Comments on: “Research and Creative Activity”

By: Jason Mittell

Jason Mittell — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:45:32 +0000

I guess I’d see work like “The Machine” and such videos as more research-driven than creative - it’s using the medium of video to express an argument. Personally I’d like to see definitions of scholarship expand to include video work, rather than placing research-driven videos under the rubric of creative work, as for most institutions, creative work is less valued than published research.

By: Clancy Ratliff

Clancy Ratliff — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:09:15 +0000

Obviously not just any web-based publication would count, but I stand by my original point and intent. What about something like The Machine Is Us/ing Us? Is that not an awfully creative video, even if it hasn’t won an award at a prestigious film festival? I think something like that may not be such a great fit for research, but it is certainly creative activity.

By: Jason Mittell

Jason Mittell — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:00:29 +0000

I’m skeptical of this angle. Within film/media studies, creative work for film/videomakers is typically judged within systems of peer review, such as festival appearances, awards, grants, exhibitions, etc. To call a web-based publication ‘creative work’ would seem to require similar systems of authentication, which are rare for online media (somehow I don’t think getting a Bloggie would count!).

By: herrerab

herrerab — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:17:16 +0000

I am aware of one recent-ish case in which an assistant professor of Acting/Directing in a Theatre Department at Large Square State University started a fairly sophisticated magazine style website about the profession and craft of acting. At the time of the 3 year review, the profs contract was not renewed. Though the buzz suggested that the contract termination was for mostly reasons of “fit” (aka personality conflicts/etc), the prof’s work on the website was determined to count neither as research nor creative activity. The rationale given was that the website didn’t count as research because the writing was not peer reviewed, and it didn’t count as creative output because the website did not advance the prof’s status as an actor/director in the field. It seems to me that the structure for assessing creative output at most institutions is as antiquated and conventionally hierarchical as scholarly publishing, if not more so.