A publication by European League of the Institutes of the Arts (ELIA)
Endorsed and supported by AEC – Association Européenne des Conservatoires, Académies de Musique et Musikhochschulen CILECT- International Association of Film and Television Schools (Centre International de Liaison des Ecoles de Cinéma et de Télévision) Cumulus – International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media SAR – Society for Artistic Research
This paper is intended as a position paper on the doctorate in the arts (1) . It is formulated as a point of reference for policymakers, university leaders, curriculum designers and research funding agencies. It is addressed to universities of art and science alike, helping the former to secure recognition for their endeavours (with national funding bodies, legislature, etc.) and helping the latter to learn about the research developments within the art university sector. This paper is a consequence of the inclusion of “artistic research” in the OECD’s Frascati Manual, and it has the intention of further shaping understanding of research in the field of the arts and creating the necessary frameworks, environments and resources for early stage researchers (doctoral researchers) to develop their projects. Finally, this paper makes the point that all which holds true for doctoral research and the establishment of doctoral studies – as defined in the central papers “Salzburg Recommendations” (2005) and “Taking Salzburg Forward (2016) (both by the European Universities Association EUA) or “Innovative Doctoral Training” (European Commission) within the EU framework – is also valid for doctoral studies in the arts. As different as research results might appear to be, the processes, epistemological drive and consistency with which research projects in the arts are undertaken remain the same. This paper has been developed by the Artistic Research Working Group established by the European League of the Institutes of the Arts (ELIA), which includes also delegates of both the Society for Artistic Research (SAR) and the Association Européenne des Conservatoires, Académies de Musique et Musikhochschulen (AEC). It was drafted by the members of this group (2) , discussed with a working group of EUA’s Council for Doctoral Education (3) and edited by the ELIA working group until the final draft. The paper was endorsed by the ELIA board of representatives on 4 November 2016 and presented at the ELIA Biennial Conference in Florence on 2 December 2016.
(1) For simplicity, the term ‘doctorate in the arts’ is used in this paper to describe all formats of third-cycle programmes in art. The term is meant also to be inclusive of all artistic disciplines and areas (i.e. fine art, music, drama, performing arts, architecture, etc.).
(2) Andrea B. Braidt (chair), Giaco Schiesser (co-chair, SAR), Cecilie Broch-Knudsen, Anna Daucikova, Peter Dejans (AEC), Lars Ebert (ELIA office), Henry Rogers, Johan Verbeke.
(3) In a workshop in Zurich in May 2016; EUA-members Melita Kovacevic, Edwin Constable, Thomas Jorgensen.
Context Approximately 280 institutions around the world offer research degrees in the arts (fine art, design, music, architecture, dance, theatre, and all other art disciplines). The administrative structures of the institutions that grant such degrees vary widely, and the names of the degrees they offer (DCA, DPhil, PhD, DFA) also differ. All these institutions have special strengths, differences in assessment, funding, levels of international students and, of course, faculty and staff. Yet they share the same concern – to realise doctoral programmes that allow artists to ‘advance knowledge through original [using artistic and other methodologies] research’ (4) .
(4) Salzburg Principles on Doctoral Education, EUA publication, 2005. [http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Salzburg_Report_final.1129817011146.pdf]
Over the past four decades, the doctorate in the arts has been established to varying degrees and in various forms throughout the EU and beyond. For example, some countries (UK, Norway, Sweden, Spain) have ten or more years of experience of awarding doctoral degrees in the arts, and, whilst other countries have begun to introduce third-cycle studies over the past ten years, some have only recently decided to do so. As the legal conditions of national frameworks differ with respect to the introduction of artistic/arts/ design-based doctoral research studies, we can speak of a Europe of multiple speeds in this regard. Whilst the legislature in Norway, for example, permitted the introduction of a third-cycle diploma in artistic research as early as 2003, in Austria the University Law was amended to include this only in 2015. Art universities also vary with respect to their institutional status. Many countries have autonomous art universities with the same status (and legislative norms) as so-called comprehensive universities (e.g. Austria, Sweden); other countries organise art universities in the same way as universities of applied science (e.g. Fachhochschulen in Switzerland and the Netherlands) or as academies (Italy) or as faculties forming part of ‘classical’ universities (Spain, Croatia). As a consequence of this, the implementation of doctoral programmes in the arts is subject to varying processes and regulatory norms. While some countries have introduced doctorates in the arts as part of co-operative study programmes with scientific universities (e.g. Switzerland and, in parts, Belgium), art universities in other countries have been able to implement artistic doctorates in their own right, without the need for co-operation (e.g. UK, Norway, Finland, Austria, Czech Republic). Whatever the structural differences may be, discussions around the doctorate in the arts – led by ELIA, art universities and other organisations – have shown that there is a growing motivation to offer doctoral programmes all over Europe and beyond. This growing motivation coincides with, and, to a certain degree, is a consequence of, the massive development of artistic research within the arts – across all artistic disciplines. At the same time, there exists an international community of artistic research, an international and Europe-wide group of artistic research organisations (e.g. EARN European Artistic Research Network, SAR Society for Artistic Research, EPARM European Platform Artistic Research in Music), a multitude of national organisations (e.g. PARSE Platform for Artistic Research Sweden), several peer-reviewed journals for the dissemination of artistic research results (e.g. JAR Journal for Artistic Research; PARSE Journal) and a wealth of funding programmes for artistic research projects (e.g. PEEK Programme at the Austrian Science Funds, Norwegian Artistic Research Programme and the funding programme for artistic research within the Swedish Research Council). Tackling research questions with artistic methods and creating works of art that deal with the big challenges of European – and, indeed, worldwide – research and development has become a vibrant, innovative endeavour. In 2015, the OECD responded by including ‘artistic research’ as a classifier for research and development within the Frascati Manual, paving the way for the further inclusion of artistic research within the European research frameworks5 . The European Research Council, for example, has incorporated artistic research into its funding schemes. Looking at the development of artistic research and doctorates in the arts over the past 20 years, it is evident that a global debate has been taking place, and the development of common standards for art-based PhDs have begun to emerge. A number of shared topics has been identified and become the subject of national and European discussion within the artistic research community and arts universities and one central commonality has been found within the artistic research community: a doctorate in the arts complies with the prerequisites for a PhD, as formulated in the sciences and humanities and as described, for example, by European position papers such as the Salzburg Recommendations (EUA) or the Principles of Innovative Doctoral Training (EU Commission). International debates within doctorates in the arts can be grouped around two poles. On the one hand, discussion has centred on practical, institutional questions concerning doctoral degree regulations (e.g. admission, examination, requirements of the PhD project, taught courses and the extent to which this should be mandatory) and the financing of PhD candidates (employment, grants). On the other hand, questions have been identified about what is at stake in relation to a series of strategic areas including :
– The Bologna Declaration, in which the PhD was positioned, and its effects.
– The formats for presenting PhD outcomes and the significance of the discursive within this.
– The discussion of best practices (7) and role models, without fixing a normative canon or becoming bogged down in loose descriptions of criteria.
– The role, quality and training of doctoral supervisors (8) .
– The organisation and structure of doctoral programmes in the arts (e.g. mixed graduate schools, research groups, individual PhDs)
(5) OECD, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. Frascati Manual 2015. http://www. oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9215001e.pdf?expires=1476112197&id=id&accname=guest&check sum=A451260 FDB07D04058B19D5A531AD1A2
(6) See, for example, Schiesser, Giaco: ‘What is at stake – Qu’est ce que l’enjeu? Paradoxes – Problematics – Perspectives in Artistic Research Today’. In: Arts, Research, Innovation and Society. Eds. Gerald Bast, Elias G. Carayannis [= ARIS, Vol. 1]. New York: Springer 2015.
(7) A compilation of 15 case studies, including comments, is presented in: SHARE Handbook for Artistic Research Education, Wilson, Mick / van Ruiten, Schelte (Eds.), Footnote 2, pp. 74–120.
(8) See, for example, 3rd EUFRAD Conference (Vienna, September 2013) about »The Experience and Expertise of Supervisors in the Development and Realization of Doctoral Level Work in the Arts« (s. http://www.sharenetwork.eu/events/ eufrad-vienna, checked March 22, 2014).
Which adequate formats for dissemination of the results of doctoral work in the arts should be urgently developed?9 – Employability and different career perspectives of artistic PhD graduates: do doctoral programmes in the arts mainly serve the individual’s development as an artist? In which ways do PhD graduates become integrated into the research environment of art universities? – Internationalisation.
The next section (Part B: Relations) references position papers that are pertinent to our discussion. Following this, in section C of this paper, we focus on seven points that might serve as orientation pillars in the discussion. Descriptive, rather than normative, in their rhetoric, these points draw attention to that which matters for the development and further success of doctorates in the arts
(9) The peer-reviewed Journal for Artistic Research (JAR) offers a promising approach, simultaneously allowing for artistic research per se, documentation, peer reviewing and hybrid formats of dissemination of PhD results.
Part B: Relations
This section identifies the policy papers and strategic documents that have informed discourse around doctorates in the arts. They have shaped our discussion and, in varying degrees, form the substance and basis of our conception of the “points of attention” in the following section. The publication of The Salzburg Principles in 2005 (10), laid the ground for discussing doctoral education as part of the Bologna process. This identified 10 principles for third cycle degrees – doctoral training as the advancement of knowledge through original research; the embedding of doctoral training in institutional strategies and policies; the importance of diversity; the identity of doctoral candidates as early-stage researchers; the crucial role of supervision and assessment; attainment of a critical mass as an important aim of doctoral programmes; a study duration of three to four years; the promotion of innovative structures; the importance of mobility for doctoral researchers; appropriate funding for doctoral candidates as a prerequisite. These principles, formulated as intentions more than ten years ago, remain part and parcel of almost all discussions about doctoral education, although many of them have since become certainties. In 2010, the EUA published the Salzburg II Recommendations (11), a paper building upon the 10 principles and intending to serve as a ‘reference document for those who are either shaping doctoral education in their country, or institution, or those who are involved in other aspects of the process of doctoral education reform’(12). The recommendations took account of changing university structures, emphasising the role of the institution within the doctoral process and steering away from the traditional one-on one supervision model. In 2011, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Development published a paper which would influence discussion on doctoral education and result in the position paper Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training” (13). Building on the Salzburg Principles, the Commission’s document added transferable skills training and quality assurance to the list of recommendations for third-cycle education. At the same time, a point about ‘exposure [of doctoral candidates] to industry and other relevant employment sectors’ was added, reflecting the much-discussed (and criticised) notion of ‘employability’ of the Bologna process.
(10) Conclusions and Recommendations from the Bologna Seminar on ‘Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society’, Salzburg, 3–5 February 2005, http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Salzburg_Report_final.1129817011146.pdf.
The Principles resulted from the Salzburg Seminar, initiated by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the European University Association. The main aim and objective of the seminar was to identify the key challenges to be met in implementing the new Action line (during the period 2005–2007).
(11) Salzburg II Recommendations. European Universities’ Achievements since 2005 in Implementing the Salzburg Principles. EUA, 2010. http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage- list/Salzburg_II_Recommendations
(12) Melita Kovacevic and S. Mihaljevic, ‘New Developments in Doctoral Education’, in Lucas Zinner (ed.), Professionals in Doctoral Education, Vienna 2016, 1-14. 5.
(13) Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training, European Commission, DC Research and Innovation, Directorate B European Research Area, Unit B.2 „Skills’ http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/Principles_for_Innovative_Doctoral_Training.pdf
All of the above-mentioned papers – and certainly also the recently published Taking Salzburg Forward (EUA) (14), which adds the dimensions of research ethos, global orientation and the necessity of engagement with non-academic stakeholders – provide crucial reference points for the framework of art/design doctorates. The past five years have seen the publication of several position papers, white papers, and so on, emerging from the arts concerning artistic research and – as a consequence – doctoral studies. The European Association for Architectural Education (EAAE), for example, passed a Charter for Architectural Research in 2013, emphasising the need for specific and inclusive types of communicating knowledge within research, spanning artistic and scholarly projects (15). In addition, the Association Européenne des Conservatoires, Académies de Musiques et Musikhochschulen (AEC) published a White Paper asserting the importance of the role played by artistic research in the field of musical arts. The White Paper affirms that ‘artistic research should aspire to the same procedural standards that apply across the whole research spectrum – replicability (especially of procedures), verifiability, justification of claims by reference to evidence, etc. – even though, especially in areas such as replicability, it must be allowed the freedom to achieve these standards in ways particular to its own nature, and to the individual and subjective nature of artistic practice’ (16). The most comprehensive publication on third-cycle studies and artistic research was produced by ELIA as part of the EU Lifelong Learning Programme project on Step-Change for Higher Arts and Research in Education (SHARE, 2010–2013). The SHARE Handbook contains an overview of the development of doctoral programmes in the arts in Europe, identifying numerous examples of best practice for PhD projects and doctoral programmes from all over Europe. It provides insight into the debate by featuring prominent representatives from the artistic research community, and it contains a toolkit for curriculum-building by providing reflections on methodologies employed by research in the arts as well as an in-depth study on the question of (new) disciplines (17). As the main aim (and success) of the SHARE project was to build a large network of institutions and people investing in doctoral education in the arts, the final publication reflects a major effort to bring together the relevant European research community, taking up and reflecting many different voices in the area. The seven ‘points of attention’ in the next section build upon all the papers mentioned above. They attempt to extract the critical core of doctoral education in the arts and seek to provide orientation pillars for a field which has been developing over the past 20 years or so.
(14) Taking Salzburg Forward. New EUA-CDE Recommendations on doctoral education. (2016) http://www.eua.be/activities-services/news/newsitem/2016/04/28/taking-salzburg-forward-new-eua-cde-recommendations-on-doctoral-education http://www.eaae.be/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2012-09-03_EAAE-Charter-on-Architectural- Research.pdf
(16) Key Concepts for AEC Members. Artistic Research. An AEC Council White Paper (2015), http://www.aec-music.eu/userfiles/File/Key%20Concepts/White%20Paper%20AR%20- %20Key%20Concepts%20for%20AEC%20Members%20-%20EN.pdf
(17) SHARE Handbook for Artistic Research Education, eds. Mick Wilson, Schelte van Ruiten (2013), http://www.elia-artschools.org/userfiles/Image/customimages/products/120/share-handbook-for- artistic-research-education-high-definition. pdf
Seven Points of Attention (“The Florence Principles”) •
Preamble Doctoral studies (doctorates and PhDs) in the arts enable candidates to make an original contribution to their discipline. Doctoral study programmes in the arts aim to develop artistic competence, generate new knowledge and advance artistic research. They enable candidates to progress as both artists and researchers, extending artistic competence and the ability to create and share new insights by applying innovative artistic methods. The general principles for doctoral education elaborated in the Salzburg Recommendations II and in the Principles on Innovative Doctoral Training are largely held to be valid in the arts. The following points isolate criteria which are essential, and perhaps also particular, to doctoral studies in the arts.
Doctorates in the arts provide a research qualification that builds upon diploma/masters studies and requires the in-depth development of an artistic research project. Candidates are selected who meet formal requirements defined by institutions and as a result of their artistic qualifications and competences. Potential supervisors may be part of the selection process, to ensure the academic quality of the dissertation process.
• Career Perspectives
Holders of doctoral degrees in the arts may enter (or continue) an academic career at a higher education institution and/or enter (or continue) their career as artists. As a doctorate in the arts is usually undertaken when the candidate has completed graduate studies and produced a significant body of work, cohorts of doctoral programmes comprise established, internationally mobile artists. In bringing their academic and professional experience together, cohorts build valuable networks and accumulate key transferable skills that shape future perspectives for doctoral candidates in the arts. Upon completion, holders of doctoral degrees have the potential to combine their career as artists with a career in higher education.
• Doctoral Work
The doctoral work (the dissertation project) undertaken during doctoral studies in the arts includes the development of an original and concrete artistic research project. This project uses artistic methods and techniques, resulting in an original contribution to new insights and knowledge within the artistic field. The project consists of original work(s) of art and contains a discursive component that critically reflects upon the project and documents the research process. Internationalism, interdisciplinarity and interculturality are implicit in many artistic practices and can benefit from doctoral programmes in the arts. 18 A doctoral degree in the arts is not a prerequisite for obtaining and holding an academic position at a higher education institution in the arts.
• Research Environment
Artistic doctoral studies embedded within an appropriate research environment ensure the best possible (inter)disciplinary advancement of work. Appropriate research environments consist of a critical mass of faculty and doctoral researchers, an active artistic research profile and an effective infrastructure which includes an international dimension (co-operations, partnerships, networks). Doctoral research projects in the arts can advance discipline(s) and interdisciplinary work, by extending borders and establishing new cross- disciplinary relations. Artistic doctoral projects require adequate resources and infrastructure, in particular studio space and exhibition/performance environments. Funding for doctoral researchers in the arts is crucial.
Supervision is a core issue for good practice in doctoral education, and at least two supervisors are recommended. A doctoral agreement, outlining the supervision roles (candidate – supervisor – institution), triangulates this process and setting out the rights and duties of all parties. Institutions establish a good supervision culture by precisely defining responsibilities in their guidelines which provide a basis for avoiding and resolving conflict. Supervision is to be separated (at least partially) from final evaluation (assessment, reviewers), and supervisors should focus on maintaining the quality of the dissertation project in relation to national and international standards. Doctoral programmes in the arts follow the standard quality assurance and evaluation procedures applicable in the relevant national and institutional context (accreditation, reviews, etc.).
The results of doctoral work in the arts are disseminated through appropriate channels. For artistic work, exhibitions, performances, media installations and content, websites, and so on provide appropriate dissemination frames. A particular effort needs to be made to create adequate archives for the results of doctoral work. Wherever possible and under the provision of proper copyright regulations, open access is the guiding principle for dissemination of artistic research work and the documentation of artistic work (e.g. digital portfolios in institutional repositories). Peer-reviewed and/or externally validated contexts are to be prioritised (e.g. via exhibition programmes in museums or curatorial selection processes). The specificity of dissemination contexts should be clarified at the beginning of the doctoral studies (e.g. in the doctoral agreement).