 |
 |
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.