{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014631401238041642, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.838461538461538, '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}}
Moths, candles and fires: examining dance as creative practice research in a Master's degree

This article reflects on the purposes and functions of examination criteria for Masters' research degrees with creative practice components. With a particular focus on dance projects that incorporate both a performed and a written expression of the research, we consider how a rubric for creative practice research degrees might address formative and summative assessment purposes and clarify goals for learners, supervisors, examiners and academic institutions. Our discussion is situated within a South Pacific postgraduate learning context and is informed by post-colonial and post-Cartesian concerns over how dance knowledge is recognized in global academia. Much current literature has argued how particular research methods and diverse approaches to the presentation of research outputs can destabilize dominant, logocentric methods of valuing knowledge. Our queries extend this argument into the actual quantifiable measuring and evaluation of such knowledge, which Masters' grading necessitates in order to maintain its value as an institutional currency. This leads to the reflections on the rubric for Masters' degrees with Creative Practice components that is currently used within the Dance Studies programme of the University of Auckland, and how this rubric might be seen as contributing to an evolving ‘cultivated’ community of practice within postgraduate examination. The rubric continues to grow through ongoing consultation with postgraduate students, supervisory staff, internal and external examiners and international experts in creative arts academia. Our reflections extend the argument for how creative practice might be further rationalized within academia.