Evidence: anything that establishes a fact or gives reason for believing something that’s what my trusty Oxford Minidictionary says. But that is a little ambiguous in terms of what is meant when you are asked to present ‘evidence’ along side your RoL.
Here are some ideas to consider: (I do not want to assume how you feel so I will write in first person here but in the hope you find resonance with the ideas described). As a dancer I tend to see the explanation for something in doing it. That is to explain a shovel I would pick it up and dig with it. (This is what I love about Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy because according to Dewey it is only a shovel when I pick it up and dig with it, if I use it to hold my door open than it is a ‘door holding opener’. Things are what they do – Pragmatism. But this practical orientation is at the boundaries of traditional formal academic expectations.
The most established (expected) mode of explaining things is to write about them. It is to theorise about them. For instance to understand maths we do not have children go and build things we have them do sums. Then we might take that understanding and build something to show the theory works – as ‘evidence’ that it is ‘true’, but not to establish it is ‘true’. So my picking up the shovel and digging is seen as showing some theoretical idea about shovels is true NOT showing the shovel is ‘true’. The practical becomes an illustration as it were of the theory.
This links to the idea of evidence in the RoL in the following way: the text that you write for your portfolio is the place where you establish understanding and meaning. You are being asked to theorises to certain extent about the practical knowledge you have from your work place. You showing you understand it by writing about it. The ‘evidence’ is only to illustrate what you write about – show it in action. So I would write about my work as a choreographer and skills I have developed. I would show I am aware of the skills I have by discussing what I feel is needed in order to be the MA level choreographer I feel I am. I could talk about pitfalls and how to avoid them. I would break down the skills showing I understand the complexity of the work. I might attach a programme of a piece I created for the Manchester International Festival. This ‘evidence’ would show that there is practical application of the choreography in the real world. It does not prove I know about Choreography (other than the implication that MIF would not hire someone who didn’t know what they were doing. That’s why I would chose the MIF programme over one from my local church hall) What it shows if that not only do I know what my skills are …look this is me applying them in the ‘real’ world. The programme illustrates I have done what I am talking about. But the meat and potatoes of showing I am a MA level choreographer is in the text of my RoL.
Does that make sense?
Now of course this is not to endorse the theory over the practical. My personal philosophy does not see a divide between them instead I see them as merely different ways to understand an embodied idea. But the academic world most does see a difference in some ways what you are saying is that you can talk the academic language (AND do the actual thing out beyond the university walls!!!!).
Controversial? Political? It always is for me. BUT now where do you stand with this? In the wider context this is about understanding what you think about knowledge and then being able to (use that to) demonstrate where you have knowledge. This is about pedagogy …. and practical knowing in dance!
That’s a lot to think about and I have included so much detail because I think this post would be useful later when you have done your RoL too in terms of positioning yourself in your research projects. BUT the short comment of this blog (and what is most relevant in Module One) is just make sure that you do not use the ‘evidence’ to explain the RoL. You have to do that in the text you write.
Adesola
No comments:
Post a Comment