Research Outputs – Exhibition & Performance

As an arts based institution, UCA has a different research output profile from larger multi-discipline universities. These tend to have a high percentage of published outputs, including authored books, edited books, chapters in books and journal articles.  (see table below) All Universities outputs
UCA’s profile is somewhat different, with the highest number of outputs including digital or visual media, exhibition, artefacts, design, and performance.

UCA outputs

Last week we had a look at artefacts as research outputs. In this post we are going to look at Exhibition and Performance as research outputs. Both require the title, description, venue, date, and url (if one is available) for submission to REF.

A research output under exhibition includes:
• curating an exhibition
• solo exhibitions
• significant contributions to exhibitions by a group or a number of individuals.

A research output under performance includes solo performances, and significant contributions to performances made by a group or a number of individuals.
This includes
• Concerts and recitals
• Dance choreography including score, notations and objects
• Directing and/or producing performances
• Improvised performance
• Radio or other sound recordings or audio-visual recordings made for public access, including CDs and DVDs
• Theatre productions (drama, dance, opera, music theatre)

Listed below are examples of the exhibition and performance research outputs from UCA REF 2014.

You can click on the link to find out more about the research that led to these outputs.

Exhibition

A Sort of Night to the Mind, A Kind of Night for our Thoughts: 
At a Time of Crisis (AUDI Art Award artworks), exhibitions
Bread and Roses, co-directed & co-curated multi-strand arts 
Cloth & Culture Now, curated exhibition, authored website, education 
Cloth & Memory 2, curated exhibition, authored website, education 
Cultex: textile as a cross cultural language, curated exhibition
David Colwell: making chairs; Fred Baier: the right angle; Richard La Trobe-Bateman: making triangles 
Fairytale for Sale, exhibition, mongraph, catalogues
‘Garden Ruin’ and ‘Face Yourself’, solo exhibitions
Insight into Beauty – Contemporary Craft Inspired by Japan
Le Temps Spectaculaire, exhibitions, on-line article
Lost in Lace, curated exhibition, edited catalogue with essay
Manufactory and The Altogether, exhibition
Married Man, exhibition, colour photographs, looped audio
Pictures of Linda, exhibiton of colour photographs with accompanying
Resort 1, exhibition of 22 large scale colour photographs
Ritual and Setting, site-specific ceramics, exhibition, catalogue
‘The Market’: Hybrid spatial practices in contemporary art, exhibitions
Utopias, solo exhibition, catalogue

 Performance

A duet (virtually), musical improvisation with live sonic
Jungle Fever, participatory performances, installation, publication

 

Vertigo Ventures Webinar – What does 4* impact evidence look like?

Webinar – Friday, Jul 14 2017 @ 10:00am – 11:00am
What does 4* impact evidence look like?

Vertigo Ventures are running a one-hour intensive session is aimed at supporting those who are developing impact cases for the next REF. Using our experience of working with universities to write impact case studies and analyzing cases for good practice this session will utilize these reflections and learnings to share insight for those currently grappling with impact evidence collection.

To sign up click here

Who should attend?

  • Researchers looking to submit impact case studies
  • REF Managers, Impact Officers, Research Support Officers
  • Heads of academic departments seeking to understand and develop the impact in their departments

The webinar will answer the following questions:

  • What does impact evidence in 4* case studies look like?
  • How is this evidence used effectively?
  • What they difference between panel or impact types?
  • What should researchers and research managers be doing to develop good practice?

Delivered in a convenient and concise format, the presentation will leave you better equipped to identify support evidencing of case studies.

 

 

Research Outputs – Artefacts

As well as books, journal articles, and papers, research outputs in the arts also include other types of outputs. These include:

• Artefacts
• Devices and Products
• Performance
• Exhibition
• Composition
• Design
• Software
• Website content
• Digital or visual media

KRblacklacestillforwebIn this post we are going to look at Artefacts. This may include physical artefacts such as textiles, ceramics, collages, glass vessels, soundscapes, artwork, sculpture. These artefacts are often exhibited, but the exhibition is not the research output, it is the artefact in the exhibition that is the research output.
The curator of the exhibition could submit the exhibition as their research output.

Listed below are examples of the Research Outputs from UCA REF2014 that had physical artefacts as the research output. You can click on the link to find out more about the research that led to these outputs.

Black Lace, commissioned site-sensitive video and sound installation
Box 1 and Box 2, two pieces of textile quilt
Fall, mural, monoprints
Gango series I-III, three ceramic vessels
Handkerchiefs, site-specific textile installation
Homage to ‘Hay on the Highway’
Line and Damaged, two textile artworks
Metamorphosis and Transformation, twenty-one interrelated clear glass vessels
Notes from Home, an installation of five hand-made photobooks
Robing Peter to Pay Paul, textiles
Stains and Stories: Latent narrative in worn clothing, textiles
Ten Steps to Heaven – part of 14 Artists’ Interventions at the Swedenborg
The Search for Andy Warhol’s Voice, curated sound installation
Untitled, 7 new pieces, created especially for a solo exhibition

Q&A: Outputs

  1. What does “effectively shared” mean in relation to the research outputs?

A research output is a product of the research activity, first brought into the public domain during the REF publication period. We anticipate that the REF 2021 publication period will be 1 January 2014 – 31 December 2020. Click here for REF 2014 definition of research.

2. Will certain output types score more than others?

No, in their guidance UoA 34: Art & Design: History, Practice and Theory state that they would ‘neither advantage nor disadvantage any type of research or form of output, whether it’s physical or virtual, textual or non-textual, visual or sonic, static or dynamic, digital or analogue.’

3. What kind of outputs were submitted to REF 2014 within UoA 34?

For full details on the types of outputs submitted to UoA 34, please refer to the Overview report by Main Panel D, p.86.  It identifies three evident features:

1) the number of artefacts, in the form of physical objects, was only 11% of the total submission.

2) Published material remained core to the sector and formed  57% of the submission. It included authored books, edited books, chapters in books, and journal articles.  Considerable amount of submitted text came from art and design practice.

3) Exhibition activity increased since RAE 2008. This activity was spread relatively evenly across all discipline areas.

4. Will certain publishers or exhibition venues  advantage or disadvantage the outputs?

No, all outputs will be assessed regardless of where they’ve been published or exhibited, as long as they meet REF definition of research.

5. I am working on the revised version of the output that I submitted to the REF 2014. Can I submit it to REF 2021?

According to REF 2014: Panel Criteria and Working Methods (p. 85, para. 55) you can submit an output which includes significant material in common with an output published prior to the REF publication output. The submission should explain how the earlier work was revised to incorporate new material. We expect this to remain same in REF 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

Output Assessment

In REF 2014 the criteria for all outputs, whatever genre or medium, was that they met the definition of research.  We expect this to remain the same for REF 2021, subject to confirmation in July 2017.

UoA 34: Art & Design: History, Practice and Theory was very clear in its guidance that it would “neither advantage nor disadvantage any type of research or form of output, whether it’s physical or virtual, textual or non-textual, visual or sonic, static or dynamic, digital or analogue.”

Research outputs may include, but were not limited to the following: books (authored or edited); chapters in books; journal articles; working papers; published conference papers; electronic resources and publications; exhibition or museum catalogues; translations; scholarly editions; creative writing and compositions; curatorship and conservation; databases; grammars; dictionaries; digital and broadcast media; performances and other types of live presentation; artefacts; designs and exhibitions; films, videos and other types of media presentation; software design and development; advisory report; the creation of archival or specialist collections to support the research infrastructure.

Criteria for assessing outputs

Outputs in REF 2014 were assessed in terms of originality, significance and rigour

  • Originality: a creative/intellectual advance that makes an important and innovative contribution to understanding and knowledge. This may include substantive empirical findings, new arguments, interpretations or insights, imaginative scope, assembling of information in an innovative way, development of new theoretical frameworks and conceptual models, innovative methodologies and/or new forms of expression.
  • Significance: the enhancement or deserved enhancement of knowledge, thinking, understanding and/or practice.
  • Rigour: intellectual coherence, methodological precision and analytical power; accuracy and depth of scholarship; awareness of and appropriate engagement with other relevant work.

Please refer to Panel Criteria and Working Methods (pp.82-88) for full details.

Practice Based Research: main points

According to REF 2014 definition, research is a process of investigation leading to new insights, effectively shared.

In the next series of our posts we will be focusing on research and research outputs, with particular emphasis on research in Art & Design.

Breaking down the REF definition in smaller components of ‘process of investigation’, ‘leading to new insights‘ and ‘effectively shared‘ may offer a useful means to study this definition more closely. This post will look at the ‘process of investigation’ and ‘leading to new insights’

‘Process of investigation’ or a process of inquiry is mainly concerned with research strategy and methodology. More traditional research methodologies are characterized by well-established and widely shared strategy and procedures, using very clear research methods (Haseman and Mafe, 2009). For example, let’s try to map the above REF definition with social research paradigm:

process of investigation’ needs to:

  • Have clearly stated aims, that are
  • Related to existing knowledge and needs, and that are
  • Investigated within limitations imposed through time, money and opportunity
  • Use precise and valid data collected and used in a justifiable way

new insights’ need to:

  • Contribute something new to knowledge
  • Produce finding from which generalizations can be made (Denscombe, 2002)

Artists and creative practitioners do not always operate within conventional research strategies and methodological assumptions, although some traditional methodologies may meet some of the artists’ needs (e.g. reflective practice, action research , grounded theory and participant observation).  Practice based research is a distinctive and widely established research strategy with the methods stemming from long-standing and accepted working methods and practices of the creative disciplines (Haseman and Mafe, 2009)

What is Practice based research?

Carole Gray in Inquiry through practice: developing appropriate research strategies proposes the following definition and sets out two aspects:

‘… firstly, research which is initiated in practice, where questions, problems, challenges are identified and formed by the needs of practice and practitioners; and secondly, that the research strategy is carried out through practice, using predominantly methodologies and specific methods familiar to us as practitioners in the visual arts.’

Gray’s definition offers practice as a focal point of the research process: the questions are informed by the practice and the investigation is carried out through practice. The main quality of the methodology seems to be responsiveness, driven by the requirements of practice and the creative dynamic of the artwork.

According to Gray, practice and theory are reciprocal. Critical practice generates theory and theory informs practice. One of the characteristics of practice-based research is the use of visual and multi media methods of information gathering, selection, analysis, synthesis, presentation/communication.

Some of the specific research methods used within practice based research are:

making art/design work; observation and drawing (in all forms);sketchbook/notebook, idiosyncratic notation/symbol;  visual diaries/self reflection/personal narrative/ critical writing; photography, video, sound;  models/maquettes, experimentation with materials; concept mapping, diagrams; use of metaphor and analogy; organisational and analytical matrices, flow charts, story boards; multimedia/hypermedia applications; modelling/simulations, soft systems; electronic databases, visual and textual glossaries and archives. These have been augmented with useful social science methods, usually adapted in some way, e.g.: case study, participant-observation, personal constructs, interviews, questionnaires, multidimensional analysis, evaluative techniques like semantic differential, multiple sorting.

 

References:

Denscombe,M.(2002) Ground Rules for Good Research: a 10 point guide for social researchers, Maidenhead: Open University Press pp.2-3

Gray, C.(1996) Inquiry through practice: developing appropriate research strategies, available at: http://carolegray.net/Papers%20PDFs/ngnm.pdf [accessed on 23 May, 2017]

Haseman,B. Mafe, D.(2009) Acquiring Know-How: Research Training for Practice-led Researchers. In: H.Smith, R.T.Dean,ed., Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts, 1st ed. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press Ltd., pp.211-228

 

Impact: Tool Kit for Public Engagement with Research

Visiting the Solent Research Conference recently, we had a session from Southampton University on ‘Public Engagement with Research’.

They have developed a tool kit, which is open to all researchers, based on a three step process. You can check this out here-http://www.southampton.ac.uk/per/2017/evaluation-planning.page

As many art research outputs include engaging with the public, this maybe a useful source of information for planning evaluation and impact of projects.

  • What are you trying to achieve with the project?
  • How should this be measured?
  • What do you need to measure for your funder?
  • How will your work contribute to any required reporting to your funder?
  • Can you measure impact?

The AHRC recommend using a logic model for engagement and evaluation planning, and they use the Kirkpatrick Model for levels of potential impact. You can access an example of the Logic model on the above website in step 1.

You can checkout our recent blog on Impact Case Studies for an example of UCA Public Engagement in Research  – Lost In Lace.