This double issue of JMP publishes another rich and diverse mix of research into media practice and media practice as research. Our gaze covers engaged ethnography, immersive journalism, collaborative documentary, participatory film-making and the ‘third voice’, how institutional audits of undergraduate media courses fail to give expression to cohort cultures and the value of gratitude in student experience. We present new knowledge in the fields of (reframing) filmology, how a gallery installation explores the process and methods of representing the past through contemporary spaces, journalism practice as research and a discursive elaboration on questions of value from industry and academic perspectives.
Volume 18 will include two themed editions. A collection of work developed from the MECCSA/JMP Practice Symposium will be published in issue 18.1, followed by the Disruptive/Disrupted Media of Journal Practice, which will appear in issue 2. The journal will continue this approach in subsequent years, one ‘standard issue’, one guest edited edition and one practice symposia publication. Clearly, as this editorial goes to consider in more depth, how we articulate, document and present media practice research with external drivers such as, in the UK REF and the Stern review, must be a pressing concern for this journal. If the implications of Stern do develop into mandatory REF inclusion for all considered ‘research active’, then a much bigger community of media practitioners will be ‘in the game’. However this pans out in the coming years, JMP will have a part to play.
The Disruptive Issue will be Neal White’s last as co-editor, as he has moved on to a new post as Professor of Art/Science at the University of Westminster. Neal has been instrumental in moving the journal towards exemplifying, documenting and experimenting media practice research, as manifested in these new thematic developments.
For the remainder of this editorial, Joanna Callaghan reflects on the status and significance of the practice symposium.
According to the Research Excellence Framework report, practice has consolidated its status as equal to traditional research outputs at research assessment level (REF report, 2015, 112). There still appears, however, a lack of clarity in the field of Communication, Cultural and Media Studies;
The sub-panel welcomed and rewarded research quality evident in practice-led research, but considered that additional information supplied was sometimes less comprehensive and focused than was needed to make clear the research element in such work. (REF subpanel 36, 2015, 111)
In 2014, the MeCCSA practice network committed to supporting the symposium on an annual basis through a financial contribution. The network also supports other events on the teaching and research of practice. We see the JMP and MeCCSA Practice Network Symposium as significant in this landscape. This importance will now be further extended through dedicating an issue of JMP to the symposium on a yearly basis. This issue may include papers presented, issues arising or responses to presentations and will be edited by the host institution. The symposium (and the linked journal issue) is a forum to discuss our current research and become equipped with knowledge to disseminate to our colleagues and at our institutions. It is here, at institutional level, that like Erik Knudsen I believe we face our greatest challenges in making the case for our research (JMP editorial 2015). This brings me back to the REF feedback which echoes so much previous commentary.
While it may be incumbent on upon us as practice researchers to better articulate our research aims, methodologies and outcomes, the research panels must also be better equipped to assess the range of research types submitted. We as the practice research community can do this in a number of ways. We can provide specially targeted tools and resources to those involved in research assessment and those outside our area. For example, I am currently involved in a project to develop training materials targeted at research managers and assessors on reviewing practice research.Footnote1 We must develop, mentor and lobby for more practice researchers to be involved in research assessment and thereby enable ourselves to sit on research panels at all levels (REF, research council, funding councils) and be involved in review through peer review colleges, as PhD examiners, as being ‘critical friends’ and on professorial appointment panels. This is about building capacity within our own networks. Significant and important work has been done through the symposia and the work of the journal, however much has been focused inwards on developing our research sometimes in a re-active way. We have to focus outwards and make interventions within the wider research landscape, taking a more active role. This may appear as ‘extra’ work but it is central to advancing practice research. In the longer term, it will have impact for all of us by providing a stable and consistent environment in which we can produce our research on an equal footing with colleagues in other disciplines. It may also mean we don’t receive the same feedback from research assessment exercises every few years.
Notes
1 The aim of the AHRC-funded Filmmaking Research Network is to develop understanding and consolidate the field of film-making research by sharing best practice internationally and developing resources. The UK–Australia network will conduct research and knowledge exchange through workshops, visits, meetings, screenings, conference panels and a survey. Resources will include a register of films, case studies of best practice, a tool kit, resource lists and a training seminar in reviewing practice research.