English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In Australian and British universities, creative discourse is often devalued as a research activity in favour of hard scientific paradigms, and even though the artefact is the primary research activity for the Ph.D. in Creative Writing, it is relegated to a secondary way of knowing, which needs to be translated into more ‘respectable' academic discourse in order to be recognised as legitimate or ‘real’ research. This paper re–affirms the creative artefact as primary research activity, an end in itself, not a means to another, and asserts itself in the academic arena as its own discourse which is not accountable to any other discourse for its legitimacy. It needs no exegetical justification, sets its own parameters, and needs to be evaluated as a literary work using literary tools to measure its research value. This paper also examines the distinction made between Creative Writing and Creative Writing Studies in defining how an artefact creates knowledge and offers a series of philosophical experiments to examine if and how a creative artefact can be considered research, and suggests that the exegesis, rather than being the main conduit of research, is a shorthand device to demonstrate the competencies of the artefact as research.

Who let the zoologists back in? Creative discourse in the Ph.D. in Creative Writing