rest of week re-considering writing (and usual planning/servicing of community events)
Trying to find a more structured approach to reading and note taking. Much has been done, making use of the internet from which I now have bought a number of key texts that I want to study more thoroughly. (Putting this into practice, I still find a need to visit newly discovered texts on the internet).
Produced a different diagram of thesis structure. What goes where still seems too fluid.
As to central question, I feel I have a grasp on it and then it morphs –
- Are the various engagements the materials/genre and the process, in which case what were the outcomes and how to measure them? Perhaps who to measure them?
- Are the various engagements context for the research which is actually about developing the practice which can enable/engage? In which case how would it be judged? What are the criteria beyond my own initial ones?
- Can it be both? Is such an integration core to my ontology?
- In which case does the practice include a constant research element into itself and how could such research be measured or even known?
- Is it a matter of emphasis – so, for example, more about researching the development of an arts practice through a particular methodology which holds the understanding of what “it all means” than about the engagement findings such as 10 people did this, twenty did that – so how to measure the outputs?
- How would having something in the museum help – it would make the outcomes disseminated knowledge about the place and its people – anthropology? So is the work auto/relational/ethnoggraphy?
- How would this relate to a/r/tography?
