 |
 |
Dear Terence Your question/s have generated some very interesting responses The crux of the matter is selection for a scholarship which requires evidence of research-or potential to do research. This requirement could be interpreted as peer review. While the applicant has put the peer review information in the wrong category (misattribution) it remains evidence. I would read the review/s to ascertain if it is proof of research capability- if that is what you are looking for. If you merely need to know if the art work has been peer reviewed then you have that evidence. We would judge a piece of art or Design in a prestigious gallery or museum to be the highest standard of peer review- but there are many measures that should count. Deirdre -----Original Message----- From: Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> To: Love, Terence <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 3/12/2010 3:12:32 AM Subject: Re: An academic question. Dear Martin, Thank you for your message. The situations I asked about were from what I saw in the task I described and what I observed in the documents.. The issues may or may not happen more widely. There may be good reasons for them. There may be more serious concerns that I felt. That uncertainty was why I asked for advice. Different parts of the expert feedback indicated concern and suggested reasons why things might be the way I observed. It remains unclear how widespread the issues are. Best regards, Terry Hi Terry Could you clarify how you have arrived at the conclusions you outline below? They don't seem to be representative of the helpful advice and information that has been forwarded by many colleagues. I am a little mystified by the references to the 'problem' of artists apparently relabeling their work as research. Is this something that you have evidence of? I certainly don't see it happening and I'm wondering whether you might have inadvertently misconstrued some of the information?. Or is there is some self-delusion going on here? Best wishes Martin On 02/12/2010 14:54, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hello, > Thank you to everyone for some really detailed analyses and useful > information. It's given me a better understanding of the state of art of > academic perspectives in this area. > To clarify the background. The task involves a handful of academics in > each faculty making a judgment about which doctoral candidates will receive > government and university doctoral scholarships. The candidates have already > been accepted for doctoral study. The process is criterion-based and the > highest scoring candidates get the scholarship money and the department and > supervisors get the prestige. The criteria are: > 1. Academic qualifications > 2. Achievement of doctoral candidacy > 3. Work-related research experience > 4. Academic accomplishments including major research grants, minor research > awards or prizes > 5. Research and Creative Output in last 5 years including refereed and > non-refereed journal articles, conference papers, solo exhibitions and group > exhibitions or equivalent creative production > 6. Referee reports > For doctoral scholarship candidates in Art, there are substantial benefits > in increasing one's score by redefining one's creative activities as > research. Similar benefits are gained from listing publications *about* > one's Art as one's own refereed publications. Problems associated with the > former seem to be due to pressure on Art academics to do research and the > effortlessness of addressing this by arguing that all art-practice is based > on some form of research. Problems about the latter seem to accrue from > Art-related traditions of collating and presenting information about the > display of one's creative output. Similar confusion about both points seems > to occur for the doctoral candidates and their academic referees. There are > sensible reasons for why these problematic issues occur. Of concern from an > ethical perspective, however, is that such mistakes directly benefit the > candidates and their referees where they are the candidate's supervisors. In > the Art research context, these issues might well be considered ethically > unproblematic and not in need of the precautions that might be viewed as > necessary in other disciplines. Hence my question about current > professional practices in the academic Art realm as I'm not a specialist Art > academic. > The feedback from experts here and the scale of the financial issues > involved (~$90,000 per scholarship) suggests there is a need to review some > aspects of this scholarship awarding process. > Best wishes and thanks again, > Terry ------ End of Forwarded Message -- EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems