JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  May 2008

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING May 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Exclusivity and Heresy | Alternative academic criteria

From:

Annick Bureaud <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Annick Bureaud <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 5 May 2008 12:38:26 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (163 lines)

What I read from Jon and Simon make me feel a bit  depressed ;-)

We are in such a productivist approach to art and research : publish 
(even if you have nothing to say, even if you don't take the time to 
write a concise and revised text) ; put up applications everywhere, 
answer every calls, etc. Produce, produce, produce (what and how 
interesting, new, deep, challenging,  do not seem to matter that much, 
or does it ?). And don't forget to self advertise in every possible ways 
(Internet being a fantastic platform).

We are witnessing what this productivist approach in agriculture as done 
to food, ecology, environment, and ultimately people.
Could it be the same for the "intellectual" food that is art and culture 
? Shall we encounter a kind of cultural "environmental" crisis ... or is 
it just healthy (and good that as many people as possible can produce as 
many things as possible) and from this inflation of productions, the 
darwinian principles will make the selection ?



Annick (not in a dystopian mood, just wandering ...)



Simon Biggs wrote:

>Jonıs points are all valid, but perhaps not everywhere. His "Promotion and
>Tenure Guidelines" would not work, in their entirety, in the UK; although
>elements would.
>
>This is because in some contexts the value that accrues to an individual
>academic/artist is not evaluated at institutional level but elsewhere. In
>the UK there are regular assessments of institutional research performance
>(as well as teaching performance). This is around every 5 to 7 years and is
>known as the Research Assessment Exercise. Whilst it is the research profile
>of the institution that is being evaluated, at subject level, the primary
>focus of the process is the individual academic. In this system artistic
>outputs (exhibitions, commissions, awards, prizes, etc) are all acceptable
>outputs for submission, within certain constraints (eg: there has to be peer
>review ­ so shows in private galleries rarely count whilst museum shows
>usually do ­ there must be evidence of rigour, etc).
>
>Each academic is required to submit four research outputs for the period,
>which are then ranked as being one of four standards (national importance,
>international , internationally leading, globally paradigmatic ­ my terms).
>Academics who fail to submit all four outputs are not allowed to submit any
>unless there are specific conditions (if your post is fractional you may
>only be required to submit an equivalent percentage of outputs, if you have
>been ill or had a child or you are a new academic you may be required to
>submit fewer ­ usually 3 ­ or if one of your outputs is especially
>substantial ­ eg: a major book ­ you may also be allowed to submit slightly
>fewer). The percentage of submitted staff in a department, against those not
>submitted, is used to weight the calculations. Once all the profiles are
>calculated for all institutions this data is used to determine every
>institutions individual subject area recurrent research grant for the period
>covered by the assessment. The amounts of money involved will represent
>anything from 0 to 100% of a departmentıs research income for the period.
>For an individual art and design department this can represent millions (or
>nothing). Of the 135 or so art schools in the UK around half receive some
>sort of income from this system, most very small amounts. For a small number
>the amounts involved are substantial. Those institutions receiving
>siginificant research funds, not surprisingly, are usually the elite.
>
>The result of this system is that institutions need as many of their staff
>as possible to submit as many high quality outputs as possible. If
>individual staff members do not manage to do this their career path will be
>compromised. The most likely outcome is that they will be side-lined into a
>teaching or administration only role, with no time for research/practice.
>They may be tagged for early retirement or redundancy (no tenure in the UK).
>In rare cases they are simply fired (some contracts require staff to be
>research active, therefore if they are not then they are in breach). Those
>that make a valuable contribution can receive preferential treatment, with
>some placed on research only contracts, enhanced salaries or promoted
>rapidly through the system. In the year or two prior to an assessment
>institutions take to poaching academics from one another, not dissimilar to
>the football transfer market. There are few constraints on this and salaries
>can rapidly rise as a result. I am sure many on this list are all too
>familiar with this system.
>
>Clearly for many this is appears both an unfair and unsustainable system.
>Nevertheless, for the past fifteen years this is how it has worked. The
>current system is being re-evaluated now, but from what is being proposed
>the status quo is likely to be sustained. Those at the top, who have most to
>gain from this, are those undertaking the re-evaluation.
>
>For artists this academic environment can be incredibly rewarding. Imagine
>receiving a salary for doing what you are already doing as an artist, with
>few if any extra obligations, in return for the institution using your name
>and data in its assessment submission (this happens routinely). On the other
>hand, it can be totally devastating. Many artist/lecturers find themselves
>in a trap where they cannot gain career progression due to their less than
>stellar outputs and, in a vicious circle, their capacity to attract interest
>in their work shrivels. This can result in both creative and professional
>decline.
>
>What seems to be evolving, as a result of these arrangements, is a binary
>art world. On the one hand you have those artists who have research active
>posts in academia and who pursue intense programs of public exhibition and
>other forms of output. On the other hand you have those artists who work
>almost exclusively in the commercial art world (private galleries, art fairs
>etc). Because they are not showing as a function of peer review even very
>high profile shows may count for nothing. Of course commercially successful
>artists are not going to be bothered by this situation. Also, many of them
>are showing in major museums and art events, which are demonstrably subject
>to peer review, thus they can be considered research active and find
>themselves approached to become a salaried research fellow at a prestigious
>art school (or one with such ambitions). Then there are all those artists
>(possibly the larger number) who are either unable to find commercial
>success or those who take on teaching roles, only to find that due to their
>lack of relevant outputs they are required to teach to the exclusion of
>their practice.
>
>You could be forgiven for feeling a little cynical about this situation.
>That said, it is amazing how adaptive artists are and how many play either
>(or both) games. Itıs an ecology ... of sorts.
>
>Regards
>
>Simon
>
>
>Simon Biggs
>
>Research Professor
>edinburgh college of art
>[log in to unmask]
>www.eca.ac.uk
>
>[log in to unmask]
>www.littlepig.org.uk
>AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
>
>
>
>From: Jon Ippolito <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Jon Ippolito <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 16:56:53 -0400
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Exclusivity and Heresy | Alternative
>academic criteria
>
>3. Lobby your university to upgrade its promotion and tenure criteria for
>the 21st century. As mentioned elsewhere on this list, Leonardo has been
>quick to see the need to expand publication opportunities for scholars in
>the networked age; Leonardo
>magazine will soon be publishing the guidelines for new media academics
>produced by Still Water at the University of Maine:
>
>"New Criteria for New Media" (white paper)
>http://newmedia.umaine.edu/interarchive/new_criteria_for_new_media.html
>
>"Promotion and Tenure Guidelines" (sample redefined criteria)
>http://newmedia.umaine.edu/interarchive/promotion_tenure_redefinitions.html
>
>I've already received a half-dozen emails from folks hoping the publication
>of criteria like these will force their institutions to recognize the new
>forms of research birthed by digital media. If you have your own guidelines
>or want to contribute
>to the conversation, please join the Leonardo Education Forum discussion at
>http://artsci.ucla.edu/LEF/node/104.
>
>  
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager