I’m a Creative, Get Me Out of Here: Supporting the Development of Research and Reflective Pedagogy in Practice-as-Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Creating time for research alongside teaching, marking and examining is challenging for every academic but particularly for those whose research emerges from their practice. In theatre departments, research is intrinsic to the creative process which produces performances, productions and company work. As this creative research is not always written up as a conventional article, chapter or book, theatre practitioners and practice-as-research staff can feel that their work is not a research output but a creative one. Practitioners can be reluctant to describe themselves as researchers and need to be supported to see the creative work they produce as a research outcome in itself. Reconsidering definitions of how an academic, producing, creative arts work could be defined is also part of finding this sense of place in the academy. The work of creative research academics develops their students’ learning, and practitioners can be encouraged to recognise that reflecting on their creative research practice will help to inform their pedagogical approach to teaching theatre when working with students, as well as creating a research outcome in their work. This chapter examines strategies to encourage creative research academics to define themselves as researchers and to see their creative work as a both developing pedagogic practice and research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".