[-empyre-] Practice in Research defenders
Adrian Miles
adrian.miles at rmit.edu.au
Fri Jan 25 19:32:30 EST 2013
And there I was thinking you were about to utter a string of profanities and use a six shooter!
--
Adrian Miles
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 1:29, Simon Biggs wrote:
> Hi Keith
>
> By dead wood I didn't mean younger or emerging researchers, for whom allowance is made in the UK system as early career researchers, but the older branches, like myself.
>
> best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 12:10, Keith Armstrong wrote:
> > Hi Simon
> >
> > This mirrors the ERA here in Australia and how we have to present ourselves (and yes its not phd research but post phd research of course that is counted ) .. the entire body of researchers submit a quantum of outputs and then a percentage of those end up being presented for peer review to the national body (Excellence in Research Australia panel) - several of my works were reviewed in the round just gone for which in the category media arts lies .. within we eventually received a 4 - internationally leading (5 being the ultimate). Obviously I was only one of many .. and so it is a TEAM effort rather than a focus on individuals.
> >
> > Our process was that for each peer reviewable item - a package of evidence is prepared - it includes much of what you spoke of - a research statement, a description, an interview with the researcher/artist speaking about the research questions - how they were handles and the impact, a compilation of excerpts from the work in video/stills/pdf and then the corroborating evidence like programs, interviews, reviews, etc. I also sat as a reviewer so I got to see how a number of other institutions did this .. spoken generally - the confidence of each university governed the level of detail submitted.
> >
> > Maybe the clear difference here, if I understand you right, is that the work itself is the primary output and thats an important difference therefore. Having the other things - like for instance reflective writing presented later in a peer reviewed journal is looked on favourably (and may indeed if strong enough be a further peer reviewable output) - but for artist researchers - this centralisation of the work is a wonderful thing - and the fact that the team result is what counts .. so up and coming researchers don't have to feel bad or erroneously dead woodish if they only get say 1 hit.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > and the need to present a full portfolio of
> > On 24/01/2013, at 7:03 PM, Simon Biggs <simon at littlepig.org.uk (mailto:simon at littlepig.org.uk)> wrote:
> > > Again, considering the Research Evaluation Framework (which is the official criteria in the UK for being recognised as an academic researcher) rather than the PhD (I agree, it's the researcher's entry point, not their main objective), we can ask what the role of the creative work is in research?
> > >
> > > The REF differentiates between projects, activities and outputs. Generally projects mean research projects - processes and assemblages of activities, often externally funded. Out of such projects come activities (seminars, exhibitions, lectures, demonstrations, etc) and outputs (book and journal publications, conferences, etc). In the domain of creative practice we have to distinguish between these different modalities of research and take care we do not submit a project or an activity as an output. I will give an example.
> > >
> > > An artist/academic is, through an open call, awarded a commission to do a major public art work. The work is delivered and installed and received to great public and critical acclaim. Many words are written about it. The artist, as is often the case, remains mute on the work. They feel they've said all they need to say with the artefact. So far, no problem.
> > >
> > > But that artist is also a lecturer in an art college and wants to be submitted for the REF as they know their career development (the hope of a readership or professorship) depends on their being officially research active. So, they prepare a portfolio about the project and submit it for assessment. The submission consists of beautiful documentation of the work and a description of how it was made. It also has a short statement concerning what the work intends. This is all fine. However, the issue is with what it lacks. Where is the outline of the open call and the names of the people who selected the work (proof of peer review)? Where is a list of associated outputs from what is actually a project rather than an output itself? Did the artist critically reflect on their work anywhere in the public realm in a discursive manner? If they did then we have research outputs. Or, perhaps they didn't do this but they were interviewed about their methods and intentions and this was published somewhere - or they presented the project at a conference on public art. These are also outputs. The other thing that is lacking in the portfolio is a list of associated publications. Where are all those words that were written about the work when it was first installed? These words are very important in establishing the reach of the work (if any of those words were written or published overseas, or published in journals that are of international standing, then the international - as opposed to national - import of the work is clearly established). Also, we must remember that the public impact of research also counts in the REF assessment, so those words are doubly important.
> > >
> > > Ultimately the REF is about money. If your research output is rated a 1 (nationally important) or 2 (internationally significant) it will not generate any income from the government for your institution. If it's a 3 (internationally important) or 4 (globally leading - eg: Nobel prize territory) then it will bring in the money (we don't know what the formula is for the current REF yet, but a 4 will probably generate at least four times as much money as a 3). So, within the UK context, this bizarre process that is the REF is extremely important as it determines the baseline research income for every public research institution in the country for the next five years or so. It also makes or breaks the careers of researchers (one positive benefit of the REF is that it gives dead wood little place to hide and thus ensures a degree of transparency and honesty about the actual value of research in an institution, rather than relying on reputation - although a less naive person would point to how people play the game...).
> > >
> > > In most subject areas in the UK the PhD is the document you need to get a permanent academic job and be considered for the REF, which is then used to determine your progression through the system (the USA also has its arcane evaluation processes, although these seem to be both more procedural - word counts, evidence of service, etc - and personalised than what we have in the UK, whilst other countries, like Australia, have systems like the UK's). For artists who have worked in art colleges, perhaps for decades, that now find themselves in the higher education sector, this can all seem as alien as it would to any outsider but it is the reality that possibly 75% of creative practitioners who also teach in an art department in the UK need to work with. This is not a new situation - it's been the scenario for twenty years.
> > >
> > > Anyway, so far as the example above is concerned - it was little effort for the artist to review their portfolio and ensure the outputs associated with their project, and their value, were clear and in a format the review panel could understand. No need to panic.
> > >
> > > So far as the creative arts PhD is concerned I think the situation is often similar to the above, with candidates (and often their supervisors) confused about where the research is in the work and how the outcomes of the whole process are distinct in themselves - and might not be where they initially thought (or wanted) them to be. Good artists are very good at being their harshest critics, able to cut out from their work elements for which they might have strong feelings (through labour or personal preference) when they realise they compromise the work. The same is true for good PhDs.
> > >
> > > best
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 01:19, Keith Armstrong wrote:
> > > > Thanks Johannes :)
> > > >
> > > > > – these many many hundreds of works created and theses written that we may never see or read. Thus for me the question of the (necessary) contributions to communal or societal knowledge (succinctly stated by SJN) are still relatively abstract and powerfully so. Who benefits from all this knowledge that is not read (or even accessible, readable?) and have we spoken about the writing yet?
> > > >
> > > > Yes - this is a tragedy/ecology of waste - there is of course the argument often given that just because a work is regarded as exceptional in the exhibition context - and is clearly well recognised by peers and funders alike - it doesn't necessarily constitute good research or even is maybe research at all. (this point has been made before a lot ).. And so its inevitable that often we 'may' also see dreary or thoroughly turgid work submitted as part of a phd package that is well regarded by examiners (especially as often they may never see the work that we are being asked to examine) - so - not surprising its subsequently ( at face value anyway) uninspiring and thus not well accessed (with finding and accessing being a further problem that many institutions are now addressing)
> > > >
> > > > > I have only two small questions now, one in response to Keith:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > what we're defending is our right to be considered professionals in our discipline, and to be considered to have the same level of professionalism as our colleagues in other disciplines>>
> > > > >
> > > > > But surely you don't mean to argue that you needed to defend, say, your "Intimate Transactions," a complex & superb work, in order to be considered a professional. Neither in the performance art world, nor in academia??
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the complement - as always you are too generous! Actually that was a comment by Kirk :) But .. I must say yes .. I don't feel the 'need' for a defence as I work both in and out (just a part timer) in academia - and yet my work I feel must/does stand up across that divide .. you'll have heard me bang on about relational thinking enough now to understand why Im comfortable perched like the proverbial bearded dragon, sat on a rock between many hard places!
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ..and then again, you might answer, well, why did they want a Phd in painting or performance directing or design or interactive installation, it wouldn't make much sense anyway, would it, if you are working in the 'industry" as one theatre colleague of mine ..
> > > >
> > > > Again Johannes we find ourself asking maybe the wrong questions of why we do things. arguably in response to the powers that we may feel force us towards non-relational (entirely 'logical') positions
> > > >
> > > > .. sometimes/often we need someone to tie a rope around our midriff and slow us down enough just to be able to be within/see the landscape that is passing us by .. maybe thats why someone should need to do a phd..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > empyre forum
> > > > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au (mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au)
> > > > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Simon Biggs
> > > simon at littlepig.org.uk (mailto:simon at littlepig.org.uk) http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
> > >
> > > s.biggs at ed.ac.uk (mailto:s.biggs at ed.ac.uk) Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> > > http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php
> > > http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html
> > >
> > > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/ http://designinaction.com/
> > > MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> > > http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > empyre forum
> > > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au (mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au)
> > > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>
> > Dr. Keith Armstrong | QUT Senior Research Fellow (p/t)
> > School of Interaction and Visual Design | Creative Industries Faculty
> > Queensland University of Technology, Australia
> > Freelance Interdisciplinary Media Artist | www.embodiedmedia.com (http://www.embodiedmedia.com/)
> >
> > Australia Council New Art Recipient: Night Rage/Night Fall, 2012-13:
> > A seasonal media artwork exploring animal migration patterns & extinction of human experience
> > Australia Council Broadband Arts Initiative Recipient, Long Time No See, 2012-13.
> > ANAT Synapse, Art-Science Resident, with the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, 2012-13.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Australia Council Visual Arts New Work Award,The Bat/Human Continuum, 2012.
> >
> > Confirmed Exhibitions
> > | Finitude (v03), "Information, Ecology, Wisdom" - The 3rd Art and Science International Exhibition and Symposium, Beijing, China at the National Museum of Science and Technology. Nov1-30th 2012
> > | Reintroduction, Mildura Palimpsest Site Specific Arts Biennial, Victoria, Australia, 11th Sept-1st Nov, 2013
> >
> > Current Projects
> > | Re-introduction: A new work engaging the art and science of returning lost mammals to the Australian bush
> > | The Bat/Human Continuum: A new body of work exploring codependence, time and virtual darkness
> > | Night Rage.Night Fall for ISEA 2013
> > | Long Time No See for ISEA 2013 & The Cube, Brisbane.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au (mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au)
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Simon Biggs
> simon at littlepig.org.uk (mailto:simon at littlepig.org.uk) http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
>
> s.biggs at ed.ac.uk (mailto:s.biggs at ed.ac.uk) Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php
> http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html
>
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/ http://designinaction.com/
> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130125/326a3393/attachment.htm>
More information about the empyre
mailing list