谁让动物学家回来的?创意写作博士课程中的创意话语

IF 0.4 0 LITERATURE
P. Williams
{"title":"谁让动物学家回来的?创意写作博士课程中的创意话语","authors":"P. Williams","doi":"10.1080/14790726.2021.1941125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Australian and British universities, creative discourse is often devalued as a research activity in favour of hard scientific paradigms, and even though the artefact is the primary research activity for the Ph.D. in Creative Writing, it is relegated to a secondary way of knowing, which needs to be translated into more ‘respectable' academic discourse in order to be recognised as legitimate or ‘real’ research. This paper re–affirms the creative artefact as primary research activity, an end in itself, not a means to another, and asserts itself in the academic arena as its own discourse which is not accountable to any other discourse for its legitimacy. It needs no exegetical justification, sets its own parameters, and needs to be evaluated as a literary work using literary tools to measure its research value. This paper also examines the distinction made between Creative Writing and Creative Writing Studies in defining how an artefact creates knowledge and offers a series of philosophical experiments to examine if and how a creative artefact can be considered research, and suggests that the exegesis, rather than being the main conduit of research, is a shorthand device to demonstrate the competencies of the artefact as research.","PeriodicalId":43222,"journal":{"name":"New Writing-The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing","volume":"19 1","pages":"276 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14790726.2021.1941125","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who let the zoologists back in? Creative discourse in the Ph.D. in Creative Writing\",\"authors\":\"P. Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14790726.2021.1941125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In Australian and British universities, creative discourse is often devalued as a research activity in favour of hard scientific paradigms, and even though the artefact is the primary research activity for the Ph.D. in Creative Writing, it is relegated to a secondary way of knowing, which needs to be translated into more ‘respectable' academic discourse in order to be recognised as legitimate or ‘real’ research. This paper re–affirms the creative artefact as primary research activity, an end in itself, not a means to another, and asserts itself in the academic arena as its own discourse which is not accountable to any other discourse for its legitimacy. It needs no exegetical justification, sets its own parameters, and needs to be evaluated as a literary work using literary tools to measure its research value. This paper also examines the distinction made between Creative Writing and Creative Writing Studies in defining how an artefact creates knowledge and offers a series of philosophical experiments to examine if and how a creative artefact can be considered research, and suggests that the exegesis, rather than being the main conduit of research, is a shorthand device to demonstrate the competencies of the artefact as research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Writing-The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"276 - 286\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14790726.2021.1941125\",\"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/10.1080/14790726.2021.1941125\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Writing-The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2021.1941125","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

摘要

摘要在澳大利亚和英国的大学里,创造性话语往往被贬低为一种有利于硬科学范式的研究活动,尽管人工制品是创造性写作博士的主要研究活动,但它被降级为一种次要的认识方式,它需要被翻译成更“受人尊敬”的学术话语,才能被公认为合法或“真实”的研究。本文重新肯定了创造性人工制品是主要的研究活动,其本身是目的,而不是另一种目的的手段,并在学术舞台上宣称自己是自己的话语,对任何其他话语的合法性都不负责。它不需要训释论证,设定自己的参数,需要用文学工具来衡量其研究价值。本文还考察了创造性写作和创造性写作研究在定义人工制品如何创造知识方面的区别,并提供了一系列哲学实验来检验创造性人工制品是否以及如何被视为研究,是一种速记设备,用于展示人工制品作为研究的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who let the zoologists back in? Creative discourse in the Ph.D. in Creative Writing
ABSTRACT In Australian and British universities, creative discourse is often devalued as a research activity in favour of hard scientific paradigms, and even though the artefact is the primary research activity for the Ph.D. in Creative Writing, it is relegated to a secondary way of knowing, which needs to be translated into more ‘respectable' academic discourse in order to be recognised as legitimate or ‘real’ research. This paper re–affirms the creative artefact as primary research activity, an end in itself, not a means to another, and asserts itself in the academic arena as its own discourse which is not accountable to any other discourse for its legitimacy. It needs no exegetical justification, sets its own parameters, and needs to be evaluated as a literary work using literary tools to measure its research value. This paper also examines the distinction made between Creative Writing and Creative Writing Studies in defining how an artefact creates knowledge and offers a series of philosophical experiments to examine if and how a creative artefact can be considered research, and suggests that the exegesis, rather than being the main conduit of research, is a shorthand device to demonstrate the competencies of the artefact as research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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