According to its
latest newsletter, the Society for Artistic Research wrote a letter to the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), on August 30, to
call for a revision of the Frascati Manual in order to add AR as a new and
separate scientific category. (Posted on the society’s FaceBook Timeline
on October 29, 2013.)
The Frascati Manual was thought of as
initiating a “Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and
Experimental Development” to measure Scientific and Technological Activities.
Its latest (6th) edition dates 2002 and defines types of
research and research personnel, deals with measuring expenditure and personnel
resources, and also organizes the "Field Of Science" into main and
sub-categories. (Buy here or download its free PDF here.) The book is highly influential: worldwide, governments and
organisations adopt its definitions for discussing their scientific,
technological and economical development policies, and R&D studies
acknowledged its function as a standard.
The 2002 edition
Field of Science classification was revised in 2006 (freely downloadable here) and is listed as follows:
1. Natural sciences
1.1 Mathematics
1.2 Computer and
information sciences
1.3 Physical
sciences
1.4 Chemical
sciences
1.5 Earth and
related Environmental sciences
1.6 Biological
sciences (Medical to be 3, and Agricultural to be 4)
1.7 Other natural
sciences
2. Engineering and technology
2.1 Civil
engineering
2.2 Electrical
engineering, Electronic engineering, Information engineering
2.3 Mechanical
engineering
2.4 Chemical
engineering
2.5 Materials
engineering
2.6 Medical
engineering
2.7 Environmental
engineering
2.8 Environmental biotechnology
2.9 Industrial
biotechnology
2.10
Nano-technology
2.11 Other
engineering and technologies
3. Medical and Health sciences
3.1 Basic medicine
3.2 Clinical
medicine
3.3 Health sciences
3.4 Medical
biotechnology
3.5 Other medical
sciences
4. Agricultural sciences
4.1 Agriculture,
Forestry, and Fisheries
4.2 Animal and
Dairy science
4.3 Veterinary
science
4.4 Agricultural
biotechnology
4.5 Other
agricultural sciences
5. Social sciences
5.1 Psychology
5.2 Economics and
Business
5.3 Educational sciences
5.4 Sociology
5.5 Law
5.6 Political
science
5.7 Social and
economic geography
5.8 Media and
communications
5.9 Other social
sciences
6. Humanities
6.1 History and
Archaeology
6.2 Languages and
Literature
6.3 Philosophy,
Ethics and Religion
6.4 Arts (arts,
history of arts, performing arts, music)
6.5 Other
humanities
The 6.4 Arts
category is specified as containing: Arts, Art history; Architectural design;
Performing arts studies (Musicology, Theater science, Dramaturgy); Folklore
studies; Studies on Film, Radio and Television. (The 2002 classification saw 6.
Humanities as made up merely from 6.1 History, 6.2 Languages and literature,
and 6.3 Other humanities.)
The noble but bold
request of SAR is to add AR not only to the classification as a new category,
but to do so “as a significant category on its own terms.” The 6.4
Arts category, as “containing various fields of research on art” [my
italics] is juxtaposed with the claim that “this classification does not in any
satisfactory way reflect the development of artistic research” (i.e. research through
art [my italics]). The letter’s phrasing – to see AR as “a field of its own on
the 1-digit level” – leaves unclear whether SAR wants AR to sit at the
1-digit level (making it a 7th high-level group) or under it
(as a distinct 6.6).
Next to the notion
of the unsatisfactory way that AR would compare to the subcategories under 6.,
the society’s letter states several other reasons for its claim, such as the
Frascati manual’s “aims to reflect changes in the nature of contemporary R
& D” (the 2006 revision is indeed considerable), and two recent
international initiatives to suggest a similar (1-digit position) solution to
the perceived problem. Of the latter, one proposal (from the Head of the Economics
Statistics department, Statistics Sweden and the Swedish National Agency for
Higher Education) was made in November 2010, and the other (from European
League of Institutes of the Arts) in January 2012. Both initiatives were
addressed to the OECD Head of Economic Analysis and Statistics.
I don’t know if the
two previous attempts were left unanswered, nor can I form a good idea as to
how complicated it would be to realize a revision of the classification. The
international scope of AR is lauded in SAR’s letter as being well networked an
widely recognized, but how much of that will (or needs to) impress whatever
entity decides over this, is a mystery to me at the moment. More interesting is
the question of the validity of creating a new position for AR. I am all for
recognizing AR as separate from musicology and artistic practice (see here), agreeing also in
full that research on an artistic practice is not necessarily the same
as in-and-through it (the latter can comprise the former, but goes one
step further in catering conclusions to the needs of the practice). In my
personal opinion and experience, it would also be good for AR to be valued as
independent in order to safeguard some of the support that an emerging
discipline needs. There’s hardly any money for AR (yet), and funding entities
divide their financial pie into smaller slices rather than increasing the
available resources as a whole to accommodate a new type of player. That there
is already little cash to go around, is further mirrored in the facts that a
call for an AR position attracts a significant number of interested
musicologists, music-theorists or –philosophers, or that these scholars prefer
a term such as ‘artist-researcher’ rather than one that identifies a new type
that they feel (unjustly, I think) excludes them from participating. For the
time being, I prefer to make clear distinctions, as attempts at appropriation
(“AR is musicology with a new focus”, as I have heard argue on an AEC symposium
a few years ago) will only leave dire chances for the young category to grow. A
spot of its own in the Frascati Manual would certainly offer some hopes, if not
guarantees, of being recognized, taken seriously and supported on government
levels.
But, when reading
in the manual (pp. 30-45) about distinctions on the borderline of what it
considers to be at the core of the manual, i.e. Research & Development,
and what it states should be excluded from R&D, then the matter might
not be a small task. An example: “[…]even research by students at the PhD level
carried out at universities should be counted, whenever possible, as a
part of R&D[…]” (p. 31) [my italics] As it happens, doctoral AR is
nearly all we have to show for, really. Fortunately, I am now only
concentrating on music in this post – the visual arts have more weight to put
on the scales. And for music, if all goes well, output streams can and will
grow stronger, broader and faster.
On a conceptual
level, however, tougher questions remain. As long as doubts are expressed as to
whether or not artistic practice in itself is research, and artistic output be valid as
research output, and as long as institutions consider a D.M.A. format (e.g.
Portugal) for the doctoral cycle, or restrict doctoral candidates’ options to
musicology departments (Germany), the communal AR efforts will stay diluted,
and it may be hard to convince the OECD that we don’t fall
under arts. And while I go along, to at least a certain extent, with the idea
that AR can involve a type of knowledge of its own, I still see quite a few AR
dissertations and articles being written that do not benefit from artistic
practice, do not demonstrably have an impact on it, and do not bring forth new
artistic knowledge.
In any case, I
warmheartedly favor SAR’s proposition, and I look forward to hearing of any
development in the matter – will keep you posted here.
