ABSTRACT

Practice-based research is now widely accepted at doctoral level, and it is recognised that creative practice can be the mode, method, tool, object, subject and/or embodiment of research in the arts and humanities PhD. The growth of creative methods and arts-based methods also means that data is increasingly gathered through creative means in many social science and education doctorates. The doctoral contribution as thesis can therefore no longer be automatically assumed to be contained solely in a written text. This paper questions the extent to which research degree regulations and policies are reflecting and enabling the diversity of contemporary forms of knowledge articulation in practice-based research. Arising from my lived experience of supporting doctoral candidates to navigate regulations on the format and formatting of a submission, it draws on empirical research into research degree regulations at a number of universities in the United Kingdom, contextualised in relation to the literature. I reveal the assumptions and constraints embedded in regulatory practices and highlight ongoing concerns around the articulation and archiving of practice-based doctoral research.

摘要

基于实践的研究现在在博士阶段被广泛接受，并且人们认识到创造性实践可以是艺术和人文博士研究的模式、方法、工具、对象、主题和/或体现。创造性方法和基于艺术的方法的增长也意味着越来越多的社会科学和教育博士通过创造性的方式收集数据。因此，不能再自动假定博士论文作为论文仅包含在书面文本中。本文质疑研究学位法规和政策在多大程度上反映并促进了基于实践的研究中当代知识表达形式的多样性。源于我支持博士候选人浏览有关提交格式和格式的规定的生活经验，它借鉴了对英国多所大学研究学位规定的实证研究，并与文献相关。我揭示了监管实践中的假设和限制，并强调了围绕基于实践的博士研究的阐述和存档的持续关注。