Knowledge production as process in arts practice as research. Issue 1 (1st August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pearce, Sally
• Is Part Of: Animation practice, process & production. Volume 9:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 21
• Page End: 35
• Publication Date: 2020-08-01
• Subjects: Animation (Cinematography) -- Periodicals; Computer animation -- Periodicals; 777.7
• DOI: 10.1386/ap3_000015_1
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2042-7875

Abstract

In her article 'Vital methodologies: Live methods, mobile art and research-creation' (2015), Mimi Sheller posits the question: 'How can "outcome" capture process?' I take this quote as my starting point in this article but, losing the 'how', I ask the different question: 'Can outcome capture process?' This question is important for students taking or contemplating taking a Ph.D. by arts practice and their supervisors and assessors, as the answer might be 'yes' for a traditional Ph.D. by thesis, but 'no' for practice as research (PaR). I argue that in PaR knowledge production is to be found in the process, rather than in the end result of making, and that knowledge production might therefore be more readily demonstrated in PaR without recourse to explanatory written texts, if Ph.D. assessment considered process equally with or, in some cases, instead of outcome. I also argue that the repetitive, physically arduous and often time-consuming nature of many animation processes amplify the relevance of this question for those involved or interested in animation PaR. In addition to 'practice as research' there are many other titles in circulation, such as 'creative arts research', 'performance research' and 'research creation'. The differences are not merely nominal but can indicate theoretical differences, for instance, Candy and Edmonds adopt the term 'practice based', arguing that the term 'practice as research' 'unhelpfully conflates the two'. I have adopted Robin Nelson's abbreviation, PaR, for brevity in this document.