I think it is like a paper edit this chunking process. In documentary when you get all the rushes you look through all the material carefully and make notes about what may be useful before the edits gets underway. In a way you are looking for the gold, the must have moments. The must have material and then other material that supports those moments. Some of my email response to my supervisors in regards to the process I am going through presently:
I think I have learnt a bit from the QUT model in terms of the situating concepts and practical contexts sections. As well as having some type of outline for a practice-led exegesis. And laying out the research on the wall with this as a structure has really helped point some things out…it is proving useful, working on getting more of a visual image of the whole exegesis through this process. This happens in documentary edits too – the building of a rough cut to see how the whole is taking shape.
…I agree as you both point out that the meat has to come from the creative works. I am beginning to understand more through other reading the notion of the knowledge contribution being bound up in the artefacts. Understanding what type of knowledge can be extracted from the artifacts through a process of reflecting on what occurred and what happened iteratively from one to the other is helping me move beyond the description approach.
So, now I am back onto writing out ‘chunks’ mainly across the projects as a first step towards working out the flow of the argument. From: Kamler, B & Thomson, P 2006, Helping doctoral students write pedagogies for supervision, Taylor & Francis Ltd, Hoboken. (extract ‘Chunks, moves and choreography’ p 90-94)
‘chunks of writing and more provisional groupings around key ideas, data and methodologies…’; write about the problem being researched, the field of knowledge production…’’chunks have substance. They are not a few pages in length. They are substantive texts that probe, test, argue and interpret specific aspects of the research.’
I need to do this first and not be held by structure – the QUT model is useful for pulling out potential chunks but at the same time it is good to have some freedom in this process with the choreography of those chunks worked out as the next step. The trick here is not to get into to much detail (pages) and keep the process moving on to cover the whole exegesis. The other issue also seems to be taking a more critical, probing type position – maybe this will develop more as I sort out the first pass at this chunk process?
So, this in a way is a writing and once this is mapped out and I can signpost the argument in a structure that is not tied to just working with chapter nos…The situating concepts and practical contexts sections I do not see as being necessarily large as a lot of this will be built into the writing happening on the creative works.