Advertisement

Towards a Pedagogy of Practice-as-Research

  • Mark FleishmanEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In this essay the author reflects on the pedagogic choices he made when teaching in the MAIPR programme: how to teach practice within a programme designed to develop researchers not practitioners, the discoveries that emerged from those choices, how his approach changed over time and whether the international nature of the programme (his coming from Africa in particular) affected this in any way. It is the author's contention that, while much has been written about Practice/Performance as Research (PaR) from a theoretical perspective – what the particular ontology of PaR might be, the methods of engaging in PaR – little to his knowledge has been written about how to teach it to potential practitioner-researchers. His objective therefore is to begin to think about the pedagogy of PaR in the contemporary university in a global context.

References

  1. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, B. (2001). ‘Practice as Collective Action’ in T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina & E. Von Savigny (eds.) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 17–28.Google Scholar
  3. Derrida, J. (2002). ‘The University Without Condition’ in P. Kamuf (ed. & trans.) Without Alibi. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 202–237.Google Scholar
  4. Fleishman, M. (2009). ‘Knowing Performance: Performance as Knowledge Paradigm for Africa.’ South African Theatre Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 116–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fleishman, M. (2012). ‘The Difference of Performance as Research.’ Theatre Research International, Vol. 37, No.1, pp. 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harris, M. (2007). ‘Introduction: Ways of Knowing’ in M. Harris (ed.) Ways of Knowing: New Approaches in the Anthropology of Experience and Learning. Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
  7. Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ingold, T. (2007). Lines: A Brief History. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Ingold, T. (2011). Being aLive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Kershaw, B. (2011). ‘Practice as Research: Transdisciplinary Innovation in Action’ in B. Baz Kershaw & H. Nicholson (eds.) Research Methods in Theatre and Performance. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 63–86.Google Scholar
  12. Lave, J. & E. Wenger (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levinas, E. (1979). Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority (trans: Alphonso Lingis). Hague & Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marchand, T. (2010). ‘Preface’ in T. Marchand (ed.) Making Knowledge: Explorations of the Indissoluble Relation Between Mind, Body and Environment. Oxford: John Wiley, pp. xi–xiii.Google Scholar
  15. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London & New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  16. Schatzki, T. R. (2001a). ‘Introduction’ in T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina & E. Von Savigny (eds.) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  17. Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Collected Papers. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Drama DepartmentUniversity of CapeCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations