[iDC] IDC list <idc@bbs.thing.net>

[Margaret Morse]

Dear IDCs,
	We need more models of the practice-based 
Ph.D., including more from myself.  Thanks to 
Mary Anne and the on the art-practice Ph.D. 
degree within a polytechnical institute and Simon 
on the  British Ph.D. model, plus more summary 
approaches to other programs by Chris and Mark.
	Danny raised the professional school 
model; I wonder myself whether the profession of 
artist is akin enough to the guilds of engineers, 
lawyers, doctors, public health officials, 
academic administrators, etc. to make the 
professional degree an option.  The art market 
plays out more selectively and differently than 
the market for the services above.  In the US, 
professional school students often owe 
significantly higher tuition, paid by their 
corporation or through loans recouped through 
later earnings.  On the other hand, would the 
Plymouth model, CiAA and other instantiations be 
an example of an existing, successful 
professional model of the practice-based Ph.D.?
	I am wondering why it is taking me so 
long--other than my health--to get down to 
business and describe my department's Ph.D. 
proposal.  On one hand, I am worrying about how 
much to reveal of what is a 107 page formulaic 
(format mandated for Ph.D. proposals in the 
California system) and not entirely processed 
proposal.  I am not sure how truly a public 
document it is yet.  Furthermore, the emails keep 
coming (thank deity) and I don't want to get 
behind in something I am (very light- handedly) 
moderating.
	So, I will share my take on the posts. 
Then I need to prepare highlights of the proposed 
UCSC Film and Digital Media Ph.D.--obviously 
another day's work.  Two things are different 
about it than what has been discussed so far 
below:  1-rather than having to choose one 
possibility in the mix of academic and creative 
research offered by Danny Butt, we have allowed 
for all three.  One option is indeed an art 
project itself as creative research without an 
additional thesis.  Furthermore, academic 
research itself may be expressed in media format. 
I will copy the section on this and our rationale 
in the Ph.D. description.  2- We envision the MFA 
as one possible gateway to the Ph.D. Would this 
satisfy Tom or Mark? I believe Mary Anne's Ph.D. 
also envisions this possibility.  (Our MA would 
be the default degree for those who do not 
qualify to proceed to the dissertation project.)

In the meantime, provocative questions have been 
posed and positions taken.  I'll identify and 
compile three of the areas of discussion raised 
so far below:

1.  The MFA versus the Ph.D.

Tom Sherman: "While the boundaries between roles in a digital culture are fast
disappearing, the gap between the street and the 
university is certainly getting wider. My 
question is are these PhD studio programs closing 
more doors than they are opening?"
	Mary Anne  answered with positive 
contributions a practice-based Ph.D. can make.
	Chris raised the problem of the 
devaluation of the MFA again fairly vehemently in 
a later post, posing a barrage of questions 
around:
--careerism and the "professionally sanctioned 
digital artists" who seek academic and corporate 
positions
--whether the practice-based Ph.D is a model of 
academic art akin to 19th institutions?
--is this a mean of differentiating art in the 
research university from art schools? 
(marketing?)
--How will this PHD be operative within the art 
market system - is it necessary?
--"Is this move a more accurate reflection of 
larger cultural and socio-economic values?"

The issue of 2 year/3 year MFA came up earlier 
(Mary Anne)-the 2 year inadequate for anything 
but a breathless learning project but mandated 
economically by both institution and students, 
the 3 year preferred as providing a more adequate 
creative/academic foundation. Should the MFA-- 
never accepted at equivalent value to the Ph.D. 
in academia-- be enhanced in value or abolished 
in favor of the MA-Ph.D. system?  Chris: "But, of 
course, with a PHD, a much wider range of 
employment options seems probable, no?"  Mark's 
suggestion, a Ph.D.-M.F.A. dual degree.

Both Tom and Simon question the motives and necessity for most Ph.Ds.:
--Simon: "If the [Ph.D. applicant] candidate 
answers that they wish to establish a new 
approach to
creativity, where academic research becomes a 
central element in their working practice and 
they wish to contextualise significant aspects of 
what they do in that environment then I assume 
they appreciate what a PhD is for."

2.What body of knowledge does this practice-based 
Ph.D. signify or draw on? Is there a 
contradiction between academic and creative 
practices?

--David raises a question about knowledge claims of a practice-based Ph.D.
--Danny's first question brought up the 
research/practice relationship with a degree 
program,  reiterated in Chris's question 
"institutionalized bifurcation of research and 
practice - how will that be actualized within the 
PHD?"  Danny posed three options:
"1) The PhD is fundamentally a research training 
qualification, and in different countries and 
institutions the research/creative practice 
homologies are more or less developed. Is the 
practice component seen as i) research in itself, 
ii) somehow equivalent to research but not 
exactly the same, or iii) not research but a 
reflexive form of practice which requires 
academic writing to secure its contribution to 
knowledge (or transferability)? In my view, there 
are no right answers to these questions but they 
are more or less determined by the institutions 
responsible for the money, with governments 
taking a much stronger role in the Commonwealth 
countries than in the US, and a range of 
different approaches among the non-English 
speaking countries which others will know more 
about than me. The point is that one needs to 
have a viable definition of research, and be 
prepared to make a strong case for the role that 
practice plays in the research qualification.
--Danny's subsequent question on how  practice 
should be evaluated and the url of a Ph.D. design 
list.  Simon notes the importance of benchmarks.
--Chris:  Further discussions is necessary as to 
what practices these programs may embody and, 
subsequently, produce Š or continue to reproduce 
in terms of academic legacies and the 
self-replication of research trajectories.  How 
does one reconcile this with the implicit 
underpinnings of creative practices - how does 
one redefine such a discipline via the mechanisms 
of an institutionalized infrastructure and 
ideologies?
--Mark: Beyond the sociopolitical effects of 
devaluing an MFA, Mark questions "imposing 
inherently wrong academic models, which 
effectively snuff out what is in fact, not just a 
series of courses and academic thresholds, but a 
culture of knowledge making practices that as 
with all cultures, are constituted by informal 
modes of producing themselves."
	Furthermore, he is constructing "a 
genealogy for a specific epistemological practice 
that has emerged since then, but has not yet been 
recognized as a coherent discourse network ( 
roughly in  Foucault's sense)... Artists, 
traditionally, have objects but not knowledge." 
He, like Chris, sees this as  19th c as the 
epistemological model. Meanwhile,  " The 
post-1840 discourse network for which my work 
establishes a genealogy, constitutes a 
counter-tradition. It does indeed exist, but has 
not been recognized as a coherent discourse, in 
part because its elements lie scattered about and 
have never been collected.
historical contexts that need to be addressed, 
and on which to build and make the case for 
constituting structures, curricula, and 
evaluative strategies for praxis-based 
knowledges, at a theoretical - epistemological - 
level. I think this would be pragmatically useful 
for program proposals, along the lines of 
including a "history" section. And I think it is 
imperative to do so. My point is that there is a 
need to historicize these projects of 
curricula/structure design, that the genealogy 
i've extracted is but one among many, and i would 
like to see a taxonomy of such genealogies 
developed." I welcome Mark's project and await 
news of more of his findings in his book or when 
he is ready to share them.  Note that both Danny 
and Simon could be cross-referenced here.

3. This area of question that is more diffuse and 
harder to formulate having to with whether the 
world and /or media art have changed in a way 
that makes the practice-based Ph.D. more 
plausible and useful
Mark notes "The higher status that literary 
knowledge has, is a historical problem."  Does 
print and  literature indeed still possess higher 
status? Have more styles of learning and modes of 
communication become part of the ground of 
everyday life and academia?
--Robert suggests that there is something 
different about studying new media--mentioned in 
my previous post.  Digital arts certainly elide 
the legitimacy of borders based on medium.
--Tom: Digital technologies and networks have 
knocked down so many doors. Interdiscipinary 
studies continue to try to break down 
disciplinary segregation in universities.
--Simon: In the case of practice based PhD's this 
process is still in development. It will probably 
never stop if such PhD's are of value, but as a 
new approach to formal research this PhD model is 
in an intense period of discovery and 
uncertainty. Evaluative methodologies are in flux 
and debate over what is
and isn't appropriate rages (as well as any academic debate can rage?).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20070113/fbd330db/attachment-0002.html