Matt Gough Blog [closed]: practical research - new methods
Saturday, May 15 2004, 01:12
this was in the guardian on thursday;
This is what scientists do: write papers, and pull them apart to make sure the findings are robust. We look for flaws in the experimental methods that may cause flaws in the results, that may cause flaws in the conclusions. Science is not about absolute facts from authority figures: you describe exactly what you did in the methods section, what your results were, and how wide the error margin was: then you describe your theory, contingently built on this fragile, contentious data. Without all that information, the findings and the figures are worthless [ben goldacre 13/05/2004]
okay, so dance isn't a science but there is something important here. if we are going to carry out practical research we must be more rigorous. in a slightly different context it's something that the ippr has argued for in their ' arts for art's sake ' publication. let be honest, the arts are not for everyone regardless of how many low cost seats we make available. if we are going to engage in practical research and ask for public funding we shouldn't just be indulging in our own practice without testing it.
i don't think it's enough to write about the way in which you work, documenting a single process. i know that this has become the status quo recently, used as a validation for physical practice being of equal value to academic research, yet i do not think there is parity. that's not to say practical research has no value, but the ways in which i have seen it undertaken do not match the rigours of academic discourse.
experimental methods that's what we need, experimental methods for practical dance research. now that would be interesting, universities are for the dissemination and advancement of knowledge, not a funding opportunity when the ACE or AHRB don't want to know and your regional dance agency and impresario have other agendas. universities are for learning about and advancing the state of your subject. perhaps one day we will be able to say this;
This is what practical dance researchers do: make works, and pull them apart to make sure the process is robust and of artistic value. We look for flaws in our methods that may cause flaws in the composition, that may cause flaws in the communication of our artistic vision. art is not about absolute facts from authority figures or self serving introspection: you describe exactly what you did in your process, how the work 'revealed itself', and how the dancers, audience and critics received your work: then you describe your practice based theory, contingently built on this fragile, contentious process. Without all that information, practice based research is worthless.
but that's enough subversion for today
Filed by Article19 at 1:12 PM | 
Stumble It!