|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Section I
Hello. I am honoured to be invited here to speak at this gathering. This is
the fourth such conference organised jointly by our two institutions and it
has done much to develop the concepts and the application of research in our
organisation, and I hope it has done so here too. As I prepared this paper the
United Kingdom is involved in the largest assessment of research activity ever
conducted. It is called the Research Assessment Exercise, or RAE for short.
The UK has had two previous exercise : 1992 and 1996. The Research Assessment
Exercise is sponsored by the UK Government department called the Higher Education
Funding Council. Nearly 70 academic subjects are covered. From Architecture
to Zoology. The aim of the Research Assessment Exercise is to take the measure
of the quality of research throughout British Universities. It does this in
several ways. The most important element of it is this: Every academic in the
country who I selected by their institution is asked to submit the best four
outputs they have delivered in the past five years. As I shall tell you shortly,
the outputs can take many forms. The art and design sector has become so varied
and complex that the Research Assessment Exercise panel decided on fifteen separate
subject categories to cover the spectrum of activity. Each institution that
wishes to submit must compile these outputs into a document which contains other
raw data. For example, one must include the number of research degree students,
and the number of completions at Master of Philosophy and Doctoral level. You
must also indicate he amount of research income that has passed through the
institution. You have to write a substantial narrative which tells the story
of how the unit is resourced, what is its staffing policy, how the research
is nourished and nurtured. For example, an institution can describe how it releases
staff time for research and scholarly activity. How often would a member of
staff be entitled to paid sabbatical leave ? Is there a proportion of the week
set aside for research activity ? Are visiting artists and designers regarded
as part of the staffing body; are they too offered the benefits of the institutions
research culture ? You also have to write about the structural arrangements
for promoting and organising research. How does the institution replace staff
who have moved to other universities. What is the strategy for the next five
years and how does this compare to the promises that were made the last time
! Finally, each unit has to submit indicators of esteem. How many staff are
full professors. Which staff sit on editorial boards. Who has acted as referees.
And for which journals. Who advises the government. How many staff are visiting
professors at prestigious international universities. Who has been commissioned
by major international design agencies. Under evidence of esteem, it is important
to list leadership at national and international level as demonstrated by journal
publications, exhibitions and prestigious venues. Is there evidence of genuine
innovation, of world firsts, how eminent is the evidence of national and international
citation and review. In short, who values what you do as researchers. As you
can imagine, the final document offers a unique insight into the workings of
an organisation. It is also a large bundle of paper ! The document should though
hold a mirror up to the research work of a School, a Faculty or a University
Department. One hopes that the mirror is a fair reflection and not one that
distorts the true picture. Before telling you a little about how the Art and
Design sector in the UK has responded to RAE I will tell you about a parallel
research funding scheme in my country.
Section II
Besides RAE 2001 there has been another significant development in the research
culture of the UK. In 1998 the government established the Arts and Humanities
Research Board. This has become the leading funding body for applied and pure
research in the arts and humanities. For some time, it had been recognised that
the arts and humanities in the UK had suffered a relative lack of opportunities
for external research funding. The AHRB was established with an annual programme
budget of 50 million pounds, which is due to rise to 65 million pounds by 2003
- 04. The need for such a Board is a reflection in part of the strength of the
so-called creative, cultural and heritage industries in the UK over the past
decade. The present Labour government has made much of this success. But the
value of scholarly activity in the arts and humanities is not to be judged by
politic or utilitarian terms alone. At the heart of the AHRB are several guiding
beliefs : notably 'the arts are a fundamental underpinning to our society and
culture. They affect every citizen in numerous ways. They are an essential foundation
for a modern democracy and economy. Their influence is so pervasive that it
is easy to illustrate but hard to evaluate.' Art and Design has only one of
the places at the AHRB table. Amongst the other academic subjects invited to
dine are: Architecture, Antiques, Crafts, Film, Interactive leisure software,
Music, Performing Arts and Publishing. Obviously, not all diners will eat as
well. There are several sorts of funding schemes: small grants (up to 5,000
pounds) larger research grants, 3 year fellowships, paid sabbatical and study
leave. There are also two major grants - the resource enhancement grant which
aims to make archives and collections more accessible to research community,
and the AHRB national research centre scheme which assures funding for five
years. All bids to AHRB are asked to answer several questions. First, it is
understood that good research should pose questions. Secondly, it should address
specific problems. Thirdly, research should develop robust and appropriate methodologies.
It should be cognisant of broader contexts, and finally it should always aim
for a public product. I am sure we would all agree that although the nature
of 'Research' varies between academic disciplines it is always concerned with
the generation of new knowledge - in the sense of contributing to the canon
- and extending the boundaries of the discipline. Furthermore, its outputs should
always be subject to peer scrutiny and critique. For me, three words summarise
the ethos of the Arts and Humanities Research Board : quality, sustainability,
and dissemination. The best research asks - what questions are we asking ? Which
methodologies should be applied ? How do we tell others about our findings ?
Are our findings defensible and worthy of dissemination ? It would be true to
say that some aspects of UK art and design education have struggled to adjust
to the demands of the Board's academic criteria. The criteria have been developed
out of a social science model. There is an insistence on 'measurable outcomes'.
There is much less reliance on open-ended, process-driven and speculative enquiry.
In this respect some Fine Art practice in the UK, in particular, has struggled
to meet the Boards' criteria. Some areas of design work too have not been preferred.
I am thinking of areas of rapid prototyping for example. Fine Artists need essentially
open-ended time rather than project oriented funding. Why is this ? In part
I think it is because the concept of research is weakly articulated in art and
design. Artists have struggled to define the ethos of practice-based research.
Academics have found it uneasy to distinguish between professional based enquiry
and straightforward consultancy or 'jobbing' - ordinary - design practice. However,
let us take a look at the shortlisted entrants for one of the largest prizes
in the AHRB pot - the national research centre. This year 99 institutions bid
to become a national research centre. 15 were shortlisted. Look at the titles
of some of those: The AHRB Research Centre for Studies of Surrealism and its
Legacies The AHRB Research Centre for the Study of Music as Performance The
AHRB Research Centre for Textile Conservation The AHRB Research Centre for Earliest
Humanity The AHRB Research Centre for Research in Intellectual Property and
Technology. As you can see practice-based research, as understood by the art
and design sector, is not very well represented in this sample. One of the issues
is that it is widely recognised that the arts are one of the relatively 'young'
disciplines in UK higher education and have had fewer and limited opportunities
for funding. The arts, in particular, have not yet established the mature research
tradition that other disciplines have enjoyed. But some areas have thrived.
In our own Faculty for example research into the application of traditional
methods of printmaking have won considerable grants from the Arts and Humanities
Board. One of the reasons for this is (I like to believe) the quality of our
bids but it is also because much of the research is of an applied nature with
a specified programme of enquiry, measurable outcome, and systematic applications
to the wider art community. Much of our applied research is often evidenced
through a single visible output and can be readily linked to direct economic
or social benefits. As we know, this is not often the case with many arts activities
which are 'slow burning', or are predicated on open-ended hypotheses that have
few instant outcomes. Fundamental to the success of many of the bids that have
been supported by the AHRB is a requirement that the findings are disseminated.
This can happen in many ways - through publishing, symposia and other public
means. The work may also be disseminated through exhibitions, not only of our
work, but also by artists and printmakers who have been drawn to the Faculty
by the nature of our practices. Without critical dissemination, professional
practice can never be considered as research.
Section III
To return to the Research Assessment Exercise. Art and Design is just one of 70 subject areas being assessed. Because most of those subject areas are text-based, the UK art and deign academic has had to invent a new typology of research areas. After widespread consultation the following types of public output were agreed: Art and artefacts, exhibited or presented within the public domain Design of exhibitions or events Editorships and Curation Public commissions Media presentations - performance, installations, catwalk presentations Mass production and retail Patents and registered designs New processes and material New devices including software Design reports Other non-textual public output Authored books Authored chapters in books Authored articles in journals Papers and posters presented As you can see from this list, text-based work is lower in the listing, though not necessarily lower in its status. But this new ranking order was an important gesture to the academic community. It stated firmly that the art and design practice is different. Let us identify and celebrate those differences Many members of the UK art and design community were drawn to the issue of Curation as a research output. For clarification - curation should be taken to imply substantive research, explicitly bringing new knowledge to the public domain and not merely organising or bringing to public view pre-existing bodies of work. If we look at an example of the list we can explore how the RAE criteria are applied. Regarding media presentations, for example, what matters is the status of the venue, the evidence of the peer review process - in particular the status of the selection panel. The level of dissemination and its accessibility to future generations is also of importance. Other measures of quality are gauged through the level of innovation, the contribution to knowledge, and the significance of the research to the discipline. It is simply not enough to stage a media presentation. One must be able to identify the research context and its contribution to the genre. RAE is then a quite sophisticated tool of calibration. There were several stages in the development of the tool. An initial consultation process when all the college of art were asked to offer a critique of the first model. Then a refined model was developed. The appointment of a panel of 10 respected academics was made. Then followed a quiet period when each institution analysed the criteria and the typology and attempted to match its existing research activity into the pro-forma. By March 31st 2001 every art school in the UK had prepared its submission and compiled the body of evidence for the panel to sample. The issue of evidence is very important. We live and work in an evidence based culture. Without proof that an event, exhibition or conference has taken place it cannot count as research. However, proof is not enough. The evidence must tell a panel member about the actual quality of the work. RAE is not without its critics: One eminent professor made a joke; what is the difference between the USSR and the RAE ? Here is a clue : the Soviet Union was a bad idea, dreamed up by well-intentioned people who knew nothing about competition or market forces; it worked disastrously ; and it was at its most effective in producing corruption. But of course the answer is ; there are four letters, not three in the acronym USSR ! Such critics argue that the RAE in the UK introduces standardisation, not harmony. That it will lead to a dumbing down of research to meet the criteria of RAE typology. Furthermore, there is an argument that all good research is ground-breaking, iconoclastic rather than conventional. It is unmeasurable and cannot be contained in arbitrary categories. There is a further argument - 'how can a national subject' panel decide whether or not it ranks as a international standard ? Is it not like the USA staging the world series in baseball, but not allowing any other country to take part ? There are other persuasive arguments against the RAE as a calibration device. It is stressful on staff. Also it engenders too much research for all the wrong reasons. In some academic areas in the UK there has been a proliferation of academic journals and texts. Only a few of these can be read. A lot of research is unnoticed, uncited and unworthy. I have a personal response to these criticisms. Firstly we do need a tool. In the UK we have become accustomed to a high degree of assessment and judgement, and there is little to fear in a calibration culture, as long as the process is transparent and peer-driven. Since 1998 all art and design institutions have had a teaching quality assessment. It was also stressful but the hidden agenda worked: staff were regularly observed in their teaching, good student handbooks were written, standards generally were found to be very high and improving in most areas. The confidence of the subject was boosted, though the strain on staff was intense. Is the RAE fair ? That I cannot yet tell you. As I speak there are 70 panels of leading British academics weighing up the evidence. All summer they have been reading, reading, reading. In art and design, over 70 colleges, faculties and art schools entered RAE 2001. Over 9,000 individual outputs were submitted. The art and design panel consists of 10 eminent researchers who have spent the past 5 months looking at CD ROMs, at colour transparencies, web sites , catalogues, books and patents. They have been measuring the quality of this public output against the published criteria. They will draw conclusions and form a holistic judgement. They will then rank the various colleges giving each a grade out of seven categories: The lowest grade is One : Quality that equates to attainable levels of national excellence in none, or virtually none of the research activity submitted Grade Two Quality that equates to attainable levels of national excellence in up to half of the research activity submitted. Grade Three b (3b) Quality that equates to attainable levels of national excellence in more than half of the research activity submitted. Grade Three A (3a) Quality that equates to attainable levels of national excellence in over two-thirds of the research activity submitted, possibly showing evidence of international excellence. Grade Four Quality that equates to attainable levels of national excellence in virtually all of the research submitted, showing some evidence of international evidence. Grade Five Quality that equates to attainable levels of international excellence in up to half of the the research activity submitted and to attainable levels of national excellence in virtually all of the remainder. At the very top is a five star (5*) Quality that equates to attainable levels of international excellence in more than half of the research activity submitted and attainable levels of national excellence in the remainder. In the 1996 exercise very few of those who submitted in art and deign achieved a grade of five star. Several of the leading institutions such as the Slade School of Art in London gained a rating of five. The outcome of the panels deliberation will be available in late December of this year. Each institution is also guaranteed written feedback on their submission though this will not appear until the early spring. The panel will also write an overview paper which will offer an opinion on the health of research in the art and deign sector. Many of you will feel that the UK is obsessed with calibration, ranks and with league tables. It is a habit that the current government inherited from the previous incumbents, though its importnance is beginning to decline. But the main difference between scores for teaching quality and for RAE is that a good grade at research assessment will bring significant sums of money which is guaranteed for five years. A top-rated department with a substantial proportion of research-active staff can expect to earn over a million pounds per annum. And all that income can be focussed on further research work. As you can imagine there are a great many rather anxious deans and heads of departments in British art and design institutions at the moment !
Section IV
I would like to finish by offering a personal view on how we as artists, designers
and media-practitioners can develop and nurture research in our institutions.
Like good agriculturalists and gardeners I believe that we have to understand
the 'ecology of research'. As managers of research we have to tend to nourish
and fertilise the ground. If we are going to develop a rich organism we have
first to develop the undergrowth : this may take the form of seminars, symposia
and other discussion groups where ideas are openly generated and critiqued.
We have to take strategic decisions about which of our seedlings will respond
best to our care. Very few of us are capable of growing exquisite orchids without
understanding a great deal about our subjects. Often difficult decisions must
be taken about which research project should be pursued or which grant fought
for. Younger researchers - the fresh green shoots of our profession - must be
given especial attention. Professors and experienced researchers must acts a
mentors and supporters, and take the role of critical friends. Above all, art
and design research must be given the time to extend its roots into the rich
soil provided by such funding schemes as the AHRB. Compared to other subjects
Art and design has rather shallow research roots, and its vulnerability must
be carefully managed. I am an optimist. I believe art and design research will
continue to flourish in the UK. However, we must remain diligent. We must remain
highly critical of our own expectations and our standards. We must always relish
enquiry and the search. As the English essayist Samuel Johnson said : Curiosity
is, in great and generous minds, the first passion and the last. Thankyou. Professor
Paul Gough Studied Fine Art at Wolverhampton and the Royal College of Art London
gaining MA 1985; PhD, 1991. He is Dean of the Faculty of Art, Media and design,
UWE Bristol UK Speaker at Association of Art Historians Conference (Newcastle,
1996), 'Monuments and Millennium' conference (Victoria and Albert Museum, London,
1998) ISSEI Conference (Utrecht, 1996) Underwood History Symposium (Carleton
University, Ottawa, Canada, 2000) 'Irish History Remembered' (Ulster Museum,
Belfast, 2000). Keynote speaker: IMPACT (Bristol, 1999). Invited guest speaker:
Queen's University (Kingston, Canada, 2000) IAMAM annual conference (Musee des
Armees, Paris, France, 1999). Paper at 1st Public History Workshop (Ruskin College,
Oxford, 2000) Canadian Military History Conference (Ottawa, Canada, 2000). Chair:
'Open Spaces' conference, Winchester School of Art (September 1996) 'Drawing
Symposium', Cheltenham College of Art (July 1996). Since 1997 South-west UK
chair of the Public Memorials and Sculpture Association, HLF funded inventory
of public art. Between 1995 - 2000 presented six series of arts debates on ITV
regional television; presenter and associate producer 4 television documentaries;
co-presenter (with Francine Stock) 'The Art Show' (BBC2, May, 1998). Credit
for 'Design Research' in Aardman Animation feature film Chicken Run (2000).
Elected Council member of Royal West of England Academy; executive member CHEAD;
member 2001 RAE art and design panel; member Visual Arts and Media Panel AHRB.
During 1999 consultant to curriculum think-tank at OU Faculty of Arts. Chosen
by art critic of The Sunday Times as selected artist (1999) invited to show
Harlech Biennale (1999) Discerning Eye (London, 2000). Referee, reviewer, Cultural
Studies and Journal of Landscape Research Group. MPhil examiner, UCE, Birmingham
(1998) PhD examiner Royal College of Art, London (1997). Awarded a Canadian
High Commission research grant to study Canadian memorial landscapes (2000).
Invited to join advisory board 'Art and Urban Futures' (University of Plymouth)
January 2001.