Negotiating a ‘Radically Ambiguous World’: Planning for the Future of Research at the Art and Design University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Theoretically and methodologically, understanding the role of research within art and design practices is a recurring theme within contemporary dialogue and debate. In the published literature, there are many questions around how categories and definitions of artistic research are employed within the increasingly under‐resourced realm of higher education. This article contributes to this larger discussion by building up our knowledge of a particular feature of this landscape: how research policy and planning documents at art and design universities represent and define artistic research. While examining research at the level of practice remains important, we must also understand the symbolic and practical weight that institutional directives carry. In light of recent literature on artistic research and the debates concerning its evaluation and institutionalisation, this article develops our contemporary understanding of the role of the art and design university as an important mediator of conflicting perspectives on the ‘value’ of art and design research. Based on a discourse analysis of research planning documents from Canada's three independent public art and design universities, this article will argue that it is not the definition of artistic research itself that is the most contentious feature of university research planning – it is defining the value of this research that invites conflict and concern.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.248 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.189 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.077 | 0.065 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".