DISPOSICIONS TRANSITÒRIES Primera. Adaptació de les llicències

I think the oral exam is actually crucial for dancers to dissolve the lingering public perception of others that 'dancers don't talk’ (DCNZ1).

One question raised by the international consultant on this project, Susan Melrose, concerned the absence in our draft recommendations of the oral system of examination known as the ‘viva.’ As the normal culmination of the examination process in the UK, Europe and NZ, a ‘viva’ invites candidates to articulate their research trajectory and findings in dialogue with an examination panel or, in more traditional language, ‘to defend his/her thesis.’ Melrose, whose work champions the artist researcher engaged in multi-modal degrees, is concerned that the omission of the ‘viva’ might not provide the most equitable conditions for this type of candidate.

It is at the viva examination that a skilled and sympathetic examiner is able to elicit a very convincing oral account of the project – not least because skilled arts practitioners often demonstrate advanced oral skills - which are not equalled in the written component [or] the feedback to the candidate, required so that he or she can make the necessary ‘amendments and corrections’ to the written component along the lines raised at the viva, has in numerous circumstances served to enable the arts practitioner candidate, over the period of time recommended, to make strategic interventions in the writing, such that the writing serves the expert practice, rather than attempting to replicate certain tired conventions of the traditional thesis (Melrose report).

Melrose’s point is that professional artists are trained, directly or indirectly, to speak rather than write about their work and that the viva dialogue often draws out ideas which illuminate the practice but can lie obscured in a writing straining to be ‘academic.’ This perspective aligns to a certain extent, with a New Zealand respondent who stated, of her own experience, that the “whole process was quite affirming - the exam was presented as an opportunity to really discuss my work in detail with the examiners, rather than it feeling only like a defence” (DCNZ01).

The positive weight of such comments stands less securely against the misgivings about vivas raised in the literature. Powell and Green (2003) argue that the vagaries and ambiguities apparent in the UK examination system often come to a head in intentions and procedures of vivas. The viva’s purpose is variously perceived as authenticating authorship, a rite of passage, a probe into the candidate’s ability and a confrontational challenge to the research claims, while notions of the viva’s role decision-making about the thesis’ doctorateness and examiners’ independence differ widely and are often imprecisely communicated in institutional protocols. Other UK commentators like Morley, Leonard and David (2002) note the significant numbers of students who report on the negativity of the experience even when awarded the degree. Even more disturbingly, these academics claim to have themselves witnessed vivas permeated by power struggles or sub-disciplinary disputes between examiners and/or examiners and supervisors, who in some instances are permitted to be present at the event. Inconsistencies in the rules pertaining to vivas lead Tinkler and Jackson (2000), similarly, to question the quality assurance measures in relation to higher degree examinations and thus to the fundamental consistency of doctoral processes.

By and large, Australian universities have opted out of the viva practice and chosen instead to emphasise examiner independence, upheld through the autonomy of examiners to respond to theses without interference from others’ perspectives. Independence does not allay wide variation in examiner reporting and decision-making but this approach

32

does obviate inter-personal disputes, leaving moderation of variations to an internal panel whose members are again at a distance from the examiners (and any interpretational clashes) but not from institution’s interests. Some universities do have final review processes, where the completing candidate orally presents their thesis to an internal panel before the final submission. This procedure enables the candidate to gauge the credibility (or otherwise) of their work and, on the institutional side, operates as a gate-keeping mechanism to prevent underdeveloped studies from exposure to the full and decisive examination process. The effectiveness of this procedure is yet to be rigorously examined, although anecdotally the process does augur well for a final successful outcome. Whether the process substitutes for Melrose’s concern to support the expert practitioner is untested and it certainly does not address the final recognition of research raised by our NZ correspondent. Sympathetic examiners with critical formative skills are in demand even in the

Australian experience where interpersonal dialogue is usually filtered out. While the viva does appear to offer some advantageous aspects, the process presents as many problems as it might resolve. How candidature is celebrated and affirmed is another question to address in the future.

Examination/assessment is a human process, subject to that tension with which this project began: dancing between diversity and consistency. There are checks and balances working towards consistency to put in place and advocacy of particular recommendations to disseminate but, in the final analysis, as humans, we are diverse and, with all the problems of management and accountability such a condition presents, diversity should be celebrated as a catalyst of knowledge. If diversity is restricted too closely, innovation is denied and growth is impoverished. Balance, a tenuous state well known by dancers, risks failure but when achieved is exhilarating and life-affirming. As educators, we should remember that we can pave the way with our acts of balance, provoking suspended states that can invite but not determine the next journey … nor the next discovery.

33 BIOGRAPHIES

CHIEF INVESTIGATORS