The Seminar I: What it Means to Research\u2026<\/i><\/b>\u00a0(Autumn 2013)<\/p>\n
Seminar I examines the nature of the task of writing a thesis, bringing together both philosophical and practical considerations as preparation for reading and writing critically for research. Delivery is designed in itself to challenge what it means to convene a seminar, i.e. what it means to orchestrate a set of readings, frameworks and debates, as well as how one might practically attend to such a task. Thus, in addition to mapping the broader \u2018tradition of critique\u2019 underpinning the arts and humanities, the seminar offers a \u2018neutral\u2019, deconstructive space for a live reading of epistemological, ethical and political matters.<\/p>\n
PLEASE NOTE: sessions take place on different days\/times\u00a0in order to accommodate other relevant research and teaching events. The Seminar sessions run for 2-3 hours per week,\u00a0over ten weeks in the autumn semester:<\/p>\n Thursday 26 September<\/strong> Thursday 3 October<\/strong> Wednesday 9 October<\/strong> Thursday 17 October<\/strong> Wednesday 23 October, 1-3pm (PGR room) Thursday 31 October Thursday 7 November, 5th Base Gallery, 4-6pm<\/strong> Wednesday 13 November, 3-5pm<\/strong> Thursday 21 November, 3-5pm Thursday 28 November, 3-5pm Thursday 5 December, 3-5pm The Seminar I: What it Means to Research\u2026\u00a0(Autumn 2013) Seminar I examines the nature of the task of writing a thesis, bringing together both philosophical and practical considerations as preparation for reading and writing critically for research. Delivery is designed in itself to challenge what it means to convene a seminar, i.e. what it means … Continue reading “The Seminar I”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":93777,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1868","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/wsapgr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1868","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/wsapgr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/wsapgr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/wsapgr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/93777"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/wsapgr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1868"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/wsapgr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1868\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2161,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/wsapgr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1868\/revisions\/2161"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/wsapgr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1868"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nSchedule & Readings 2013<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nSession 1: What is the\u00a0Doctorate in Philosophy<\/em>? <\/span><\/strong>
\nThis session examines the nature of the PhD as both a lived process and a formally assessed qualification. It also explores the significance of the word ‘philosophy’ in its title.<\/em>
\nSet Reading<\/span>
\n(1) Woodhouse, M. (2000) ‘Recognizing Philosophical Subject Matter’,\u00a0A Preface to Philosophy<\/em>. Wadsworth, pp. 1-19.
\nSee post-session blog-post:\u00a0<\/strong>A Preface to the PhD<\/a><\/p>\n
\nSession 2: Theoria<\/span><\/strong>
\nThis session begins to map a tradition of critique, examining various meanings of the term ‘theory’ and its significance to the research process.<\/em>
\nSet Reading<\/span>
\n(1) Davey, N. (2006) ‘Art and theoria’ in Macleod, K. and Holdridge, L. (ed.)\u00a0Thinking Through Art: Reflections on Art as Research<\/em>. Routledge, pp.20-39.
\n(2) Culler, J. (2000)\u00a0Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction<\/em> (Chapter 1). Oxford, pp.1-17.
\nSee post-session blog-post: <\/strong>The Practice of Theory<\/a><\/p>\n
\nSession 3: The Literature Review<\/span><\/strong>
\nThis session provides a forum to discuss the early stages of research, in particular developing a literature review. The set reading presents examples of literature reviews to aid discussion.<\/em>
\nSet Reading<\/span>
\n(1) Mazumdar, R. (2007) ‘Urban Allegories’,\u00a0Bombay Cinema: An Archive of the City<\/i>. University of Minnesota Press, pp.xvii-xxxvii.
\n(2) Manghani, S. (2003) ‘Experimental Text-image Travel Literature’,\u00a0Theory, Culture & Society<\/em>, Vol.20, no.3, pp.127-138.
\n(3)\u00a0Manghani, S. (2009) ‘Bombay Cinema: An Archive of the City – Ranjani Mazumdar’ (Review) in Film International, Volume 7, Part 1, 2009, pp.67-69.<\/p>\n
\nSession 4: Tradition(s) of Critique\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>
\n<\/em>Set Reading
\n<\/span>(1)\u00a0Culler, J. (2000)\u00a0Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction<\/em>\u00a0(Appendix: Theoretical Schools and Movements). Oxford, pp.121-132.
\n(2) Simons, J. (2002) ‘Introduction’,\u00a0From Kant to L\u00e9vi-Strauss<\/em>: The Background to Critical Theory<\/em>. Edinburgh University Press, pp.1-16.
\n(3) Connell, M.F. (2002) ‘Hegel’, in Simons (ed.)\u00a0From Kant to L\u00e9vi-Strauss<\/em>: The Background to Critical Theory<\/em>. Edinburgh University Press, pp.33-49.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Session 5:\u00a0Public Thinking<\/strong>
\n<\/span><\/em>Special Guest seminar, ‘Public Thinking’, with Dougald Hine\u00a0(followed by a Global Futures lecture, ‘Back from the Future’, at 5pm)
\nSet Reading
\n<\/span>(1) Hine, D. ‘Time for Public Thinking<\/a>‘ (February 2011) – see also: TEDxLondon talk<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>(No Session)<\/p>\n
\nSession 6: Research\/Practice<\/strong>
\n<\/span>WSA PGR-led exhibition & talk at 5th Base Gallery<\/a><\/p>\n
\nSession 7: Neurology of the Platonic Ideal<\/strong>
\n<\/span><\/strong>Set Reading
\n<\/span>Zeki, S. (1999) ‘The Neurology of the Platonic Ideal’,\u00a0Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain<\/em>. Oxford University Press, pp.37-49.
\nPlato, ‘Simile of the Cave’
\nAristotle, ‘Origins of Imitation’<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Session 8:\u00a0The Visual as Argument<\/strong><\/strong>
\n<\/strong>DISCUSS: ‘…visual studies remains a field that is mainly engaged with kinds of argument that do not need to make continual, close concerted, dialogic contact with images’ \u00a0(Elkins)
\n<\/em>Set Reading
\n<\/span>Elkins, J. (2013) ‘An Introduction to the Visual as Argument’, Elkins, J. et al. (ed.)\u00a0Theorizing Visual Studies: Writing Through the Disciplines<\/em>. Routledge, pp.25-60.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Session 9:\u00a0Methodologies<\/strong><\/strong>
\n<\/span>Session led by Ashok Ranchhod<\/em>
\nSet Reading
\n<\/span>TBA<\/p>\n
\nSession 10: Archive Fever<\/span><\/strong>
\n<\/em>Set Reading<\/span>
\n(1) Carolyn Steedman (2001), ‘In the archon’s house’ from Dust (Chapter 1). Manchester University Press, pp. 1-16.
\n(2) Carolyn Steedman (2001), ‘The space of memory: in an archive’ from Dust (Chapter 4). Manchester University Press, pp. 66-88.
\n(3) Jacques Derrida, Archive Fever. A Freudian Impression’ (1996). Chicago University Press.
\nNB. Steedman prefaces her study (in Chapter 1) with reference to a conference in 1994, ‘Memory: The Question of Archives’, held at the Freud Museum in London, for Jacques Derrida gave a keynote address. His lecture has subsequently been published as ‘Archive Fever. A Freudian Impression’ (1996).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"