Leo Berkeley

Screen production enquiry: A study of five Australian doctorates

Within Australian universities, doctoral research in screen production is growing significantly. Two recent studies have documented both the scale of this research and inconsistencies in the requirements of the degree. These institutional variations, combined with a lack of clarity around appropriate methodologies for academic research through film and television practice, create challenges for students, supervisors, examiners and the overall development of the discipline. This paper will examine five recent doctorates in screen production practice at five different Australian universities. It will look at the nature of the films made, the research questions the candidates were investigating, the new knowledge claims that were produced and the subsequent impact of the research. The various methodologies used will be given particular attention because they help define the nature of the research where film production is a primary research method.

The problem of peer review in screen production: exploring issues and proposing solutions

ABSTRACT With traditional academic work, the process of peer review is seemingly clear – work is refereed as a way of gatekeeping ideas and research contributions, to ensure it is not publicly available until it has passed a test of rigour, originality, clarity and significance to the field. Those with assumed knowledge of the discipline are the said gatekeepers, tasked with assessing the work on the basis of disciplinary knowledge and general research expertise. This often rests on the notion that the research and knowledge are made explicit in the writing. This is problematic for non-traditional academic work, such as screen production and media art, because a key value in this kind of work is the ability to communicate implicitly and differently from what can be articulated within the parameters of written, academic language. This tension between implicit and explicit knowledge claims has been one source of difficulty for evaluating and therefore rewarding creative practice research. In this paper, we draw on a recent gathering of screen production academics, the two-day Sightlines: Filmmaking in the academy festival and conference, to help us discuss the complexities of peer reviewing screen production works for the academy, and to help us point towards possible solutions. We focus specifically on where and in what form the articulation of research might happen to assist the peer reviewing process, where the common approach is to write a research statement that makes explicit the methodologies undertaken and the new knowledge being claimed. This has incited some protest from within the screen production community: for example, how do we account with language for the very thing that is in excess of language, the contribution that finds its unique place outside of language and within the moving image? We therefore also discuss the dialogic relationship between art and writing, and the kinds of relationality that might be created to help make room for the ‘in-articulable’. In short, how research and new knowledge in a screen work might be illuminated, and how an academic peer might therefore evaluate it. We conclude by discussing an approach we are currently taking to develop an online, refereed publication for screen production works, the Sightlines Journal, in response to both the current literature on the topic and the gathering of discipline academics. Given the various contexts in which these questions arise in relation to screen production research (during the writing of a PhD, in the examination process, and in professional environments), we address them accordingly as individual yet interwoven discussions driven by the shared need to find workable solutions to recurring problems.

The challenge of film to innovation and entrepreneurship studies

Abstract This commentary supplements the work of a creative practice research project that generates new ways of thinking about innovation and entrepreneurial processes. Our creative method, underwritten by the logic of sensation and presented in film format, operates as an alternative form of research in these fields, where results are normally conveyed in book or journal paper. Film-based research has developed distinctive qualitative, empirical and theoretical vocabularies that can expand the nature and range of evidence, argument and expression across the broad range of innovation and entrepreneurship studies. 600 Mills, the film that accompanies this paper, is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1336011.

Lights, Camera, Research: The Specificity of Research in Screen Production

This chapter argues that the development of screen production could be enhanced with a stronger alignment between the academic research sector and the film and television industry, where, at present, knowledge transfer from academic researchers to the wider screen practice community is negligible at best. However, for this to improve, approaches to research need to clearly reflect the specifics of the practice, and demonstrate outcomes that resonate with practitioners beyond the academy. Drawing on a body of practice by the author that includes work in both professional and academic contexts, this chapter will explore the question of what, if anything, marks the practice of screen production as a distinct field of academic inquiry. It will also consider whether specific research methods are required to meaningfully capture knowledge about the field.

A morning coffee in Melbourne: Discussing the contentious spaces of media practice research

Abstract This is a conversation that took place between three practitioner-academics one morning in Melbourne. All three work and practice in the field of the moving image: from screen production to audiovisual installation to screenwriting. Our conversation is underpinned by previous research we have undertaken in this field, namely the launching of a moving image journal, Sightlines, and a companion journal article on the process of setting it up, which focussed on the issues presented when trying to establish peer review protocols and guidelines for moving image works.