creative process must be explored and valued and if there were needs to theorise in order to fulfil academic criteria then ‘so be it’. He reads a story he has written suggesting that this story was written in response to the needs of the PhD, rather than the needs of his playwriting. As such practice can lead to existing theory and research or generate a new theory. The relationships
between ‘traditional research’ and PaR are a myth; there may
be similarities but these are not fixed and should not be. There is
a symbiotic relationship between research and practice and if one is
considered unacceptable then the union does not exist. If one is research,
the other is considered equally so. Discussion: ‘is the practice in performance/screening contexts sufficient to stand as research outputs?’ (compiled by Heather Rutland) A video of the installation, plus extracts from a chapter in her PhD (textual) that present reflections on the installation. Calls herself a feminist performer/maker. The nature of reworking means that the act of making and the act of theorising co-exist. The writing exists within the PhD frame and the practice exists and is supported within the arts funding/professional frame. Vida Midgelow: Can performance be its own theory? Franc Chamberlain: only if the words that come of it emerge out of the process and are not imposed upon it. For example, language that explains how you move and why you move in that way rather than asserting Derrida onto your movement. Jane Bacon: Each project will seek to assert its own methodology that is the creative process rather than have one placed upon it. In this sense it is possible to speak from the body rather than imposing or attaching theoretical constructs on to the creative process in order to fulfil some academic criteria. Vida Midgelow: But I have been working from feminist theories to explore how these work in the practice of feminist reworkings of Classic Ballets. Franc Chamberlain: So the assessors will read the work from their knowledge of the original form. Sophia Lycouris: What if the work is seeking to develop and push the boundaries of current forms/genres? What is PaR? Performance, creative interpretation, ‘creative’ practice What should PARIP do? Lobby, challenge expectations of PaR Issue: We think that the links between PaR and the professional world are necessary and in need of development. We can provide ‘blue skies’ environments to push the current boundaries of genres/forms. We can also generate resource material beyond the notion of ‘original research’ for peers if documentation is carefully created that will assist others in teaching of PaR. Resources such as these can then inform and develop the teaching of PaR within HE. Issue: The role of the institution cannot be ignored and we are aware that our voices must be supported elsewhere if criteria for PhD assessment and RAE submissions are to alter and become more appropriate for PaR. In order to have these debates we need to have these members of the research community involved in PARIP. Issue: A ‘panel of reviewers’ appears to suggest one framework for PaR rather than a variety of frameworks that can alter as the needs of individual instances of PaR emerge. Perhaps more suitable modes might be advocacy in the form of peer review (an appropriate peer that speaks for the work rather than assessing the work). Issue: Still unclear what PaR is? Or more succinctly, what is not PaR? Suggest other forums for increased theoretical debate. Issue: In many areas the level or standard of the debate appears to be quite low often with arguments that have been in existence for several years. What are the strategies that will be put in place to take the next step in PARIP? What should Midlands PARIP do?
|