{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023809523809523808, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.472527472527473, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ADDRESSING THE ESSENTIAL ASYMMETRY OF RESEARCH AND CREATION IN RESEARCH-CREATION

The introduction of practice-based, doctoral programs in the arts and design fields are well established in the university system. Yet, many diagnoses of their status often point to an asymmetrical relation between creative practice and research. The observation assumes many different forms—both within practice-based fields and externally—whether supportive, dubious, or even disparaging. It is usually considered a deficit to be overcome. What if we were to treat this essential asymmetry as a positive?