Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".