- Feb 2017
-
journal.disruptivemedia.org.uk journal.disruptivemedia.org.uk
-
This article
General point - I've been asked to join in this dialogue but it is already very rich and substantial so opting to add only a couple of comments rather than reinvent the wheel.
-
speak back to the authority of the web
Does this undersell your contribution? By which I mean, this looks like it's restating an opposition - between authority and 'the people' that takes us back to Gilmoor and others, Clay Shirky even, but what's happening here is disrupting such binaries? Or - and this may be another tangent you don't need - it's like Ranciere's stuff on the pedagogic relation - something like 'flipped' only inverts the relation, it doesn't disrupt it necessarily?
-
The tenor of web annotation as disruptive media is defined in no small measure by attendant tensions about the locus, meaning, and impact of such disruption.
Does this, then, also do something to disrupt the discourse of 'impact' as currently articulated / imposed by REF etc?
-
-
journal.disruptivemedia.org.uk journal.disruptivemedia.org.uk
-
With this comes the very complicated problem of how screen-based works are evaluated and peer reviewed.
As we've heard from, in the UK context, REF sub-panel reports and consecutive editorial pieces in JMP, there is a vicious circle here in that the REF panel are calling for more practice researchers to 'step up' to be on such evaluative platforms but also practice researchers may need to be more coherent as a community about criteria for rigour. So posing the question again within an 'output' is part of the problem, not the solution, perhaps? In which case, can you articulate how the informal conversations to camera, this piece and SIghtlines work as a research 'output'?
-
e continued these conversations informally to camera. This is the ASPERA (Australian Screen Production and Education Research Association) website, where we also launched a page dedicated to the Sightlines festival. Apart from the vox-pops, we also later developed a fully refereed audiovisual journal, also called Sightlines, based on the films shown at the event and with the idea of allowing it to grow in future years.
I cannot access these links, they are pretty important context I think, so please try to resolve.
-
We favour the idea of a conversation because the form allows us to dwell along the fissures that mark our field. Rather than providing a singular voice that encompasses the huge diversity of our practices, we carry out this poly-vocal conversation.
Is it helpful to the reader to signpost this approach as practice research by citing aligned studies / previous work in the field taking a similar approach?
-
-
journal.disruptivemedia.org.uk journal.disruptivemedia.org.uk
-
We asked each member of the Futuremaking group to share their experiences of the Help Desk and Museum, and posed the question “What is your recollection of our futuremaking?” The responses of the members are shared below.
There is a tension here, in the 'in between' status of what's presented for review. On the one hand, the curational and participative practices, partly ethnographic (though not stated as such) are documented as practice research, but on the other witness testimony, mainly written, is presented as 'data' (or equivalent) so the disruption appears to be in the act of curation (ie the un-collecting) but it's less clear how the format of the 'output' proposed here is disrupting the orthodoxies of capturing research evidence?
-
pedagogy of forgetting, a pedagogy of remembering – emerged as a future education initiative. Is it possible that we have forgotten how to forget? Is it possible that we have forgotten how to remember? If so, what would we need to learn to forget and remember?
I am fascinated by a pedagogy of forgetting, need to read more.
-