| Abstract: | There is still no agreed pedagogic definition of practice‐based research. However, there is not a dearth of definitions, but rather a wide variety, predicated upon the developing programmes of individual places of study. This article will examine these definitions in terms of underlying concepts of intentionality and alterity and the ways in which instrumental use of them affects study. The article will discuss a number of existing models for the theorising and adjudication of practice as research, and the questions that underpin their development. First, are non‐text outputs, and the methods of their production, able to communicate knowledge rather than simply constituting knowledge? Second, by what criteria can this knowledge be adjudicated within an academic environment? Third, what is the status of these outputs and methods relative to the production of text? It will propose that interrogation of these models will advance little in discussions that focus on media. Text or nottext is beside the point. Rather, the relationship between research and practice can be explored as a relationship between intentionality and alterity, based in an essentially social conception of communities of expertise, including academic communities of expertise. Finally, the article will describe an attempt by the author to undertake a drawing activity in response to a research question, in order to assess the possibilities of articulating practice specifically in order to demonstrate expert knowledge of the field in which a research question occurs. |
