"Fail better": doctoral examination and the creative field

Jen WEBB, Sandra BURR, Donna Lee Brien

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Anyone working in the creative arts is likely to have to deal with ‘failure’ at some stage. This paper briefly outlines the rhetoric associated with the concepts of success and failure, and then moves to how these terms and the values associated with them are applied in the process of examination. We critique the pervasive focus on ‘positive’ results, and posit what may be alternate ways to think about creative processes and their outcomes. Drawing on data gathered for an Australian government funded project, ‘Examination of doctoral degrees in creative arts: process, practice and standards’, we discuss failure in the light of current examination practices and processes in the creative arts, and from the point of view of candidates, supervisors, examiners and research higher degree administrators. We provide definitions for ‘failure’ in this context, and explore whether – and how – failure can be useful in doctoral level creative arts.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalText
Volume22
Issue numberOctober
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

examination
art
examiner
rhetoric
candidacy
Values

Cite this

WEBB, J., BURR, S., & Brien, D. L. (2013). "Fail better": doctoral examination and the creative field. Text, 22(October), 1-12.
WEBB, Jen ; BURR, Sandra ; Brien, Donna Lee. / "Fail better": doctoral examination and the creative field. In: Text. 2013 ; Vol. 22, No. October. pp. 1-12.
@article{809eef55ea0e406689eaeda01cc020f0,
title = "{"}Fail better{"}: doctoral examination and the creative field",
abstract = "Anyone working in the creative arts is likely to have to deal with ‘failure’ at some stage. This paper briefly outlines the rhetoric associated with the concepts of success and failure, and then moves to how these terms and the values associated with them are applied in the process of examination. We critique the pervasive focus on ‘positive’ results, and posit what may be alternate ways to think about creative processes and their outcomes. Drawing on data gathered for an Australian government funded project, ‘Examination of doctoral degrees in creative arts: process, practice and standards’, we discuss failure in the light of current examination practices and processes in the creative arts, and from the point of view of candidates, supervisors, examiners and research higher degree administrators. We provide definitions for ‘failure’ in this context, and explore whether – and how – failure can be useful in doctoral level creative arts.",
keywords = "creative practice, doctorate, examination",
author = "Jen WEBB and Sandra BURR and Brien, {Donna Lee}",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "1--12",
journal = "Text",
issn = "1327-9556",
number = "October",

}

WEBB, J, BURR, S & Brien, DL 2013, '"Fail better": doctoral examination and the creative field', Text, vol. 22, no. October, pp. 1-12.

"Fail better": doctoral examination and the creative field. / WEBB, Jen; BURR, Sandra; Brien, Donna Lee.

In: Text, Vol. 22, No. October, 2013, p. 1-12.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - "Fail better": doctoral examination and the creative field

AU - WEBB, Jen

AU - BURR, Sandra

AU - Brien, Donna Lee

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Anyone working in the creative arts is likely to have to deal with ‘failure’ at some stage. This paper briefly outlines the rhetoric associated with the concepts of success and failure, and then moves to how these terms and the values associated with them are applied in the process of examination. We critique the pervasive focus on ‘positive’ results, and posit what may be alternate ways to think about creative processes and their outcomes. Drawing on data gathered for an Australian government funded project, ‘Examination of doctoral degrees in creative arts: process, practice and standards’, we discuss failure in the light of current examination practices and processes in the creative arts, and from the point of view of candidates, supervisors, examiners and research higher degree administrators. We provide definitions for ‘failure’ in this context, and explore whether – and how – failure can be useful in doctoral level creative arts.

AB - Anyone working in the creative arts is likely to have to deal with ‘failure’ at some stage. This paper briefly outlines the rhetoric associated with the concepts of success and failure, and then moves to how these terms and the values associated with them are applied in the process of examination. We critique the pervasive focus on ‘positive’ results, and posit what may be alternate ways to think about creative processes and their outcomes. Drawing on data gathered for an Australian government funded project, ‘Examination of doctoral degrees in creative arts: process, practice and standards’, we discuss failure in the light of current examination practices and processes in the creative arts, and from the point of view of candidates, supervisors, examiners and research higher degree administrators. We provide definitions for ‘failure’ in this context, and explore whether – and how – failure can be useful in doctoral level creative arts.

KW - creative practice

KW - doctorate

KW - examination

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 1

EP - 12

JO - Text

JF - Text

SN - 1327-9556

IS - October

ER -

WEBB J, BURR S, Brien DL. "Fail better": doctoral examination and the creative field. Text. 2013;22(October):1-12.