1 Extended Abstract (PRESENTED PAPER)

The methodological approaches used by professional doctorate students often mirror those used by full-time academics within their fields of study. Costley & Armsby (2007) found that these are often dominated by a narrow range of social science approaches and suggest that alternative techniques could usefully be developed for use specifically in a practitioner research context. This paper argues that different styles of practitioner research have different objectives, and that not all are adequately served by research approaches drawn from the social sciences. Indeed, the dominance of social science approaches within the professional doctorate academic community may betray a restricted view of what can potentially constitute valid research, and a lack of awareness of other possibilities. Using a synthesis of the two models articulated separately by Frayling (1993) and Archer (1995) in an art and design context the paper explores the distinction between three styles of practitioner research, namely that which is undertaken into practice, for practice, and through practice. It equates the former approach with disciplinary (mode 1) research, including that in the social sciences. It suggests that the two alternative approaches – research for and through practice- are often likely to be more appropriate for insider practitioner researchers undertaking professional doctorates. 2. Alternative pragmatic approaches Both of these alternative approaches are seen to free the researcher from the retrospective, description-driven analysis of what Simon (1969) refers to as the explanatory sciences. Instead, in drawing on Simon’s alternative notion of synthetic rather than analytic research, they encourage the researcher to look to the future, and to develop solutions to real world problems which have a direct impact on practice. These forward-looking and instrumental approaches to research can be equated with the ideas of the American Pragmatists, including Dewey (1931, pp. 32