Okay today I gave my paper the postgrad conference...these are my thoughts- I made alterations in light of my feedback from Olu, Liz and the JAM conference.
I illustrated some of the terms that I applied in more depth by giving examples of what a reflective practitioner and a reflective participant is; although the overall argument and structure of the paper was not greatly changed.
I had lots of really positive feedback, questions and comments as well as suggestions for further reading. The delegates wanted to know more about the PaR section of the research and asked me why I wanted to place the audience in that role and why did it matter. Synne asked me if I was specifically looking at moments of performance that were participatory or whether I was looking at participatory moments in performance. This was a really helpful question and has prompted me to start to think about the ways in which I am going to have to clarify the intentions of the project and the critical tools and terminology that I will need to work with. She also wanted to know if my PaR was intentionally participatory.
Other delegates suggested that I look at Whitehead and DeQuincy for cognitive science and it was also suggested that I should perhaps look at Jung. I will endeavour to follow up these suggestions.
Giving the paper a second time didn’t really raise anything different in terms of feedback from when I gave the paper at Reading. The main issue that I need to consider is finding theoretical and critical frameworks of discussing the work which I want to suggest put the audience in the role of creatorly participant and placing that within context in the arena of performance studies and contemporary performance practices. This though, is the core aim of my research project and thus not really a surprise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment