Contextsname ‘art or research’, shown at the top of Figure 23.1. such a position would result in
a preference for a distinct non- phd doctoral level award such as the doctor of arts.
The advantage of a separate award is that there would no longer be a requirement to
incorporate any of the criteria of the phd from other subjects. The disadvantage would
be the lack of comparability for pan- disciplinary quality assessments such as the Rae
(uK Research assessment exercise).
at the other extreme of the hybrid approach (again, not adopted by any authors in
this book in our opinion) there is a complete correspondence between the aims and
objectives of academia and the professional arts world. This is shown at the bottom
of Figure 23.1 where the two circles overlap completely and appear as one. We could
summarize this position in the name ‘art as research’. such a position would result in a
preference for just the phd as the doctoral award because neither field would present
any additional or problematic demands.
The middle of the range (apparently adopted by nearly all the authors in this
book) would defend the position that there is a degree of overlap, but not a complete
synonymy, between the aims and objectives of each field. in the centre of Figure 23.1,
the two partially overlapping circles represent this position. We could summarize this
position in the name ‘art and research’. producing research in this position would
result in dissatisfaction with the doctor of arts award and also result in concerns over
some aspects of the phd award. There are two basic responses to producing research
in this position: either some of the requirements of the phd are removed, or our
understanding of what they require needs to be modified. The former response is the one
adopted pragmatically by many institutions, as we claimed above, in which the thesis
requirements are made more liberal. The latter response results in the ‘new paradigm’
approach that we recommend and, in the 1980s in the social sciences interpretative
and constructivist methodologies represented such a ‘new paradigm’. Conceptual art
and movements such as art and language perhaps also represented ‘new paradigms’ in
professional arts practice in the 1960s.
We think it is essential for the art colleges to systematically try out and test
methodologies and to develop quality assessment rooted in the needs and horizons
of each art genre ‘from within’, and not to uncritically borrow methods from other
research fields and disciplines. This is also, in our opinion, an important foundation for
the urgent need of developing the internal meta- level discourse within the arts- based
research disciplines.
Standards and standardizationThe Bologna process sets a goal for the harmonization of third- cycle education, i.e.
doctorate. This harmonization will require agreement about the basic nature of each
qualification. a number of european organizations are already engaged in these
questions, including elia (european league of the institutes of arts).^1 There are
also various national- level organizations committed to establishing such norms and
benchmarks, e.g. Qaa (Quality assurance agency)^2 in the uK, and the swedish
national agency for higher education (högskoleverket).^3 however, inter- subject
agreement within their respective national contexts is difficult to achieve owing to the
diversity of their methods and outcomes. in particular we highlight that the outcomes