- campus: a to z index
- map
- directory
- calendar
Research in the college of fine arts
Accepted as policy by the cfa executive committee
May 10, 2002 Goal of policyTo provide a clear definition of research within the College of Fine Arts for the purpose of developing research agendas and guiding evaluation. Objectives of policy To create a concise definition which can be applied to all CFA faculty housed in multiple disciplines with multiple research traditions.To create a definition which facilitates the development of specific evaluative criteria in the six CFA departments.To create a definition of research in the College of Fine Arts which acts as a constructive and guiding tool in the development of faculty research agendas. Description of research in the College of fine arts
Research in fine arts falls in two categories: Creative research and scholarly research. Each of these categories contains two components. Creative research can be categorized as interpretive or generative; scholarly research is either theoretical or applied. A descriptive outline follows:
Creative research
Interpretive creative work
–Performance processes: Recreating works of art and expanding knowledge about such works with reference to history, culture, theory, methods.
–Generative creative work
–Creation processes: Creating works of art with innovative and original methods and or content, with a commitment to research traditions in a discipline.
Scholarly research
Correlate research traditions
Theoretical research methodologies; for example:
–History, humanities (cultural history, social history, semiotics critical theory, etc.)
–Social and behavioral science (psychology, sociology, etc.)
–Science (biology, physiology, kinesiology, etc.)
Applied research methodologies; for example:
–Education
–Management/Administration
–Therapy
–Community/Action Research
Position
The six disciplines which comprise the CFA are composed of artists and scholars who reference a variety of aesthetic and investigative traditions in their research endeavors. Each investigator develops a research agenda within the context of his/her department, disciplinary tradition and appropriate methodological orientation.
The two most recognizable research profiles in the CFA may be the interpretive artist (performer) and the generative artist (the composer, playwright, film maker, painter, choreographer, etc.). These creative artists are responsible to the interpretive or generative standards of each art making/producing discipline. The CFA is organized using these artistic disciplines.
Within each department there are also artists and scholars whose research endeavors are in correlate areas, outside of the disciplines generative or interpretive activities. Within the CFA there may be individuals whose theoretical or applied research orientations are similar (for example, historians or educators) yet they may reside in different disciplinary departments (theater historian, art educator). Additionally, the generative or interpretive artist may engage in art making which is grounded in a tradition or method outside of his/her home discipline (for example, the choreographer who chooses to generate dance for film; or the musician who investigates pedagogical theory).
Each CFA faculty member is responsible to his/her department and its disciplinary tradition and standards of rigor, but he/she is also responsible to the epistemological orientation and methodological integrity of any correlate research paradigm utilized in the service of his/her research.
For example, the historians of art, dance, film, music, and theater in the CFA are all responsible for upholding the contemporary standards for academic scholarship in the humanities found at the U of U. Similarly, educators in the CFA are held to research standards normally encountered in the field of educational study. Additionally, the artist who chooses to work in a correlate artistic method is held to the standards of generative or interpretive art making in the correlate discipline.
Faculty who choose to work in more than one discipline must not be penalized for doing so. The difficulty of this methodological breadth must be respected. Becoming cognizant and capable in a new research tradition is, in itself, a significant research endeavor. Research outcomes used in performance assessment must give substantive weight to gaining multiple methodological competencies.
It is critical that faculty members articulate the place of their research within an aesthetic, investigative, or intellectual tradition and context. Within the University of Utah, a Research-One Institution, it is essential that each researcher present his/her process and product in a manner that is clear and comprehensible to those outside the discipline.
Accepted as policy by the cfa executive committee
May 10, 2002 Goal of policyTo provide a clear definition of research within the College of Fine Arts for the purpose of developing research agendas and guiding evaluation. Objectives of policy To create a concise definition which can be applied to all CFA faculty housed in multiple disciplines with multiple research traditions.To create a definition which facilitates the development of specific evaluative criteria in the six CFA departments.To create a definition of research in the College of Fine Arts which acts as a constructive and guiding tool in the development of faculty research agendas. Description of research in the College of fine arts
Research in fine arts falls in two categories: Creative research and scholarly research. Each of these categories contains two components. Creative research can be categorized as interpretive or generative; scholarly research is either theoretical or applied. A descriptive outline follows:
Creative research
Interpretive creative work
–Performance processes: Recreating works of art and expanding knowledge about such works with reference to history, culture, theory, methods.
–Generative creative work
–Creation processes: Creating works of art with innovative and original methods and or content, with a commitment to research traditions in a discipline.
Scholarly research
Correlate research traditions
Theoretical research methodologies; for example:
–History, humanities (cultural history, social history, semiotics critical theory, etc.)
–Social and behavioral science (psychology, sociology, etc.)
–Science (biology, physiology, kinesiology, etc.)
Applied research methodologies; for example:
–Education
–Management/Administration
–Therapy
–Community/Action Research
Position
The six disciplines which comprise the CFA are composed of artists and scholars who reference a variety of aesthetic and investigative traditions in their research endeavors. Each investigator develops a research agenda within the context of his/her department, disciplinary tradition and appropriate methodological orientation.
The two most recognizable research profiles in the CFA may be the interpretive artist (performer) and the generative artist (the composer, playwright, film maker, painter, choreographer, etc.). These creative artists are responsible to the interpretive or generative standards of each art making/producing discipline. The CFA is organized using these artistic disciplines.
Within each department there are also artists and scholars whose research endeavors are in correlate areas, outside of the disciplines generative or interpretive activities. Within the CFA there may be individuals whose theoretical or applied research orientations are similar (for example, historians or educators) yet they may reside in different disciplinary departments (theater historian, art educator). Additionally, the generative or interpretive artist may engage in art making which is grounded in a tradition or method outside of his/her home discipline (for example, the choreographer who chooses to generate dance for film; or the musician who investigates pedagogical theory).
Each CFA faculty member is responsible to his/her department and its disciplinary tradition and standards of rigor, but he/she is also responsible to the epistemological orientation and methodological integrity of any correlate research paradigm utilized in the service of his/her research.
For example, the historians of art, dance, film, music, and theater in the CFA are all responsible for upholding the contemporary standards for academic scholarship in the humanities found at the U of U. Similarly, educators in the CFA are held to research standards normally encountered in the field of educational study. Additionally, the artist who chooses to work in a correlate artistic method is held to the standards of generative or interpretive art making in the correlate discipline.
Faculty who choose to work in more than one discipline must not be penalized for doing so. The difficulty of this methodological breadth must be respected. Becoming cognizant and capable in a new research tradition is, in itself, a significant research endeavor. Research outcomes used in performance assessment must give substantive weight to gaining multiple methodological competencies.
It is critical that faculty members articulate the place of their research within an aesthetic, investigative, or intellectual tradition and context. Within the University of Utah, a Research-One Institution, it is essential that each researcher present his/her process and product in a manner that is clear and comprehensible to those outside the discipline.