Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ludivine Allegue, Simon Jones, Baz Kershaw and Angela Piccini, eds, Practice-as-Research in Performance and Screen (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) Let's consider the following fictional scenario. An academic observes a performance by an internationally renowned theatre company. Let's say the work is about the plight of asylum-seekers. He takes careful notes, meticulously studies the play's mise-en-scene, and expertly analyses the acting styles employed by the performers. He notes that the company skilfully transgress naturalistic genre conventions, and ruminates on this exemplary performance's cultural context. After considerable pause for thought, he concludes that the work is postmodern, and best approached with reference to Deleuze's concept of 'affect'. He publishes a scholarly paper based on his analysis in a prestigious academic journal - which submits all contributions to a rigorous refereeing process. The director of the performance in question is both an artist and a doctoral student undertaking a 'practice-as-research' degree. He has spent three years interviewing asylum-seekers, and detention centre personnel. He diligently analysed public policy documents, and spent countless hours rehearsing a group of amateur and professional actors in order to devise a performance, which attracts thousands of spectators. A plethora of prominent theatre reviewers and influential bloggers testify to its genius. However, his supervisor is concerned that while the student's performance is successful as a work of art, it has serious deficiencies as a piece of 'research' because it does not make an original or innovative contribution to knowledge. More seriously, the attentive supervisor feels that his student will struggle to produce legitimate scholarly outputs in the form of books or journal articles, and suggests that he take refuge in the nearest archive and produce a critical history of performances dealing with asylum-seekers. Who has produced the most rigorous work - the academic who adopts the role of expert spectator, or the artist who has produced a popular and critically lauded work based on extensive interviews? Is the artwork a form of research, or the product of a research process? How do we objectively assess this creative work's original contribution to knowledge, if indeed an artwork can make such a contribution? Would a critical exegesis of the work in question legitimate its research status? To what extent is the supervisor in thrall of conservative self-serving academic conventions that privilege some research practices over others? Does legitimate research have to take a written form? These are some of the questions that Practiceas-Research in Performance and Screen poses, and answers with varying degrees of success. Its publication is timely given the rapid growth of postgraduate 'practice-asresearch' degrees around the world, and especially pertinent to Australia given that the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative has accepted that the creative arts have a role to play in Australia's research culture. Significantly, the volume is one of the research outputs to come out of a project led by Baz Kershaw at the University of Bristol between 2000 and 2006, and indicates that research-funding bodies in the UK take practice-as-research seriously. Kershaw and his co-editors received a £347,000 grant from the British Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) to investigate practice-as-research in performance (PRIP). This explains why the book primarily deals with work generated in the UK, although the last three chapters broaden this narrow perspective by examining the PRIP in France, Canada and Australia. Practice-as-Research in Performance and Screen comprises of a series of essays that vary in quality and theme. It also includes an extensive catalogue of practice-asresearch projects, and a DVD containing short video excerpts from the creative works listed in the catalogue. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».