A Doctorate in Creative Writing – is it Rocket Science?

IF 0.4 0 LITERATURE
G. Harper
{"title":"A Doctorate in Creative Writing – is it Rocket Science?","authors":"G. Harper","doi":"10.1080/14790726.2021.1917108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I am not asking if it is difficult. It can be. What I am asking is if it is a doctorate in the field of rocket science. Clearly, it is not. In fact, it should not be a doctorate in any other field than creative writing. Yet, over and over again, we find this simple fact misunderstood or misrepresented or misinterpreted. I admit I used to blame colleagues in English and Literary Studies for attempting to bend creative writing study (the methods, philosophies behind the degree, outcomes) to their disciplinary will. But I was wrong – English Literature Departments are not to blame, Literary Studies is not the culprit here. Nor is Cultural Studies, Film and Media Studies, Theatre Studies, Writing Studies, Composition Studies, or Biomedical Studies or Legal Studies, for that matter. If the Doctorate in Creative Writing might as well be a Doctorate in Rocket Science we have no one to blame but ourselves. The reason for this is simple: we have failed so far to create an adequate global conversation about the nature, reasons behind, intentions, range of outcomes, and significance of the doctoral degree in Creative Writing. Let’s face it, it has been around long enough that we can’t just point at colleagues and say (in some form or another) ‘You’re stopping us doing this’. Nor can we today lament the fact that ‘no one gets it’. If no one gets it, then it is because we haven’t been clear enough about it. And if someone/s are getting in the way, somehow, somewhere, then clearly the reasons behind the degree and the results of undertaking the degree are not strongly presented enough by us to those who need to understand its importance. Doctorates – so-called – can be traced back to medieval times in the Western world and were originally a way of formally licensing someone to teach in a university – the licentia docendi (‘licence to teach’). This is to oversimplify the history, but that is basic origin. Some continue to argue today that the reason why creative writing is not suitable for a doctorate is that doctoral study is associated with the sciences, and that creative writing is not a science. Well – not historically, not necessarily and not entirely. Nevertheless, one argument for the existence of the Master of Fine Arts (M.F.A.) as the ‘terminal degree’ (highest degree in the discipline) in Creative Writing has always been that it was more suited – as a ‘studio’ type degree, an arts practice type degree – to those who would choose to study creative writing. Similar thoughts were expressed when some notable Master of Arts (M.A.) in Creative Writing programmes were launched in Great Britain a half a century ago – that is, that the programme would provide ‘time to write’, or ‘be suitable for writers wanting to focus on their work’. The inference (and sometimes direct statement) being that a doctorate was just not the thing a creative writer should do. Well, here we are, and today there is an entire world of doctoral qualified creative writers – whose doctorates are indeed in Creative Writing, and who are (more or less) attempting to apply what they learnt as doctoral candidates to their work (whether that is in academe or not) and so, to borrow a phrase from the Kentucky Derby, if anyone for one moment thinks this thing can be tethered, that horse has well and truly bolted. The ‘more or less’ is the primary contemporary issue, because many in higher education still do not see the Doctorate of Creative Writing as the primary qualification for teaching Creative","PeriodicalId":43222,"journal":{"name":"New Writing-The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing","volume":"18 1","pages":"123 - 124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14790726.2021.1917108","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Writing-The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2021.1917108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

I am not asking if it is difficult. It can be. What I am asking is if it is a doctorate in the field of rocket science. Clearly, it is not. In fact, it should not be a doctorate in any other field than creative writing. Yet, over and over again, we find this simple fact misunderstood or misrepresented or misinterpreted. I admit I used to blame colleagues in English and Literary Studies for attempting to bend creative writing study (the methods, philosophies behind the degree, outcomes) to their disciplinary will. But I was wrong – English Literature Departments are not to blame, Literary Studies is not the culprit here. Nor is Cultural Studies, Film and Media Studies, Theatre Studies, Writing Studies, Composition Studies, or Biomedical Studies or Legal Studies, for that matter. If the Doctorate in Creative Writing might as well be a Doctorate in Rocket Science we have no one to blame but ourselves. The reason for this is simple: we have failed so far to create an adequate global conversation about the nature, reasons behind, intentions, range of outcomes, and significance of the doctoral degree in Creative Writing. Let’s face it, it has been around long enough that we can’t just point at colleagues and say (in some form or another) ‘You’re stopping us doing this’. Nor can we today lament the fact that ‘no one gets it’. If no one gets it, then it is because we haven’t been clear enough about it. And if someone/s are getting in the way, somehow, somewhere, then clearly the reasons behind the degree and the results of undertaking the degree are not strongly presented enough by us to those who need to understand its importance. Doctorates – so-called – can be traced back to medieval times in the Western world and were originally a way of formally licensing someone to teach in a university – the licentia docendi (‘licence to teach’). This is to oversimplify the history, but that is basic origin. Some continue to argue today that the reason why creative writing is not suitable for a doctorate is that doctoral study is associated with the sciences, and that creative writing is not a science. Well – not historically, not necessarily and not entirely. Nevertheless, one argument for the existence of the Master of Fine Arts (M.F.A.) as the ‘terminal degree’ (highest degree in the discipline) in Creative Writing has always been that it was more suited – as a ‘studio’ type degree, an arts practice type degree – to those who would choose to study creative writing. Similar thoughts were expressed when some notable Master of Arts (M.A.) in Creative Writing programmes were launched in Great Britain a half a century ago – that is, that the programme would provide ‘time to write’, or ‘be suitable for writers wanting to focus on their work’. The inference (and sometimes direct statement) being that a doctorate was just not the thing a creative writer should do. Well, here we are, and today there is an entire world of doctoral qualified creative writers – whose doctorates are indeed in Creative Writing, and who are (more or less) attempting to apply what they learnt as doctoral candidates to their work (whether that is in academe or not) and so, to borrow a phrase from the Kentucky Derby, if anyone for one moment thinks this thing can be tethered, that horse has well and truly bolted. The ‘more or less’ is the primary contemporary issue, because many in higher education still do not see the Doctorate of Creative Writing as the primary qualification for teaching Creative
创意写作博士学位——是火箭科学吗?
我不是在问这是否困难。可以。我想问的是,这是否是火箭科学领域的博士学位。显然,事实并非如此。事实上,它不应该是创造性写作以外的任何其他领域的博士学位。然而,我们一次又一次地发现,这个简单的事实被误解、歪曲或曲解了。我承认,我曾经指责英语和文学研究的同事们试图将创造性写作研究(学位背后的方法、哲学、结果)屈从于他们的学科意愿。但我错了——英国文学系不是罪魁祸首,文学研究不是罪魁祸首。文化研究、电影和媒体研究、戏剧研究、写作研究、构图研究、生物医学研究或法律研究也不是这样。如果创意写作博士学位也可以是火箭科学博士学位,那我们只能怪自己。原因很简单:到目前为止,我们未能就创意写作博士学位的性质、背后的原因、意图、结果范围和意义进行充分的全球对话。让我们面对现实吧,它已经存在了足够长的时间,我们不能只是指着同事说(以某种形式)“你阻止了我们这样做”。我们今天也不能为“没有人得到它”而哀叹。如果没有人获得学位,那是因为我们还不够清楚。如果有人在某个地方以某种方式挡道,那么很明显,我们没有向那些需要了解学位重要性的人充分展示学位背后的原因和获得学位的结果。所谓的博士学位可以追溯到中世纪的西方世界,最初是正式授权某人在大学任教的一种方式,即“教学许可”。这是为了过于简化历史,但这是基本的起源。今天,一些人继续认为,创造性写作不适合博士学位的原因是,博士研究与科学有关,创造性写作不是一门科学。嗯——不是历史上的,不一定也不完全。尽管如此,关于美术硕士(M.F.A.)作为创意写作的“终端学位”(该学科的最高学位)的存在,一个论点一直是,它更适合那些选择学习创意写作的人——作为一个“工作室”类型的学位,一个艺术实践类型的学位。半个世纪前,英国推出了一些著名的创意写作文学硕士课程,也表达了类似的想法——也就是说,该课程将提供“写作时间”,或者“适合想要专注于自己作品的作家”。推论(有时是直接的陈述)是,博士学位不是创意作家应该做的事情。好吧,我们来了,今天有一个全世界的博士资格创意作家——他们的博士学位确实是创意写作,以及那些(或多或少)试图将他们作为博士候选人所学到的东西应用到他们的工作中(无论是否在学术界)的人,因此,借用肯塔基德比的一句话,如果有人认为这件事可以被束缚住,那匹马就已经成功地逃跑了。“或多或少”是当代的首要问题,因为许多高等教育机构仍然不认为创意写作博士学位是教授创意的首要资格
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信