Scottish PARIP Gateway

11th November 2004

Launch

Notes: Angela Piccini - PARIP

Thanks to all who attended and particularly to speakers/performers. Notes below included to jog memories are personal (AJM) and not guaranteed accurate!

NOTES

Angela began with a general introduction to PARIP and its aims.

She acknowledged the ongoing problems of PAR –definition, modes of documentation, relationship between PAR and documentation, evaluation/review.

Points to note:

• In RAE panel 66 (drama, dance and perf. arts), about 32% of submissions were in the form of PAR, from a wide variety of institutions. These were of ‘variable quality’ and many did not use the 300 word allowance which had been included to allow a contextualisation and reflexive account of the practice shown.
• Submissions which provided the 300 word account as a way of ‘speaking alongside’ the practice, i.e. clarifying the theoretical underpinnings and mobilising the research question/s, appeared to score highly.
• The next PARIP conference will be in July 2005 and will actively facilitate peer review of work. At PARIP 2003 there had been a contextual peer review of mixed mode practice. Other possibilities were being considered, such as local groups curating their own review panels –although this may be felt to be too parochial.
• Angela encouraged individuals to add their names to the PARIP database –accessed through the website: http://www.bris.ac.uk/parip

Robin Nelson, MMU – founder member of PARIP NorthWest

Robin Nelson spoke about his experience of a local group, formed ‘to share work and ideas’…

Points to note:

• Groups generally formed to bring together interested people in the area. A  group big enough to allow meetings of around 20 people seem viable.
• Make the organisation as simple as possible –don’t get caught up in catering arrangements!
• Useful to create an email distribution list for those who do not make the meetings.

• Groups valuable to:

1) articulate and discuss broad general questions in the context of a critical dialogue.

2) provide a forum both for informal sharing and for more formal peer review of specific pieces of work. Such events can provide a commentary as part of the work’s RAE submission. These may be single works or, if appropriate, weekend ‘festivals’ where several pieces of work can be shown and experienced and friendly facilitators frame comments and discussion.

3) More work needs to be done on good practice in peer reviewing.

Anna Fenemore Professional Practice and Practice as Research.

AF spoke about her approach to defining and articulating her PAR work, which she undertakes within her own theatre company.

Points to note:

• The work was PAR not PBR so the research was embodied in the practice. The documented evidence served to explain and validate the research ‘extra-performatively’.
• There may well be a value in ‘triangulation’, that is, creating a number of different sources of documentation, such as a video of the piece itself, contextualisation document, witness testament, etc., to create a final document which is ‘multi-perspectival’ (AP).
• Two different videos of the company’s work were shown, one made for marketing purposes and one as PAR evidence.  The contrast between the information communicated in these two showed the difference in emphasis according to context. 

David Leddy, QMUC,  PAR PhD. Student.

David performed a lecture demo, including extracts of his work, commentary on it and his reaction to other’s responses.

Plenary

• Group felt to be a good idea
• Meetings 2-3 times a year
• Email list to be set up
• Important to share work at meetings and for general questions to emerge from reflection on work.
• Group to strive to be a point at which the profession meets education and must contain members of both.
• Opportunity for small group discussions important at future meetings.
• Meetings to move between venues.

PAR questions Gateway Nov. 2004

PRACTICES

• Professional practice is valuable in its own right, so...
• Is it a mistake to confuse professional practice with PaR?
• Have funding mechanisms led to confusion between `professional practice' and `Practice as Research'?

KNOWLEDGE

• Is `knowledge' cognitive only and articulable only in words?
• Can `knowledge' reside in process and admit emotion and intuition?
• What is `embodied knowledge'?
• Do we need to establish 'post-scientific' knowledges?

WRITING

• What are the relations between writing (itself a practice) and performance practice?  
• Is writing of some kind (e.g. A4 sheet) required/sufficient to articulate the `research imperatives' of Practice as Research?                  

 READING TEXTS

• If `reading' is a process of engagement, to what extent does the quality of the reader contribute to the text?   
• Where a text is open, playful, poststructuralist slippery, is the contribution of a reader greater than with a closed text?                     
• Is this a particular issue where PaR judgements with serious consequences are made?                                                                   

DOCUMENTATION 1

• Do questions arise only in institutional contexts (e.g. academic, funding)?
• Should we instead be talking of `access' and `dissemination'?
• Practical issues of access (who gets to see the work?) and documentation (say, a DVD)
• Philosophical issues (see Knowledge and Writing)

DOCUMENTATION 2

• What is the function of the document?
• To trace process?
• To report on method and outcomes?
• To `capture the work'?
• How has the relationship between critical writing and other forms of representation been conceptualised?

CRITERIA

• Are these embedded within the `criteria for national and international excellence that inform the qualitative judgements of RAE panels and similar bodies'?
• Are `international excellence';`new insights'; `rigour'; `depth' transparent terms?
• Where do `taste' and `value' come in?

INSTITUTIONS

• How does PaR prob(ematize the notions of the HE institution?
• What is the status in HE of work in `performance industries?

TECHNOLOGIES

• What kinds of resourcing/kit are needed for PaR?
• How readily available are these to researchers?

POWER/POLITICS

• Who ultimately will be the policy makers?
• Where will the consensus be located and how?
• How might PARIP have influence nationally?
• How might NW PARIP have influence?

FUNDING

• Are the opportunities to build, say, DVD documentation into the project equally available to all'?
• Are some colleagues/institutions constrained in PaR by current funding mechanisms?