Clasificación de los conceptos

Scrivener (2000) describes a method for PhD students solving research problems through the use of design and engineering. The method is based on Schön’s model for Reflective Practice.

There are nine steps:

1. Artefact is produced

2. Artefact is new or improved

3. Artefact is the solution to a known problem 4. Artefact demonstrates a solution to the problem 5. The Problem is recognised as such by others 6. The artefact (solution) is useful

7. Knowledge reified in the artefact can be described 8. Knowledge is widely applicable and widely transferable

9. Knowledge reified in the artefact is more important than the artefact.

(Scrivener 2000)

Examination of these nine steps shows how the moo project, the main case study in this thesis, maps onto them:

Step This research project

Artefact is produced The moo website was designed, developed and published

Artefact is new or improved No similar internal website existed at the BBC

Artefact is the solution to a known problem

The problem was junior staff not having access to commissioners and providing a forum for the publication of their ideas Artefact demonstrates a solution to

the problem

The site provided this forum by allowing upload of videos and discussion and comment on them

The Problem is recognised as such by others

This problem was recognised by the BBC Creativity Board (Chaired by the

Page 107 of 258 Creative Director) and Controller, BBC 3

The artefact (solution) is useful 100+ ideas were uploaded to the site and reviewed by the Controller, BBC3.

One of the ideas became a commission and was subsequently broadcast on BBC3, and kick started the career of the Producer.

Knowledge reified in the artefact can be described

The reflection on action aspect of this doctoral study

Knowledge is widely applicable and widely transferable

Examination of similar, but audience-facing case studies within the BBC draws out the applicable and transferrable knowledge and Knowledge reified in the artefact is

more important than the artefact

To be considered in the ‘Reflection on Reflection’ concluding interviews…

In order to verify the epistemology of this thesis, the following questions need to be asked of it:

Has the thesis:

 Demonstrated that there is a problem to be solved?

 Shown that the solution to the problem resulted in a new or improved artefact?

 Shown that the problem is one that the World (BBC) would like to see solved?

 Demonstrated the usefulness of the solution?

 Demonstrated that the knowledge exemplified in the solution can be abstracted (i.e. described and/or formalised)?

 Considered the general applicability and transferability of this knowledge?

 Proved this knowledge (i.e. demonstrated that the problem has been eradicated or ameliorated by the solution)? (Scrivener 2000)

But Scrivener contends that demonstration of answers to these questions is not sufficient to merit the award of a PhD on its own. The student needs to demonstrate

“that they arrived at the problem and its solution in a self-conscious and reasoned

Page 108 of 258 way.” The project is presented as an argument which is a “post-hoc justification for the decisions that were made” – which is what has happened with this thesis. So, there is a final test: “Has the student demonstrated that he or she is a self-conscious and systematic problem-setter and –solver?”

He goes on to argue:

“In my experience, there is no generally agreed methodology for this demonstration. The primary research methodology is problem-solving itself, which often, in practice, cannot be fully explicated… Consequently the student is not required to describe in detail the problem-setting and problem-solving processes. Rather, the student is expected to provide a persuasive case for the worthiness of research problem, the rationality of the steps taken to solve it and their execution. In short, although there is no overarching methodology there is an overarching ethic of

self-conscious, informed and systematic problem selection and solution.”

(Scrivener 2000)

If we consider the timeline for this PhD, it is obvious that it dates back to prior to its official academic commencement in April 2009. The first research work was carried out on the moo website in late 2007, and the site was designed and developed in early 2008, this research and design work was carried out to the design and development standards of a web agency working on a BBC project, which are not those of an academic research project. If the researcher tried to post-rationalise a more traditional research methodology, such as action research, onto this project (and there has been great pressure to do this at times) then it would fail. However, Scrivener’s method recognises that the problem solving “cannot be fully explicated”

and therefore the student is “not required to describe in detail the problem-setting and problem-solving processes”.

This thesis will, in fact, describe the problem-setting and problem-solving processes in considerable detail as part of the moo case study but what it does not do is ascribe a particular research methodology to them, or claim that they adhere to one.

What it does instead is use Schön’s concepts of professional reflective practice to demonstrate that the knowledge abstracted from the research and cases is legitimate.

Schön argues that, just as in everyday life, the professional depends on tacit

knowing in action. But there are often periods when they reflect on their actions, and the understanding implicit in those actions. Through reflection the professional criticises, restructures their understanding, and then adapts their future actions accordingly.

Page 109 of 258 This is the rational process which underlies the ‘art’ whereby practitioners deal with uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and the conflict of values which characterise many work situations, such as the moo project which is the main case study of this PhD. This project can therefore be treated as a reflection in and on action by a professional practitioner.

Scrivener suggests the following format for a report on a “creative-production project” based on his understanding of Schön:

 Reflection on practice (including identification of issues, concerns and interests to be worked within the project)

 Review of theory, knowledge and information (relevant to identified issues, concerns and interests)

 Reframing of issues, concerns and interests (in response to material found in the review)

Cycles of:

 Summary of a work episode (i.e. to place subsequent description into context, e.g. when it occurred, what the objectives were, who was involved, how long it lasted, what the outcomes were, etc.)

 Reflection on the work episode (i.e. focusing on moments of reflection in action and practice, supported by records of working)

 Post-project reflection on action and practice (i.e. on the project as a whole)

 Reflection on reflection on action and practice (i.e. critical reflection on one’s work-focused reflection)