I do not want to turn this thread into an analysis of various countryıs
attempts to assess their academic research. That would be off theme.
However, I want to say something about this in as few words as possible
(which might mean I will miss something).
A key element in the UK RAE of creative arts subjects is that the creative
outcome is regarded as assessable. An art object, process or design has been
accepted as akin to a scientific proposition, process or solution. For
practitioners and academics in the UK this liberal understanding of what
research can be has been a wonderful thing, allowing us to situate our work
in novel ways and gain recognition and reward for that. I would assume that
the Panel 9 report on the Aalto Universityıs submission for creative arts is
reflecting on this state of affairs when it notes that Aaltoıs submission is
not in line with international norms (Australia has adopted pretty similar
criteria to the UK and other countries are doing the same).
However, I fear for this benevolent condition. The consensus that has
underpinned the UK RAE is breaking down. In 2013 we will have the REF
instead of the RAE. At the moment, on paper, it looks little different to
RAE 2008. But this weekıs published framework could well undo all the work
that has been done by numerous academics and practitioners to correct the
erroneous criteria that underpinned the original REF. The government, in the
form of Peter Mandelson (the only human being I can think of with apparently
panoptic powers), have noted that their original intentions with the REF had
been rendered ineffective by a process of academic and institutional
consultation. Now they will seek to ensure their vision is enforced.
Simon
Simon Biggs
Research Professor
edinburgh college of art
[log in to unmask]
www.eca.ac.uk
Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
CIRCLE research group
www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
[log in to unmask]
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
From: Sally Jane Norman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Sally Jane Norman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:35:02 +0000
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Fwd: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Art-Science and
Science-Art Curricula: Call for Contributions
Dear Erich, Simon, all
This is a really interesting dialogue and as often I'm lurking and grateful
for your respective insights. This last mention of Aalto however brings me
out of hiding. Since results of the recent research assessment exercise
which constitutes the basis for Aalto's emerging research programme are
appreciably publicly available
(http://www.aaltoyliopisto.info/en/view/innovaatioyliopisto-info/assessment-
results), and as member of the Panel 9 review (Architecture, Design, Media
and Art Research), I'd just like to mention that, for all our respect for
many of the achievements we encountered, we were nevertheless extremely
puzzled by attitudes to the evaluation of artistic research. Our opening
overview report statement, on the website above, is as follows:
The panel would like to state that they were perplexed by the approach taken
by the
Department of Architecture and the University of Art and Design to this
RAE2009
assessment process and the evidence presented to the panel both before and
during the
visit. The criteria set for research for this Panel 9 were extremely narrow
and not related
to international benchmarks for research in art and design and related
creative arts
disciplines. As a result of this, many Units have self-censored much of
their own often
excellent work. This resulted in the self-assessment reports and the website
associated
with the assessment being limited to a minority of staff and outputs which
were
considered to be Oscientificı i.e. that staff had doctorates and outputs
that were
journal/book publications. As such the panel concludes that this therefore
severely
undermines the research value of the university and its societal impact.
The whole art-science question as it was posed at Aalto, and the status of
artistic work within a science values driven culture, was an extremely
tricky question for Panel 9. We were/ are all enthusiastic about the
potential of this new structure precisely not to fall into the same traps as
the cultures so many of us have to work in. Notably art work being judged
according to criteria and methods and systems that are fundamentally
inappropriate. I agree that Aalto will be a very interesting institution to
follow.
Best wishes
sjn
________________________________________
From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of erich [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 November 2009 17:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Fwd: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Art-Science and
Science-Art Curricula: Call for Contributions
simon,
> Secondly, I fear that if you choose to wait for our education system
> to move away from commercialisation and intrumentalisation then you
> could be twiddling your thumbs for a very long time indeed.
There is no need to wait, just to tackle it from different directions at
the same time, short term (to continue collaborations and programs) and
long term approaches (education).
Here in Finland next January will open the new Aalto University, which
was created through the merger of Helsinki School of Economics,
University of Art and Design Helsinki and Helsinki University of
Technology. http://www.aaltoyliopisto.info/en/
It will be interesting for us to follow what role art will play in this
constellation and what kind of transformations are allowed to happen.
The merger is of course economically motivated as Finland's strategy to
reinvent itself through education once already succeeded.
best
erich
Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
|
