A1. The Literature Review should cover that work by others which provides a basis and context for your research either because you are using the findings to support an argument to extend something or because you have identified a limitation and will be pursuing studies to address it. The review should be drawn from primary sources: e.g. papers reporting results of original research. Do not quote someone’s reference to someone else’s work: always go to the original text.
A2. Normally, you would describe the origins of your methodology in the methodology chapter. Where the contribution to knowledge is primarily a methodological one it might be appropriate to describe the state of the art in the Lit Review chapter and have a short summary of the approach in the methodology chapter. But this is exceptional.
A3. Some tips are:
- start with the actual things you have done/will do (as if instructing an assistant)
- then add a brief description of the origins of the method(s) – sources from which they have been selected
- if any aspect is not yet justified develop the argument to justify it.
Number 3 should be minimal. If the argument includes negatives (“statistics is no good for this” or “semiotics does not work in this case”) be sure that you are knowledgeable about what you are rejecting.
A3. Monitoring and Recording ‘Events’ for Reflective Practice
- Keep a written record either in the form of an online diary or blog, or a hand written notebook.
- Having a notebook with you at all times to record any observations or events during the process of making a work is advisable.
- If you are collecting audio records, you will probably need to transcribe them at some point and may need to factor that in to your time and effort schedule.
- Keep an overview chart to be able to see at a glance what has been recorded and what you plan to record.
- It is advisable to designate time for reflection after the events and to record your reactions and emerging thoughts at specified Review points. Do not be tempted to only review and reflect on an ad hoc basis. Build it in to your timetable.
Good questions to ask yourself are:
- what was proposed, discussed, decided and carried through,
- what stumbling blocks arose and how they were addressed….,
- whether the ideas were workable, interesting, challenging….
- whether the collaboration worked well or not
- reasons for success or otherwise
- did the solutions work well, if not why not?
- whether there were different viewpoints between you and your collaborating parties
- whether lessons were learnt from failures.
A5. The artefact is not an explanation in itself:
- it requires linguistic description that relates the development and nature of the artefact to understandings about creative process
- the text describes the innovation embodied in the artefact but cannot be fully understood without reference to and observation of the artefact.
Ross Gibson’s view is ‘the text is not an explanation of the artwork; rather, the text is an explicit, word-specific representation of processes that occur during the iterative art-making routine, processes of gradual, cyclical speculation, realisation or revelation leading to momentary, contingent degrees of understanding. To this extent the text that one produces is a kind of narrative about the flux of perception-cognition-intuition. The text accounts for the iterative process that carries on until the artist decrees that the artwork is complete and available for critique, ‘appreciation’, interpretation, description, evaluation. All these particular practices can entail other particular texts.’Steve Scrivener’s view: ‘The art object does not embody a form of knowledge’
o Art is not a form of knowledge communication
o Art is not a servant of knowledge acquisition
o Art making creates apprehensions
o Art research creates novel apprehensions
All research that involves people in the collection and analysis of data is subject to ethical considerations. The first stage in designing a research project is to prepare a research proposal which outlines the proposed methodology and any ethical issues. Researchers must obtain the informed consent of persons participating in research before the research begins. Researchers should provide participants with accurate information about the purpose, methods, demands, risks, inconveniences and discomforts of the study. Information should be at a level appropriate for comprehension by research subjects. Each institution in which a researcher works will have an Ethics Approval procedure which must be followed prior to undertaking the research. Examples from CCS University of Technology, Sydney are available by selecting: