Cirrus@Austlit

'This Special Issue asks: what does the creative writing PhD exegesis look like today? Related questions include whether it is still – and, indeed, if it ever was – called an exegesis across all, or most, institutions; and does it still primarily exist as a separate, written document that accompanies the creative work? Representing a series of key institutions and creative writing academics across Australia, this Special Issue of TEXT draws together supervisors and candidates to reflect upon and provide rich, experience-based accounts of what the exegesis looks like and how it functions today. One of the aims of this is to start to think about the future of the form; indeed, where the exegesis might go next.' (Introduction)

'This article presents a methodology for the exegesis which has been generated through supervisory practice and experience and writer-researchers’ practices of producing PhD theses in creative writing research, with two exemplary, first person descriptions by HDR candidates of their PhD research journeys so far. The proposal here focuses on the creative and cognitive practices brought into play in carrying out each PhD project, asserting that ‘exegetical thinking’ is enmeshed in both creative writing and research processes in a growing ‘spiral’ of complexity and innovation as connections are made between the thesis components in producing original research.'  (Publication abstract)

'Fear is an overlooked aspect of the PhD experience, both for the creative writing doctoral candidate and the supervisor. The exegesis can be a source of fear precisely because of questions around what it is and what it should look like. Drawing on experiences on both sides of the supervisory relationship, this article proposes that clear structural models for the exegesis allow students to focus their efforts on the substance of the academic component of their research project. We also argue for the rewarding nature of a research project that engages both in practice-led research and critical scholarship. We propose that alternating between the exegesis and the creative project can yield surprising results for creative writers attempting a large-scale academic work for the first time.' (Publication abstract)

'This article is co-authored by three writer-academics who have been collaborating as supervisors, doctoral candidates and co-authors over the past decade. Jen Webb supervised Jordan Williams during her creative PhD in digital poetry and Deleuze (awarded 2006); Jordan and Jen co-supervised Paul Collis’s creative PhD in fiction and Barkindji identity (awarded 2016); and he has long supervised both Jen and Jordan in their (informal) education in Indigenous epistemology. Over these years, the supervisor-candidate relationships have unfolded, developed, changed and folded back on themselves. We explore how this long-term relationship between three mature-aged writers and scholars, from three very different cultural backgrounds, has inflected our individual approaches to the preparation and writing of creative research, including the exegesis. We begin, therefore, with our own understandings of what the word ‘exegesis’ means to us, how it mobilised (or hindered) the generation of creative knowledge, what models are of value to us, and what we envisage as its possible future/s. We write this in the form of a three-way conversation, with scholarly annotations.'  (Publication abstract)

'The three contributors to this article believe that a symbiotic relationship between creative and critical aspects of a project function most effectively. Research for the exegesis – whether conventional or experimental – can enhance the creative work’s possibilities, raising more pertinent research questions or refining those already identified. In addition, the thesis as a coherent entity has the potential of making an original contribution to knowledge through the connection of the exegesis and creative work. The case study dissertations demonstrate this point of view, occupying two positions on Krauth’s ‘radical trajectory continuum’ (2011). The first graduate, a filmmaker and academic, chose a conventional exegesis-novel split, as the subject itself, reverse adaptation of a film script to literary young adult novel, is an emerging research discipline. The second candidate chose a braided essay format (Krauth’s ‘plaited’ structure) that reflects the research she undertook into theory of the Uncanny and the consequent destabilisation and fragmentation it encourages. The supervisor as fellow traveller of these doctoral journeys drew on her experience in order to help them to select the most effective thesis structure and to realise the potential of symbiosis. They discovered that in each case the resultant symbiosis did not silence their individual voices but enhanced their individuality.' (Publication abstract)

'This article explores ‘the exegesis now’ from the perspective of the screenwriting practice PhD. Using as a playful homage to traditional screenplay structure, the archetypal Hero’s Journey, it maps the landscape and offers examples of how the screenwriting exegesis/dissertation is occurring at RMIT University. This includes a comedy feature film about gender and perspective; a multiple-protagonist feature film set in the world of avid Doctor Who fans; and a hybrid form, the screen novel, set in the politically corrupt world of contemporary Melbourne transport infrastructure. Guided by their supervisor ‘mentor’, two candidates and one recent graduate embark on a collaborative journey that probes, prods, prises open and proposes what the screenwriting practice PhD can do and look like, and by doing so raise important points about the purpose and form of the dissertation. Collectively, the authors assume the simultaneous roles of the candidate who is doing, completing and has completed; the experienced supervisor; and the in-training supervisor.' (Publication abstract)

'The requirement for separate creative and exegetical components by universities offering creative doctoral programmes is a largely accepted model in Australia. The Research Question Model adopted by Curtin University in Western Australia is an example of this. The parallel, ‘independent’ articulation of creative and academic responses is explored in this article by a supervisor and three PhD candidates all writing in the genre of creative non-fiction. We suggest that the boundaries between the scholarly and creative in creative non-fiction works are far from clear and that this reflects both contemporary non-fiction publishing and new movements in scholarly writing. We propose that Barthes’s ‘ambiguous genre’, the essay, may be one useful way of conceptualising the non-fiction creative doctorate.'  (Publication abstract)

'In the school where the authors of this article work, the requirements for award of a creative writing PhD include ‘at least one peer reviewed output accepted for publication’ (Griffith University 2017, section 8.5). This output ‘must be produced under supervision and during the period of candidature’ and ‘may be a journal article, conference publication, book or book chapter, original creative work, performance or exhibition’ (Griffith Graduate Research School 2017). During supervision, where ‘one of the objectives’ of the milestones is ‘to assist candidates to publish’, the supervisor is expected to: provide ‘advice on suitable publications specific to [the] research discipline’; be the main contact ‘to assist candidates to publish their research’; and ‘verify [to the University] that the publication meets the candidature requirement’. An area of advice particularly noted in these guidelines is the supervisor’s ability to warn against ‘predatory’ publishers (Griffith Graduate Research School 2017). In the six years since this policy was introduced, the relationship between supervisor and candidate has changed subtly, due to the fact that supervision and candidature are no longer focused solely on producing a doctoral submission, they are also aimed at academic publishing training.' (Publication abstract)

'For over two decades, the number of candidates undertaking, and completing, research higher degrees in the discipline of creative arts has continued to grow, yet the anxiety associated with the exegesis, or critical component, to the award has not dissipated. This article reports the views of a small number of research higher degree candidates and their supervisor in response to questions posed by the TEXT ‘Exegesis now’ call for papers. In this sample, the exegesis was perceived as a necessary and useful component to the award by all respondents, who are completing diverse creative projects. However, respondents also express some anxiety and uncertainty over what is required in the exegesis in terms of formal, structural and compositional elements. Discussion of the views expressed by respondents identifies common challenges and proposes a number of strategies that may provide greater certainty and alleviate some of the anxiety for candidates and their supervisors. It includes a template for a comprehensive exegesis and two ways the exegesis can be structured to form a rigorous frame around, and supportive complement to the creative work.'  (Publication abstract)

'There is general agreement that doctoral research should show ‘originality’, but there is less agreement about what that means or how it is distinguished from ‘contribution’. There is also a strand in the literature that attests that different disciplines, especially relative newcomers to the doctorate such as the creative arts, privilege different qualities of originality and forms of contribution. This prompts the question: what constitutes an original contribution in the field of creative writing? Drawing on the growing literature on creative doctorates, reference to a number of examiner reports collected for a larger project, and reflections on supervising and examining creative writing PhDs, this paper explores the various forms of contribution that characterise the discourse on knowledge creation and dissemination in creative writing research.'  (Publication abstract)

'Next year, 2018, will be thirty years since creative practice was included as a field of postgraduate research in the so-called Strand Report (1998). Since that time, the acceptance of creative practice research degrees has flourished both in Australia and internationally. This important and substantial book represents many of the key researchers in the Australian higher education sector for the creative arts, and thus is worthy of a re-examination in the light of a collection of articles dealing with the current state of the creative practice PhD. Many of these authors have, indeed, won government funding to pursue research projects in this space and the wealth of their knowledge and experience shines through in many of these chapters. The editors must be commended for the breadth of perspectives and expertise they have secured in this text.' (Introduction)

'This important and timely book is a guide to understanding and enacting research in creative writing. The text is clear and beautifully written. Its argument is coherent and its advice is useful. Its author, Jen Webb, who is a Distinguished Professor in Creative Practice at the University of Canberra, is perfectly positioned to produce such a text – well known to all in creative writing teaching and scholarship in Australia, and to many further afield. A poet and artist, Webb is a leading and eminent researcher in the field, experienced research degree supervisor and examiner, a past Chair of the Australasian Association of Writing Programs and current, or previous, editor of important journals in the field including Axon, TEXT and Meniscus.'  (Introduction)