foundationsprojects funded by peeK (for a maximum of 36 months) will take place at various
institutions in austria, primarily at arts universities. Because of their available
infrastructure, university and some non- university institutions can offer artists the
possibility of undertaking arts- based research in appropriately supportive environments.
however, the lack of appropriate funding mechanisms has meant that these possibilities
have been insufficiently exploited. To ensure the exceptional quality of the projects
within the programme, close ties to high quality art institutions will be expected,
whether applicants are associated with universities or non- university institutions.
any person engaged in arts- based research who has the necessary qualifications
is entitled to apply. The applicant must give proof of the project’s infrastructure,
(connection to an appropriate university or non- university institution in austria, so that
the necessary documentation, capacity support and quality of the results are ensured).
no particular academic title is needed. interestingly enough austrian citizenship is not
required, which makes this programme truly international in its scope.
The expert panel that will review the projects is also truly international with members
from denmark, Finland, France, sweden and the united Kingdom. at the time of
writing the application period is still open and final results of the quality assessment will
be known some four months later.
The examples given above from countries like austria, sweden, norway and the
united Kingdom indicate some of the developments related to funding schemes,
quality assessment and funding in a european context.
on the other side of the globe, in australia, funding of arts- based projects seems to
be a bit problematic. Jacqueline martin describes the situation in an article published
in the yearbook for artistic research 2009 from the swedish Research Council. she
notes that the higher education sector in the country has been subjected to numerous
reviews over the past ten years or so, mostly to do with the allocation of Commonwealth
funding to the country’s 37 universities. These reviews have brought about major
upheavals in the day- to- day balance between teaching and research. artistic research
has suffered more than research in other faculties, since it has struggled to be recognized
as legitimate and thus entitled to the same funding support as other more scientific
faculties:
in australia each individual university is subject to a ‘research quota’. The
australian Research Council (aRC) has strict constraints on the number of
points that may be allocated for monographs, book chapters etc. it has taken
a long time for arts practice – or practice- led- research – to be acknowledged
as worthy of ‘research points’. These points are of monetary value, as well
as giving researchers credit that enables them to obtain promotion at their
respective universities.
(martin 2009)Funding from the aRC is thus a problem. a second funding source is the australia
Council for the arts, which supports projects of high artistic value. The problem,
though, is that this council does not fund university research, except in some cases
where the topic is in line with its own research priorities. The result of the policies of
these two funding councils is thus a ‘catch 22’-situation where the individual researcher