Tutorial with Drs. Robert Newell and Paul Jeff.
Revised ideas on structure of thesis and developed ideas for final show and viva.
after an enforced break from writing for almost a month, I’ve re-read the previously sent synopsis and made a few minor changes to it in the attached version for the focus of our discussion on the 19th at 10.30. Apart from spotting repeated misspelling and misspelt author’s name, I feel quite secure in what I’d written and have only subtly changed the meaning.
As well as the questions below I’d appreciate updating you on some funding I hope to have raised which can be used to develop two of the projects until the end of the year and firm-up on a timetable for completing the PhD. I have a number of events coming-up or in planning which could be used, although some are in the air at the moment due to uncertainty about the funding mentioned.
The WEAVE:
this has morphed into Stroud Nature Consortium which is running a conference on 15th April and Festival of Nature (including launch of walking Festival) on Friday 6th and Saturday 7th September.
A strand of this is the River Walks Project for which I’ve put in a funding application to the Cotswold Conservation Board. The broad idea is to produce work from the walks by participating artists/photographers and use these as the basis of community discussion groups with local residents about landscape change processes regards the Cotswold AONB Management Plan (Landscape Character Areas). This was an original intention of the project and is coming live now due to ‘real world’ constraints and opportunities alongside the development of my own ideas through my studies. I am running a workshop for the participating artists tomorrow to prepare for this. Part of the funding application is to present the idea at the April conference and the work at the festival of Nature/Launch of Walking Festival.
I have also been provisionally offered exhibition space in the main gallery of the Museum in the Park in Stroud between 6th and 10th November – they have a very full programme and its a good opportunity. I’d like to discuss the possibility and usefulness of this as a part of my final showing.
Folly Wood:
Along with three other members of the group, we have been offered funding to carry out research into ‘well being benefits’ of being a member of the group amongst the wider membership. This could give me the opportunity to be gathering complementary data or to refer to the interpretation of the paid research. Again, I’d appreciate being able to discuss this with you. I’d also like to discuss the timing of the viva.
Finally, I’ve discovered that the bursary payments stopped in January although the person I spoke to in Finance agreed that the first payment was made in May 2010 (for April). I had presumed that there would be 36 monthly payments up until the end of this month. I’m not at this point asking you to do anything and hope that this will have been resolved/clarified before I see you.
best wishes
Richard
On 5 Feb 2013, at 20:08, Richard Keating wrote:
Dear Rob, Andrea and Catrin… and Paul
I hope that the attached synopsis is helpful in taking forward discussions about my thesis next week.
I have a number of questions that you may be able to help with next week, including:
terminology in general – do the references to ontology, epistemology and methodology seem to work?
I know its hard without seeing more of the actual text but does the breadth of coverage and the way its structured seem coherent – does it begin to build a clear case for the research and potentially lead to a useful set of conclusions?
chapters – do the break points in chapters seem about right? Do you feel that sub-chapters for the three projects is strong enough – I’m keen that they hold together and are seen to be studying specific aspects
overall content – does it seem to include enough in terms of making the case and addressing it? Are their gaps which you feel should be addressed
Perhaps the biggest question – what is your take on the idea of artefact as metaphor.
Its not apparent in this text, but I’m aware that many of the words used are all open to debate and discussion – ideas on how to address this without over running the word count would be appreciated
My methodology and theories are non-reductive, they look to address difference by say ‘and, and, and’ – does this seem at odds with academia?
As you will see, this steps back from the way I’ve been writing and gives a more complete picture of what I’m trying to say/cover/do.
Thanks and I look forward to seeing you next Wednesday
Richard
Attachments