Yesterday was interesting if a little stressful due to the nature of presenting my research proposal to a group of academics from a number of other Universities. The students are separated into groups of three and two groups present simultaneously in two different rooms. My presentation was in the afternoon and third on the list. The room was like a boardroom and about 15 people sat round it.
I presented fairly well although I felt it sounded a little simplistic when delivered in an academic environment. I had made a point of wanting it to be clear and direct and not get bogged down in over emphasising the theory. That could come later. I wanted to outline the idea and try and tell the logical thought processes behind my idea.
My feedback was quite tough. The first and I suppose not unexpected observation was that defining creativity is very hard to do as there are so many different forms and that it may not be possible to do it successfully. There was also suggested that it would not be credible to merely leave the definition of creativity to participants in my research as I had proposed. An issue was also raised as to why collaboration, sharing and creativity was so different on the web. I thought I’d explained that in my presentation! There was a general theme emerging through the feedback that Goldsmiths has an emphasis towards philosophically theoretical outcomes whereas Westminster are inclined towards more empirical field based research. One thing was clear though – I needed a procedure for defining creativity.
I must admit to feeling a little disappointed that I couldn’t answer the criticism robustly. It was pointed out to me afterwards that this is what will happen all the way through the research process and is necessary to keep one constantly questioning and re-evaluating. I ended the day going down to a local pub and sharing stories from the day.