Show simple item record

dc.contributor.convenorTasmanian School of Art (Hobart) and the School of Visual and Performingen_AU
dc.contributor.authorWoodrow, Rossen_US
dc.contributor.editorNoel Frankham & Marie Sierraen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T11:39:46Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T11:39:46Z
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.date.modified2011-09-14T06:20:06Z
dc.identifier.refurihttp://www.acuads.com.au/conf2010/papers/woodrow_paper.pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/39059
dc.description.abstractAbstract The analysis in this paper is based on a concordance of sixty-five research statements supporting visual arts work submitted for peer review to the ERA process in the 2009 trial and the current ERA 2010. All the statements relate to research outputs submitted in the two-digit FoR code 19 Creative Arts and Writing, with the majority in the four-digit FoR code 1905 Visual Arts and Crafts. Needless to say, the statements are not identified and are combined into a single global text, to establish the frequency of particular descriptive terms that might distinguish the differences between research in the studio and work in science-based disciplines. The possibility of a discipline specific vocabulary in creative arts research, and its similarity to established science disciplines, will be tested against concordances of applied science abstracts. Reference will also be made to the concordance of Darwin's Origin of Species (1859). The ERA has presented the first opportunity to survey the language used by artists and curators in academe when they are asked to specifically identify the new knowledge, understanding or insight expressed through their artifactual and exhibition outputs. Even though my survey is limited by its singular focus on data from one institution, as is my overall qualitative analysis, the paper will lay the foundations for larger studies from the mass of ERA data being collected nationally. Most of all it will make another contribution to breaking down that final barrier for artists in academe by presenting evidence that the quality of their research resides in the product not the process. Key words: studio-research, concordance, defining research.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.format.extent13489711 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherACUADSen_US
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.acuads.com.au/conf2010/papers/woodrow_paper.pdfen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofconferencenameACUADS 2010 Annual Conferenceen_US
dc.relation.ispartofconferencetitleACUADS 2010 Annual Conferenceen_US
dc.relation.ispartofdatefrom2010-09-01en_US
dc.relation.ispartofdateto2010-09-03en_US
dc.relation.ispartoflocationLaunceston, Tasmaniaen_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchArt Theoryen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode190103en_US
dc.titleStudio Research 'Shrunk to this little measure?'en_US
dc.typeConference outputen_US
dc.type.descriptionE1 - Conference Publications (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeE - Conference Publicationsen_US
gro.facultyArts, Education & Law Group, Queensland College of Arten_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright remains with the author 2010. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. For information about this conference please refer to the conference's website or contact the author.en_AU
gro.date.issued2010
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Conference outputs
    Contains papers delivered by Griffith authors at national and international conferences.

Show simple item record