Artists in academia

BY BEATA BATOROWICZ — provocations on traversing research and industry success within creative practice. The ‘tension’ between industry and academia, in addition to having diverse roles within the broader creative arts research ecology of development and contribution, also describes an interconnectedness: they both feed into each other in building notions of success.

As a textile-based artist working in a regional university, I like to conceptualise the broader relationship between academia and industry by using the metaphor of the artist as being the needle and the thread – binding disparate fibres, often creating a tension within the very act of binding them – creating a certain patchwork unique to their/our own vision.

In this metaphorical context I wonder whether the artist could also be the translator, mediator, the trainer across these different contexts of academia and industry? Perhaps the role of the artist is more expansive than what is currently being recognised – and could play more of role agency particularly within the ARC’s assessment and evaluation processes – and perhaps the national evaluation criteria could be more accommodating of this?

On the other side of the spectrum: is there too much responsibility placed on the artist as a conduit of these two contexts in the creative arts peer review process?

And is this too onerous a task – too prescriptive maybe – taking away artists from their primary aims?

These questions propose the difficulty of creative arts assessment and evaluation based on the ‘tension’ between industry and academia because of the different value systems as well as different measures of success – such as commercial viability vs academic merit. Both these landscapes have different aims and functions that form the broader cultural ecology of the creative arts which potentially ‘troubles’ the assessment and evaluation processes.

An integral layer of complexity among these different value systems is the various dimensions of creative arts research itself. This includes experiential facets – lived experience, informed intuitive processes – as integrated knowledges which are a source of richness in the work but are often only implied, not always well represented, translated or documented within creative arts evaluation and assessment.

The ‘tension’ between industry and academia, in addition to having diverse roles within the broader creative arts research ecology of development and contribution, also describes an interconnectedness: they both feed into each other in building notions of success.

We need to approach the very idea of tension not as binary notions of positive/negative outcomes but spectrums of intensities that can heighten, complement and even trigger understandings and successful outcomes.

Afterall, as artists we look for tension and create tension as a means of re-considering ideas of the everyday. As Dawn Mannay would say, ‘making the familiar strange’, which leads to our unique insights constituting experiences and research outcomes. Tension is what gives artwork strength and outcome resolution that respond to the NTRO criteria concerning original contribution and significance, where both academic merit and industry engagement are paramount.

There is another tension which is the tension between research rigour on one hand (innovation and significance) and research relevance on the other.

This brings us to industry contributions and engagement, and Provocation 1: could the contemporary artist be seen as the conduit that brings together different academic and industry contexts as they navigate them in developing and honing their agency? With this being said, the artist is also influenced by the broader socio-cultural ecologies surrounding their practice: we work on various creative projects and attempt to situate them in different contexts, often with competing interests.

Provocation 2: Training is undertaken on the interconnectivity between industry and academia and best practice approaches in this space to help navigate and enhance the broader creative arts ecology. The provision of feedback from such training can enable clarity and give weight to the further development of ARC assessment and evaluation processes within the creative arts. This suggestion moves beyond professional artist within academia to something more holistic, where exchange between the two are offered with an understanding of empowering and expanding the creative arts ecology not just nationally but internationally. 


Beata Batorowicz is Associate Professor (Sculpture, Visual Arts) and the Associate Head (Research and Research Training) at the University of Southern Queensland. She is a contemporary artist exhibiting nationally and internationally. Her key touring projects (Dark Rituals (2018-2019)) have secured Australia Council for the Arts funding. Beata has served on the Board of the DDCA since 2022.

More from this issue

More from this issue

BY SMILJANA GLISOVIC — On August 9, 2024 the DDCA held a National Forum to generate discussion on the shape of the future of creative practice research in Australia (and beyond). The particular focus of the event was on research evaluation and assessment, chosen because of the current reviews of ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia).
BY MIA LINDGREN — I asked AI to give me a list of words including the prefix ‘non’: non-profit, non-negotiable, non-essential and so on. The non prefix is used to indicate the opposite, absence or exclusion of the root words, meaning it signals a deviation from the standard, typical or expected.
BY JESSICA WILKINSON — In the ERA 2018 exercise I was invited to be an assessor for the Creative Writing field. Of the five universities assigned to me for assessment of submissions within this code, I encountered wildly different approaches to how each university collated the 'top 30%' of representative samples.
BY CRAIG BATTY — Do we agree on what we are looking for in research assessment in creative disciplines? As a DASSH survey in 2018 revealed, assessors (at least those surveyed) had mixed views about what was important – from theoretical contributions, to industry contributions, to hybrid contributions, and so on – the caveat ‘it depends’ came up strongly.
BY DAVID CROSS — Oh, to be world standard. To have reached the peak of global creative practice. To have left behind the parochialism of local concerns and made it in the places, contexts and ruthlessly competitive environments that truly matter.
Thank you to all that so generously and respectfully contributed to the conversation on the day of the National Online Forum, both ‘on mic’ and in ‘the chat’. The contributions in the below text are not assigned to individuals but rather the general threads and themes are summarised. For more nuance (and less unintended interpretive valence from me) I do encourage you to watch the recording of the forum here.
BY JULIA PRENDERGAST and JEN WEBB — Let us begin by introducing ourselves: we are Associate Professor Julia Prendergast, AAWP President/Chair, and Distinguished Professor Jen Webb, AAWP Treasurer – accepting the invitation to contribute on behalf of the Australasian Association of Writing Programs (AAWP), the peak academic body representing the discipline of creative writing (Australasia).
BY VERONIKA KELLY and CHARLES ROBB for ACUADS — The Australian Council of University Art and Design Schools (ACUADS) is the nation’s peak organisation representing the interests of art and design schools within Australian higher education. Here, ACUADS draws attention to issues surrounding the interpretation and positioning of ‘world standard’ in creative practice research.
BY SUSAN KERRIGAN for ASPERA — Australian Screen Production Education and Australian Screen Production Education and Research Association (ASPERA) has contributed greatly to the creation and assessment of Creative Practice Research (CPR) in Screen Production disciplines. This work began with the creation of the peak disciplinary body two decades ago, at that time only one person in the gathering held a PhD and was considered to be a legitimate researcher by the academy.
BY CHARLES ROBB — When news broke that Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) 2023 had been cancelled, a palpable wave of relief swept through Australian universities – no more laborious compilation of packages, impact statements, and ranking spreadsheets.
BY CAT HOPE — Despite an increasing number of artist scholars in the performing arts – those who have higher degree qualifications featuring the creative project/ exegesis model – are being employed in universities, it seems as if scholarly recognition for the so called ‘non traditional research output’ (NTRO) is in decline.
BY SMILJANA GLISOVIC and CRAIG BATTY — The discussion amongst colleagues at the DDCA National Forum on evaluation and assessment of creative practice research – where more than 100 from a range of disciplines were in attendance – was informed, considered and encouraging.
BY ANDREA RASSELL and JO POLLITT — In thinking about the development of a standardisation of assessment of creative research, we, as interdisciplinary artist scholars practising respectively in filmmaking/media and choreographic writing/dance/feminist environmental humanities, are constantly reforming our identities as researchers and artists.