UKCGE brought together academics from across the UK with varied experiences in supervising and examining practice-based and practice-led PhDs to reassess the nature of this doctoral form. Sessions interrogated the nature of a practice-based doctorate, from setting up programmes, through admissions procedures to examining regulations and procedures. An enthusiastic selection of academics represented drama, engineering, fine art, music, research management and nursing. UKCGE offered a challenging programme which demonstrated the worth of practice-based and practice-led PhDs while challenging how we ensure their quality, sustainability and employer relevance. Issues of reduced funding and a fiscal economy inevitably arose but the atmosphere was positive and actions were suggested to continue to foster and support PBD.
Various questions were explored throughout the day, not least in asking whether practice-based doctorates (PBD) have an established mode of study. The presence of creative work within a PBD was debated: the weighting between practice and reflection was explored, outlining the benefits of a longer critical commentary allowing for the contextualisation and analysis of practice, and showing case studies where the practice is able to both be creative, contextual and reflective, namely in some music composition PhDs. This later case, despite its long history, is extremely rare with most institutions requiring a critical commentary.
Katy McLeod (Kingston) opened the first session by examining a case study for establishing practice-based PhDs in Fine Art. She emphasised the relationship between the written element and the production of the work, noting that they should not be considered as separate elements. McLeod advised research units to write a manifesto to clearly situate the objectives, policy and strategy for managing PBD: what matters, what needs to be clarified, why do it? PBD must be run in parallel to the research collective of the discipline(s), to foster an engaging research-teaching environment.
Mick Finch and Andrew McGettigan (University of the Arts, London) explored the nature of art and practice, fleshing out the potential form of a PhD (public works, publications, performance, written, or a combination) with reference to the relationship between practice and research claims. Discussion explored the difference between the UK and the rest of Europe with examples drawn across the delegation which positively situated the UK’s efforts. Expectations arose regarding students’ perspective of research prior to starting their PhD.
Peter Nelson (Edinburgh) charted the value of PBD in relation to employability. He asked what the nature of PBD is measured against, exploring how we can present the benefit of PBD in a sensible manner to employers and institutions. The argument was framed by Von Humboldt’s model for a university (1810), which demonstrated synergies between PBD and the nature of intellectual engagement, exploration and enquiry. The creation of new knowledge, a creative agenda effective communication and an ability to effect change in practice and/or perception were all seen as attributes to be gained from PBD.
Panel sessions allowed for much debate. Examining and quality assurance (Katy McLeod, Kingston) called for the guidelines to offer flexibility, allowing students to establish their work-reflection balance at the point of upgrade. Institutional strategy (Paul Davis, UKCGE) led to an agreement that strategy should not inhibit local level work but support it. In challenging how best to support PBD questions were asked: what inhibits progress (which returned to a discussion of work-written weighting); are examples of creative process required (in the form of notebooks) or can action research, which embodies the process, be sufficient? Resourcing issues must be carefully considered during application: can the institution support in terms of space, supervision, equipment and examining? Recruitment and retention (Mick Finch and Andrew McGettigan, University of the Arts, London) highlighted the need for a research community, in which the supervisory team were active researchers and practitioners. Supervisor training (Tony Fell, Bradford) reassessed the expectations of the supervisors, before delegates probes the benefits of engaging external examiners at least a year in advance so that they might experience the practice in performance, installation or exhibition, noting that one art form should not be examined through means of another (e.g. a dance performance being assessed via a video recording). Finally, the current funding climate (Christopher Smith, British School at Rome) was reviewed, with an emphasis laid on collaboration, encouraging academia, business and employer partnerships.
Closing the event Paul Davies (Bath Spa) asserted that dialogue between HEIs is paramount to forming critical mass, especially in the arts and humanities: critical mass is not within a department or an institution but within the community of your disciplines.
Further reading: Tony Fell, Kevin Flint and Ian Haines (eds.), Professional Doctorates in the UK 2011 (Lichfield: UK Council for Graduate Education, 2011).
Dr. Helen Julia Minors, Kingston University
