但是什么让它成为博士呢?创意产业中跨学科、以实践为主导的博士研究:学术政治、研究、严谨性和相关性的案例研究

Christiaan Willems
{"title":"但是什么让它成为博士呢?创意产业中跨学科、以实践为主导的博士研究:学术政治、研究、严谨性和相关性的案例研究","authors":"Christiaan Willems","doi":"10.18848/1833-1882/cgp/v05i07/51778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines a Doctoral journey of interdisciplinary exploration, explication, examination...and exasperation. In choosing to pursue a practice-led doctorate I had determined from the outset that 'writing 100,000 words that only two people ever read', was not something which interested me. Hence, the oft-asked question of 'what kind of doctorate' I was engaged in, consistently elicited the response, 'a useful one'. In order to satisfy my own imperatives of authenticity and usefulness, my doctoral research had to clearly demonstrate relevance to; productively inform; engage with; and add value to: wider professional field(s) of practice; students in the university courses I teach; and the broader community - not just the academic community. Consequently, over the course of my research, the question, 'But what makes it Doctoral?' consistently resounded and resonated. Answering that question, to satisfy not only the traditionalists asking it but, perhaps surprisingly, some academic innovators - and more particularly, myself as researcher - revealed academic/political inconsistencies and issues which challenged both the fundamental assumptions and actuality of practice-led research. \nThis paper examines some of those inconsistencies, issues and challenges and provides at least one possible answer to the question: 'But what makes it Doctoral?'","PeriodicalId":8948,"journal":{"name":"Biomedica biochimica acta","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"But what makes it doctoral?: taking on the traditionalists: interdisciplinary, practice-led doctoral research in the creative industries: a case study in academic politics, research, rigour and relevance\",\"authors\":\"Christiaan Willems\",\"doi\":\"10.18848/1833-1882/cgp/v05i07/51778\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines a Doctoral journey of interdisciplinary exploration, explication, examination...and exasperation. In choosing to pursue a practice-led doctorate I had determined from the outset that 'writing 100,000 words that only two people ever read', was not something which interested me. Hence, the oft-asked question of 'what kind of doctorate' I was engaged in, consistently elicited the response, 'a useful one'. In order to satisfy my own imperatives of authenticity and usefulness, my doctoral research had to clearly demonstrate relevance to; productively inform; engage with; and add value to: wider professional field(s) of practice; students in the university courses I teach; and the broader community - not just the academic community. Consequently, over the course of my research, the question, 'But what makes it Doctoral?' consistently resounded and resonated. Answering that question, to satisfy not only the traditionalists asking it but, perhaps surprisingly, some academic innovators - and more particularly, myself as researcher - revealed academic/political inconsistencies and issues which challenged both the fundamental assumptions and actuality of practice-led research. \\nThis paper examines some of those inconsistencies, issues and challenges and provides at least one possible answer to the question: 'But what makes it Doctoral?'\",\"PeriodicalId\":8948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomedica biochimica acta\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomedica biochimica acta\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1882/cgp/v05i07/51778\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedica biochimica acta","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1882/cgp/v05i07/51778","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文考察了一个跨学科探索、解释、考试……和愤怒。在选择攻读以实践为导向的博士学位时,我从一开始就确定,“写出10万字,只有两个人读过”,这不是我感兴趣的事情。因此,当我被问到“我读的是什么样的博士”时,总是得到这样的回答:“有用的博士”。为了满足我自己对真实性和有用性的要求,我的博士研究必须清楚地证明与;有成效地通知;参与;并增加价值:更广泛的专业领域的实践;我教授的大学课程的学生;更广泛的社区——不仅仅是学术界。因此,在我的研究过程中,有一个问题是,“但什么使它成为博士?”的声音一直回响着。回答这个问题,不仅满足了提出这个问题的传统主义者,而且可能令人惊讶的是,一些学术创新者——尤其是作为研究人员的我自己——揭示了学术/政治上的不一致和问题,这些问题挑战了实践主导的研究的基本假设和现实。本文探讨了其中的一些矛盾、问题和挑战,并为这个问题提供了至少一种可能的答案:“但是什么让它成为博士?”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
But what makes it doctoral?: taking on the traditionalists: interdisciplinary, practice-led doctoral research in the creative industries: a case study in academic politics, research, rigour and relevance
This paper examines a Doctoral journey of interdisciplinary exploration, explication, examination...and exasperation. In choosing to pursue a practice-led doctorate I had determined from the outset that 'writing 100,000 words that only two people ever read', was not something which interested me. Hence, the oft-asked question of 'what kind of doctorate' I was engaged in, consistently elicited the response, 'a useful one'. In order to satisfy my own imperatives of authenticity and usefulness, my doctoral research had to clearly demonstrate relevance to; productively inform; engage with; and add value to: wider professional field(s) of practice; students in the university courses I teach; and the broader community - not just the academic community. Consequently, over the course of my research, the question, 'But what makes it Doctoral?' consistently resounded and resonated. Answering that question, to satisfy not only the traditionalists asking it but, perhaps surprisingly, some academic innovators - and more particularly, myself as researcher - revealed academic/political inconsistencies and issues which challenged both the fundamental assumptions and actuality of practice-led research. This paper examines some of those inconsistencies, issues and challenges and provides at least one possible answer to the question: 'But what makes it Doctoral?'
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
But what makes it doctoral?: taking on the traditionalists: interdisciplinary, practice-led doctoral research in the creative industries: a case study in academic politics, research, rigour and relevance How Homelessness Compromises the Exercise of the Rights of Citizenship in Australia XIth International Karlsburg Symposium on Problems of Diabetes. September 19-21, 1983. Phosphoinositide signalling system in red blood cells of patients with hereditary spherocytosis. Improved purification and characterization of membraneous and cytosolic inositol phospholipid-specific phospholipases C from porcine brain cortex.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1