UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY
PROGRAMME REVIEW
BACHELOR OF FINE ARTS,
BACHELOR OF FINE ARTS HONOURS,
MASTER OF FINE ARTS
Report prepared for
The College of Arts
And
The Academic Board, University of Canterbury
Panel: Emeritus Professor Peter Hempenstall (Convenor), University of Canterbury
Professor Eric Pawson, Department of Geography, University of Canterbury
Professor Jonathan Mane-Wheoki, Elam School of Fine Arts, University of Auckland
Associate Professor Lesley Duxbury, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Review Administrator: Erana Breitmeyer
22 October 2010
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
7
1.0 Terms of Reference
1.1 The Review Process
2.0The School of Fine Arts and its degree programmes
8
2.1 Strengths and Weaknesses
3.0 Programme Structure
10
3.1 Admissions processes
3.2 Duration of the BFA
3.3 Reform of the degree sequence and content
3.4 The role of Art History
3.5 The ‘Drawing through Research’ initiative
3.6 Postgraduate structure and content – BFA Honours, MFA
3.7 Postgraduate structure and content – Doctoral Studies
3.8 Curriculum Workshop
4.0 Delivery of Teaching and Learning
15
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Is the curriculum research-informed?
4.2.1 Staff research
4.2.2 Research in teaching
4.3 The cohesiveness of the BFA
4.4 Teaching and learning procedures and protocols
4.4.1 Assessment and progression
4.4.2 Teaching and Learning Agreements
4.4.3 On-line teaching
4.4.4 Postgraduate supervision
4.5 Graduate Profile
5.0 Physical and ICT Resources
21
6.0 School culture
22
6.1 School leadership
7.0 Other matters
23
7.1 Human resources
7.2 Adjunct appointments
7.3 Marketing the School of Fine Arts
7.4 Equity and diversity
8.0 Concluding remarks
25
9.0 Acknowledgments
26
2
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: The School of Fine Arts, with the assistance of the Dean of
Postgraduate Research, examine both regulations and expectations surrounding the
MFA and ensure they conform to CUAP and University guidelines.
Recommendation 2: The Director of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre work
with the School of Fine Arts to ensure the School’s admissions criteria and processes
comply with Treaty of Waitangi obligations and the University of Canterbury’s Pacifica
policies.
Recommendation 3: The Pro Vice Chancellor, College of Arts, in conjunction with the
Director of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre and the Dean of the Faculty of
Creative Arts, work with the School of Fine Arts to reshape the BFA from a 4 year Pass
and 5 year Honours degree to a 4 year Honours degree, in which all students receive a
class of Honours on completion of the degree.
Recommendation 4: In the process of reshaping of the BFA into a 4 year Honours
degree, the School of Fine Arts examine the whole structure of the four year
programme to ensure a redrawn foundational year is properly articulated with 200/300
level study so as to provide a platform for more rigorous, Honours level study in fourth
year.
Recommendation 5: The Pro Vice Chancellor, College of Arts and the Director of the
Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre bring Art History into discussions with the
School of Fine Arts in the reshaping of the BFA, to ensure a properly articulated and
consistently offered set of courses are included from the foundational year onwards.
Such discussions with Art History should include the possibility of importing formal
study of contemporary art theory into the BFA where appropriate.
Recommendation 6: The School of Fine Arts prepare for the Pro Vice Chancellor,
College of Arts and the Director of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre a
detailed academic proposal and business case for the new ‘Drawing through Research’
initiative, and investigate where and how it would fit within the restructured BFA, BFA
Honours and MFA.
Recommendation 7: (i) The Dean of the Faculty of Creative Arts work with the School
of Fine Arts to ensure the regulations pertaining to the present MFA clarify the nature
and limits of the degree.
(ii) The School of Fine Arts, in conjunction with the Dean of the
Faculty of Creative Arts, examine the curriculum content of the MFA and ensure that,
if a research oriented MFA is to be offered, a formal research-based, written component
is introduced as part of a two year postgraduate degree in line with University
regulations.
3
Recommendation 8: As part of the restructuring of the BFA degree programme, the
School of Fine Arts should work with both the Director of the Centre for Fine Arts,
Music and Theatre and the Dean of Postgraduate Research to investigate Doctoral
programmes in the Fine Arts at other institutions in New Zealand and offshore, and
consider carefully the resources necessary both at School and College level before any
decision is taken to introduce Doctoral level studies.
Recommendation 9: The Academic Development Group of the University assist the
School of Fine Arts to establish an ongoing Curriculum Workshop in which to examine
and process the recommendations of this review for referral to the Pro Vice Chancellor,
College of Arts and subsequent implementation.
Recommendation 10: The School of Fine Arts work with the appropriate College
authorities and the Assistant Vice Chancellor Research to articulate a research policy
that establishes a clear idea of the meaning of research in the Fine Arts environment,
identifies the research strengths of the School, and sets a realistic list of goals and
priorities for both individuals and the School.
Recommendation 11: With the assistance of the Academic Development Group and the
Curriculum Workshop, the School of Fine Arts define the methods in each studio by
which research is integrated with teaching, introduce a research methods component
into each level of study, and ensure formal assessment takes research ability and
outcomes into account.
Recommendation 12: With the assistance of the Academic Development Group and the
Curriculum Workshop, the School of Fine Arts staff work to produce a cohesive set of
teaching and learning requirements at all levels across all studios for the BFA and the
BFA Honours and produce a consolidated handbook for the degrees in which these
requirements, including expectations of learning outcomes and assessment criteria are
presented in a standardised format.
Recommendation 13: With the assistance of the Academic Development Group and the
Curriculum Workshop, the School of Fine Arts staff examine all aspects of the teaching
and learning protocols communicated to students and ensure that the BFA handbook
and course guides are re-written so that:
 assessment criteria across studios are clearly and consistently conveyed;
 progression and expected learning outcomes through the levels of the BFA are
clearly articulated;
 indicative grading is formalised in written form;
 the role of the student workbook is clearly defined;
 formal and informal mechanisms for feedback to students are laid down and
adhered to.
4
Recommendation 14: With the assistance of the Academic Development Group and the
Curriculum Workshop, the School of Fine Arts re-examine the Teaching and Learning
Agreement as a learning tool and make changes that will accord with previous
recommendations on the delivery of teaching and learning.
Recommendation 15: With the assistance of the Academic Development Group and the
Curriculum Workshop, the School of Fine Arts move to the active use of LEARN so as
to bring their teaching practices into line with modern University developments.
Recommendation 16: The Dean of Postgraduate Research ensure that the current
postgraduate supervision practices of the School of Fine Arts are in line with University
regulations and guidelines on postgraduate supervision, the training of supervisors and
external examination requirements.
Recommendation 17: The College of Arts urgently complete the health and safety audit
of the School of Fine Arts and attend to any major concerns. This should be followed by
the upgrading of Blocks 1 and 3 to bring them to the standard of Block 2 and provide
facilities that are competitive with the best Fine Arts schools in the country.
Recommendation 18: The PVC, College of Arts, address the need to invest in a new,
senior appointment for the School of Fine Arts to provide the academic and research
leadership necessary for the School to develop its degree programme and research
strategies in the next five years.
Recommendation 19: The College of Arts Human Resources division examine the terms
of contract and leave arrangements of members of academic and technical staff to
ensure they meet the needs of the School and the staffing policies of the University; steps
should be taken to ensure all staff, academic and technical, understand the terms under
which they are employed and are encouraged to seek redress where necessary.
Recommendation 20: With the assistance of the Director of the Centre for Fine Arts,
Music and Theatre and the Pro Vice Chancellor of the College of Arts, the School of
Fine Arts proactively seek Adjunct appointments who can assist in mentoring younger
staff and communicate relevant artistic practice from the wider community.
Recommendation 21: The PVC, College of Arts:
 contribute resources to assist the School of Fine Arts to assert its presence both
within University branding policy and further afield through exhibitions;
 encourage the senior management of the University to incorporate public art
installations drawn from the School of Fine Arts into the 20 year Campus Master
Plan.
Recommendation 22: The Director of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre take
steps in conjunction with senior staff of the School of Fine Arts to ensure that the
University’s equity and diversity policies are adhered to and realistic targets are set to
recruit appropriately qualified Maori and Pacifica staff.
5
Recommendation 23: With the assistance of the Director of the Centre for Fine Arts,
Music and Theatre, the School of Fine Arts take steps to establish more formal links
with the Macmillan Brown Artist in Residence programme as a means to address
aspects of the University equity and diversity policy, and as a tool for supporting its own
artistic educational mission.
LIST OF COMMENDATIONS
Commendation: The panel wishes to commend the commitment and energy which
academic and technical staff bring to the studio approach, the enviable staff/student
ratios employed and the strong sense of regional identity, all of which the students
interviewed see as the programme’s central strengths.
Commendation: The School of Fine Arts is commended for reforming its admissions
policy to bring its admissions application deadlines into alignment with other New
Zealand institutions.
Commendation: The School of Fine Arts is commended for seeking to develop a series
of research clusters based on cross-studio research and is urged to continue this process
in the light of Recommendation 10.
Commendation: The School of Fine Arts is to be commended for its response to external
moderation comments and re-examining assessment criteria so that they are consistent
across all studios.
Commendation: The School of Fine Arts is to be commended for moving towards a
genuinely independent system of external examination in accord with University
guidelines.
Commendation: The School of Fine Arts is to be commended on the principle of a
Teaching and Learning agreement that expresses the reciprocal obligations and tasks
undertaken at each level of student engagement.
Commendation: The review panel commends the work of the two programme
coordinators in organising the admissions processes, course choices and studio
arrangements and urges School staff to review workloads of staff across the board to
ensure consistency and balance.
6
1.0 Introduction
The current review is part of a five year cycle of Bachelors degree programmes within the
University of Canterbury mandated by CUAP. The suite of degrees currently under
inspection was last reviewed in 1997 as part of a review of the whole school. Since that time
an extensive restructuring of academic departments into Schools, Centres and Colleges has
occurred, a new resources framework has been put in place, and academic programmes have
themselves undergone revision. This is an opportunity to assess how the BFA, BFA Honours
and MFA are functioning within the changed contexts.
1.1 Terms of Reference
The panel worked to Terms of Reference generic to all programme reviews. These were to
review and report on the following:
1. Programme Structure, including admissions criteria, curriculum content, consistency
of programme objectives with College and University Strategic Planning documents
and Teaching and Learning Plans, portability of degrees, adequacy of quality
assurance mechanisms, special issues associated with this suite of degrees;
2. The Delivery of the Teaching and Learning Programme, including the ways in which
the curriculum is research-informed, the modes of delivery, assessment procedures,
standards of achievement, workload expectations, student support, teaching criteria
and innovation, research supervision, the relevance of the teaching programme to
students, professional bodies and other stakeholders, and the continued
appropriateness of the graduate profile;
3. Physical and ICT Resources available to the programme by way of space, studio
accommodation, equipment, library and information technology services.
Additional Terms of Reference were listed for the panel’s consideration in view of the special
features of the Canterbury Fine Arts degrees and the recent arrival of a new Pro Vice
Chancellor for the College of Arts, Professor Ed Adelson, whose advice to the panel about
strategic priorities was invaluable in directing its investigation.
The additional aspects required the panel to examine:

the length of the current BFA degree, which seemed out of step with CUAP
definitions and the offerings of competing schools of Fine Arts in New Zealand and
Australia;

the future structure of Canterbury Fine Arts’ first year course, FINT103 Drawing and
Methods, also known as the Intermediate Year.

the postgraduate degrees: whether the School of Fine Arts should move to a doctoral
programme and whether the subject designations currently given to the MFA (FILM,
PAIN, PHOT etc.) should be removed from its nomenclature;
7

several other issues germane to the degrees and School, including the role and
placement of Art History and Theory within the degree structures, support for student
learning, the incorporation of student feedback and aspects of the School’s culture.
The PVC, Professor Adelson, also made clear that the panel should not hesitate to make
resource recommendations where they were necessary within the Terms of Reference, though
it was equally clear that College-wide constraints on resources continued to apply.
1.2 The Review Process
The panel met during the difficult week beginning 13 September, a week after the earthquake
which closed the university and disrupted all teaching and research activity. The panel is
grateful to the College of Arts staff who resolved to continue with business as usual where
possible, and were impressed with the cooperation that both staff and students were able to
give the panel while recovering from the effects of the earthquake. Members of the panel
were mindful that one of their number, the sculptor Andrew Drummond, was a victim of the
damage caused by the earthquake and was not able to join them for the process.
The panel was provided in advance with a portfolio of documentation relating to the
academic requirements of the degrees, staff CVs, reports on student numbers, survey results
from teaching classes, assessment criteria and some examples of assessment work, teaching
and learning agreements, and recent reports from external moderators and examiners.
Regrettably, owing to the disruption of the earthquake, not all the information required for
benchmarking, about programmes elsewhere could be furnished. However two external panel
members were able to provide material from their own institutions (Elam and RMIT).
Members of the panel met over three full days of interviews and discussions with academic,
technical and general staff and students, with a fourth half-day devoted to drafting a summary
report and presenting it to both the PVC, College of Arts, and the academic and general staff
of the School of Fine Arts. Members inspected the physical facilities of the School and
attended an exhibition closing.
Since the review visit, the panel has composed and considered several draft reports and
consulted with authorities to eliminate errors of fact. This final report has been prepared for
submission to the Pro Vice Chancellor of the College of Arts, Professor Ed Adelson.
2.0 The School of Fine Arts and its degree programmes
The School of Fine Arts was established in 1882 as the Canterbury College School of Art.
Though not the first Art school in New Zealand it was the first to be drawn into the university
system, in 1927, and thus has the longest record of Fine Arts graduates in the country.
Throughout its history many of New Zealand’s leading artists with international reputations
have taught at the School or been taught there. Rita Angus was among the first cohort. Other
illustrious names associated with the School include Doris Lusk, Bill Sutton, Rudi Gopas,
Don Peebles, Peter Robinson, Shane Cotton, Seraphine Pick, Andrew Drummond and Julia
Morrison.
Fine Arts has had full status as a University of Canterbury department since 1950. In 1982,
the School’s centenary year, the Bachelor of Fine Arts degree was introduced, followed in
8
1990 by the BFA with Honours and Master of Fine Arts; and in 2008 the School, one of five
in the College, became part of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre within the
restructured College of Arts. In 2010 the School has 210 students (160 EFTS), 9 continuing
academic staff, 2 full-time and 2 part-time technical staff, and a School administrator.
Teaching is assisted by 15+ fixed term lecturers and tutors. There is one Adjunct Professor,
Jenny Harper, Director of the Christchurch Art Gallery.
The BFA is a four year degree, the central studio courses each recently adjusted from 81 to
90 points in value to meet the university’s common course size requirement. Sixty five
students (possibly to be increased to 70 in 2011) are selected from 100-180 applicants to
enter the 100 level FINT103, where, after experiencing a range of introductions to various
media, students choose one discipline on which to focus for the following three years. These
disciplines are taught in one of six studios: Film, Graphic design, Painting, Photography,
Printmaking and Sculpture. In the studios students are taught the skills and craft necessary to
the discipline in a time- and staff-intensive mode. Students must also study three Art History
courses at 100/200 level, plus five other non-studio courses drawn from the offerings across
Faculties during their degree.
The BFA Honours therefore requires a fifth year of study, comprising a discipline specific
studio project (75%) and a research paper (25%). The MFA is a one year100% project based
study and is the terminal degree in the programme.
The current BFA degree structure, and the quality of Canterbury graduates at both
undergraduate and postgraduate level have caused no problems of portability to other
universities. Indeed, the standard course size reform throughout the University has enhanced
its portability. The MFA is another matter. Elam School of Fine Arts at the University of
Auckland, for instance, will take Canterbury MFAs into their doctoral programme, though
only if the doctoral proposal has a clear thesis component and evidence of substantial
research in written form. RMIT in Australia however would not take Canterbury MFAs into
Doctoral studies unless there was clear evidence of at least one semester spent on a major
research project. Such differences raise questions over the content of the MFA, dealt with
later in this report.
2.1 Strengths and Weaknesses
The strength of the programme historically is evident in the quality of its graduates, many of
whom now teach and research in other Fine Arts programmes in New Zealand and abroad, or
are practising artists with national reputations in a variety of media. Canterbury has held onto
its focussed studio structure while other institutions have gone to a broader set of course
offerings, and this has certainly delivered a depth of training and an opportunity to work
closely with one or two artists/academics in discovering their own approaches to artistic
work. This has also allowed students to drive their own artistic interests further than would be
the case in many other institutions with three year programmes of broad papers in larger
classes.
The panel agree that the studio based approach is a demonstrable strength of the Canterbury
programme and a valuable point of difference from other programmes. It has added
significant value to the University’s educational and cultural activities both regionally and
nationally for nearly 100 years. In order to continue to do so, and to remain as a positive point
9
of difference, there are areas of this approach which the panel believes need attending to, and
which will be dealt with in this report.
Film has particular industry strengths in editing and deploys up-to-date technology. Sculpture
enjoys a young, research-focussed and proactive academic who works well with technical
staff and encourages flexible studio practice with students driving conversations across
studios in order to explore other mediums. Painting, in which the School historically made its
name, is still strong, with students taught both technique and the language of criticism.
Design is exploring a creative postgraduate programme based on a graphic design studio
alongside current MFA work, which focuses on publication as both field of enquiry and
output from enquiry. Photography has strong links to community art through its ‘Place in
Time’ project. Printmaking has been a traditional strength though this studio is demonstrating
some of the problems with the degree that this report will address.
Commendation: The panel wishes to commend the commitment and energy which
academic and technical staff bring to the studio approach, the enviable staff/student
ratios employed and the strong sense of regional identity, all of which the students
interviewed see as the programme’s central strengths.
The potential weaknesses of this system of delivery are identified in the Self-Review Report
provided to the panel by the School. Small discipline-based studios run with small class
numbers do not provide formal flexibility for students to cross studio boundaries They make
staffing inflexible and vulnerable to absences, and rely too much on individual personalities
for both teaching styles and research direction (Self-Review, p.6).
The panel concurs, and would add a further series of weaknesses identified during its
investigations. These include the structural disadvantage of a degree programme longer than
that of most competitors; a lack of clarity about the meaning and depth of research as part of
the teaching regime; defects in the articulation of teaching and learning processes; physical
and human resource issues of risk to the School, the College and the University; and the loss
of crucial academic leadership at a senior level. These matters will be addressed individually
under the appropriate heading during this report.
Several times during the review comment was made that the Ilam or Canterbury ‘brand’ by
which the School has been known nationally and internationally had eroded over the years.
Though still in the top four of all Fine Arts schools in New Zealand (and there are
approximately twenty-six programmes in fine arts and design in the tertiary sector) it was
suggested the School is living on its past glory and seems to lack the vision and strategic
direction it once possessed.
3.0 Programme Structure
As far as the panel can determine, the BFA degree does not fall outside CUAP guidelines in
terms of its duration, since CUAP sets minimum, not maximum guidelines. The same can be
said for the nature and duration of the BFA Honours. There is a question mark, however,
whether the MFA, with its 100% practice-based study, conforms to CUAP guidelines, which
require ‘demonstrable mastery of sophisticated theoretical subject matter’, as well as the
critical evaluation of discussions in the literature, and the ability to ‘engage in rigorous
10
intellectual analysis, criticism and problem-solving’ (NZVCC, CUAP Functions and
Procedures 2009-10).
The panel believes that, with the assistance of the Dean of Postgraduate Research, the School
needs to revisit its own regulations and expectations surrounding the MFA and bring them
into line with the spirit of the CUAP guidelines, so that the theoretical and analytical qualities
and the rigour mentioned above are manifest in both the process and examination of the
MFA.
Recommendation 1: The School of Fine Arts, with the assistance of the Dean of
Postgraduate Research, examine both regulations and expectations surrounding the
MFA and ensure they conform to CUAP and University guidelines.
3.1 Admissions processes
With respect to the BFA, admissions criteria and the process of selecting the best potential
students from the portfolio of material each student submits, seem fit for purpose, though
panel members question whether the potential of students to read and write critically is
sufficiently addressed in the process. We commend the School for bringing its application
timelines into alignment with those from other New Zealand Fine Arts institutions. However
the panel could find no evidence of a process for specifically assessing Maori and Pacific
Islander applicants under Treaty obligations and Pasifika policies of the University. This is
curious given the prominent Maori artists who have come out of the School, from Freda
Rankin and Buck Nin to Shane Cotton, Peter Robinson and many others. This is an area that
should be attended to immediately.
Recommendation 2: The Director of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre work
with the School of Fine Arts to ensure the School’s admissions criteria and processes
comply with Treaty of Waitangi obligations and the University of Canterbury’s Pasifika
policies.
Commendation: The School of Fine Arts is commended for reforming its admissions
policy to bring its admissions application deadlines into alignment with other New
Zealand institutions.
3.2 Duration of the BFA
The most significant structural issue for the BFA is the duration of its pass degree – four
years – followed by a fifth year for Honours. This is out of alignment with other Fine Arts
degrees in New Zealand and Australia, which typically offer either a four year degree, with
an Honours option in the fourth year for those with adequate capacities, or a three year pass
degree followed by a separate Honours year. The Canterbury structure causes problems for
students who wish to transfer into the Canterbury School’s postgraduate programme from
either a three year degree or four year degree with Honours. It may also be a disincentive for
international students aware of other course structures around New Zealand.
The panel believes that the School of Fine Arts should alter the structure of the BFA to bring
it into line with other national and international degree structures. This would make it more
11
competitive as a focussed studio-based degree and would offer a platform for an international
recruiting strategy in line with College of Arts goals.
The panel agrees that the three year pass degree followed by a fourth Honours year, as taught
in many Polytechnic institutions in New Zealand and also in Australia, does not suit the
structures and teaching pattern established at Canterbury over many decades. We also agree
that Elam’s four year degree with certain students streamed into an Honours fourth year
would not work in the Canterbury context.
The panel therefore recommends that the reshaped Canterbury BFA be a four year Honours
degree, with no exit for a pass degree after the third year, unless transferring to another
degree. Every student would be enrolled in the Honours year and receive a class of Honours
determined by examining staff in consultation with the School’s external examiner; such a
system would still allow students to be graded according to their varied levels of ability. The
School should examine the pattern of Canterbury Bachelors’ degrees in Social Work, Speech
and Language Therapy, and in Engineering as models for reshaping the current BFA. Later in
this report, the panel will be recommending the establishment of a Curriculum Workshop as
the instrument through which all recommended changes to the degrees should be detailed and
decided.
Recommendation 3: The Pro Vice Chancellor, College of Arts, in conjunction with the
Director of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre and the Dean of the Faculty of
Creative Arts, work with the School of Fine Arts to reshape the BFA from a 4 year Pass
and 5 year Honours degree to a 4 year Honours degree, in which all students receive a
class of Honours on completion of the degree.
3.3 Reform of the degree sequence and content
Such a change will require changes to the first year or ‘Intermediate’ course, and to the
content and structure of 200/300 level studio work, in order to ensure all candidates are
properly prepared for a rigorous fourth year level of study which includes appropriate
research training and outcomes.
The present foundational year (FINT103: Drawing and Methods) received strong
endorsement from students interviewed, though it was suggested to us by staff that it
suffered from some disjointedness, with little means of assessing how individual students
were developing an overall grasp of the various subject media.
Recommendation 4: In the process of reshaping of the BFA into a 4 year Honours
degree, the School of Fine Arts examine the whole structure of the four year
programme to ensure a redrawn foundational year is properly articulated with 200/300
level study so as to provide a platform for more rigorous, Honours level study in fourth
year.
3.4 The role of Art History
The inclusion of Art History at first year and beyond was uniformly considered a strength but
widespread concern was expressed that art theory, especially contemporary art theory, was no
12
longer taught. Students received no formal induction into the contemporary art world and
were reliant on the Art History programme to provide appropriate courses at various levels
every year, a task made difficult due to decreasing numbers of Art History staff and the needs
of study leave etc.
Though the School is already negotiating with Art History to secure consistent course
offerings, the panel believes that, in the context of a reshaped four year degree, there is room
to import more structured courses in contemporary art theory at both lower and higher levels
of study and encourages the School to move forward with negotiating more input from Art
History where possible. The Pro Vice Chancellor, Professor Adelson, believes that it would
be appropriate for the School at least to investigate a relocation of Art History back into the
School of Fine Arts.
Recommendation 5: The Pro Vice Chancellor, College of Arts and the Director of the
Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre bring Art History into discussions with the
School of Fine Arts in the reshaping of the BFA, to ensure a properly articulated and
consistently offered set of courses are included from the foundational year onwards.
Such discussions with Art History should include the possibility of importing formal
study of contemporary art theory into the BFA where appropriate.
3.5 The ‘Drawing through Research’ initiative
The panel was also presented with a new proposal within the degree, a studio based subject
called ‘Drawing through Research’ (Self-Review, pp.10-11). The proposal provides for a
cross-disciplinary studio which does not set projects relating to a discipline, and is available
to students who are unclear which discipline they wish to work in or are interested in artistic
practise that works across disciplines.
The School academic staff support this development as, besides being of value to students, it
would eliminate some of the definitional and practice problems at present associated with the
Printmaking studio. The panel noted some tension over the actual training in printmaking that
is carried out; staff qualifications and philosophy seem to be at odds.
The new development would also provide added flexibility in staffing if other staff were
involved. There are still uncertainties whether this would be a new, seventh studio (with
attendant resource issues) or a sub-area within the Printmaking studio but open across all
studios.
The panel supports the proposal in principle (though we find the title for this subject a little
curious: we would expect all courses to be research-informed, as will be discussed in more
detail later in this report). It has good, international precedents (for examples, see SelfReview, p.11), would help to provide cross-disciplinary training, and could contribute to the
development of postgraduate research and practice as well. However the School needs to
present a detailed academic proposal supported by a well-reasoned and realistic business case
before it proceeds to become reality.
Recommendation 6: The School of Fine Arts prepare for the Pro Vice Chancellor,
College of Arts and the Director of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre a
detailed academic proposal and business case for the new ‘Drawing through Research’
13
initiative, and investigate where and how it would fit within the restructured BFA, BFA
Honours and MFA.
3.6 Postgraduate structure and content – BFA Honours, MFA
Changes to the four year BFA will necessitate sequential changes to both the Honours
programme and the MFA. In particular reflective practices and research training need to be
accentuated at postgraduate level. The whole area of research-informed teaching and research
training particularly exercised the panel during its investigations and will be dealt with both
here and in the section on Teaching and Learning.
The panel was entirely uncertain about the reflective elements and the nature of the research
undertaken at postgraduate level, especially in the MFA, which can be a 100% practice-based
project. Compared to the MFA Creative Writing, which requires creative work, craft essays
and an oral examination, the MFA has no obligatory accompanying written work and we
could find no written definitions supporting the nature of the research done at this level.
The panel believes both the School and the University have a responsibility to correct this. If
the MFA is to provide a platform for entry to doctoral study, then an explicit and advanced
research component in the form of written work needs to be introduced as part of a two year
MFA, accompanied by the necessary attention to research design, supervision and
examination. The School should work with the Dean of its Faculty and possibly the
Academic Development Group to devise suitable content and form.
Recommendation 7: (i) The Dean of the Faculty of Creative Arts work with the School
of Fine Arts to ensure the regulations pertaining to the present MFA clarify the nature
and limits of the degree.
(ii) The School of Fine Arts, in conjunction with the Dean of the
Faculty of Creative Arts, examine the curriculum content of the MFA and ensure that,
if a research oriented MFA is to be offered, a formal research-based, written component
is introduced as part of a two year postgraduate degree in line with University
regulations.
3.7 Postgraduate structure and content – Doctoral Studies
The panel found mixed feelings among both staff and students, and arguments on both sides
concerning whether the degree programme in Fine Arts should extend to the Doctoral level.
We discussed examples of various Doctoral programmes, including both practice-led
Professional Doctorates and more formal academic PhDs.
Several staff expressed a desire to upgrade to Doctoral level studies and the panel believes
this is a necessary step up if the School of Fine Arts is to be competitive in a globalised
context where postgraduate studies are increasingly the entry point. Elam School of Fine
Arts, with 23 staff has one PhD in Fine Arts, 3 Professional Doctorates (DocFA) and 2 PhDs
in Art History and Education. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology has 19 PhDs among
its 46 Fine Arts staff. The Canterbury School of Fine Arts has no Doctorates among its 9
continuing and 15+ fixed-term staff.
14
This is clearly a problem for supervising aspirants to Doctoral level, although relocation of
Art History back into Fine Arts, or at least closer ties, would provide a number of PhD level
staff for supervision. Any move into Doctoral training would first require thorough
investigation of equivalent programmes in New Zealand and offshore, and careful
consideration of the resources necessary to support present staff in upgrading to Doctoral
level; Canterbury’s School of Music is introducing a DMA in 2011 with both practice and
research components which might serve as a model. Future recruitment policies of the School
should also target Doctoral level applicants.
The move to Doctoral study is not merely a matter of adding on a new level of the same kind
of practice. The School would also have to ensure that all University regulations and
guidelines concerning the nature of doctoral research, research design, supervision contracts,
progress reports and external examination were integrated with School practice. The task is
considerable and requires serious thinking through and a total commitment by all members of
the School, were it to proceed. It would also require a significant commitment from College
resources to assist the School of Fine Arts to achieve such an objective. The benefit would be
a new level of distinction and research quality for Fine Arts and College graduates.
Recommendation 8: As part of the restructuring of the BFA degree programme, the
School of Fine Arts should work with both the Director of the Centre for Fine Arts,
Music and Theatre and the Dean of Postgraduate Research to investigate Doctoral
programmes in the Fine Arts at other institutions in New Zealand and offshore, and
consider carefully the resources necessary both at School and College level before any
decision is taken to introduce Doctoral level studies.
3.8 Curriculum Workshop
The School of Fine Arts requires a mechanism or specialised forum in which to thoroughly
investigate and detail the recommended changes. It is the panel’s view that an ongoing
Curriculum Workshop, facilitated by the Academic Development Group of the University, is
the most focussed means of carrying the process forward. It would need to establish a definite
agenda, and employ strong facilitation by an expert, while at the same time providing ample
opportunity for staff to debate all the issues on the floor of the Workshop. All staff, academic,
technical and general should be invited to participate and the Workshop should limit itself to
a defined time-frame for processing recommendations through the appropriate authorities at
College and University level. Implementation of the changes could be in the hands of senior
staff within a small implementation committee.
Recommendation 9: The Academic Development Group of the University assist the
School of FineArts to establish an ongoing Curriculum Workshop in which to examine
and process the recommendations of this review for referral to the Pro Vice Chancellor,
College of Arts and subsequent implementation.
15
4.0 Delivery of Teaching and Learning
4.1 Introduction
Notwithstanding the suggested changes to the structure of the Fine Arts degree programme,
the panel wishes to reiterate its support for the studio-based approach to teaching, which is a
point of distinctiveness for the Canterbury suite of Fine Arts degrees amongst its competitors.
It is true that the intensive education of small groups within a specialised studio discipline
from 200 level onwards does tend to create a silo effect. But the students interviewed
(admittedly student year representatives) were unanimous about the benefits of this mode of
delivery and believed the silo effect was softened by informal links to other studios, other
mediums, which they were encouraged to exploit. Written survey material from current
students and graduates was slightly less enthusiastic, citing poor maintenance, insufficient
links to the professions outside the university and a sense of exclusiveness within the
university community as some of the problems of the School.
The panel concentrated its investigation of teaching and learning delivery on the researchteaching nexus; the cohesiveness of the entire curriculum; and the processes and protocols
relating to learning, assessment and examination.
4.2 Is the curriculum research-informed?
4.2.1 Staff research
The School Self-Review Report asserts that the School has successfully developed a ‘worldclass research centre in fine arts for academic staff and postgraduate students’. This is
needless hyperbole, the more so as the Self-Review Report goes on to admit that ‘the School
as a whole needs to consider its research strengths and priorities and to support and promote
these in order to attract high-profile staff and more postgraduate students’(Self-Review,
pp.6-7).
There is no doubt that staff of the School are engaged in their own individual art practices
and we commend the current attempt to build a research cluster around the ‘Place in Time’
project in Photography and the plan to create a postgraduate studio in Design. But the
research culture is varied and perhaps hard to share across studio boundaries; much of it,
especially in Film, is industry focussed. The panel found it hard to get a satisfactory
definition of research in the Fine Arts context: one staff member stated that his professional
process, which was open to students, was his research. Another saw the production of artistic
outputs as research. These clearly beg a number of questions about the nature of research in
relation to artistic practice in an international university context.
The panel was particularly disconcerted to discover confusion, indeed an air of defeatism
among several academic staff about preparations for the upcoming PBRF round. A degree of
mentoring is being carried out but staff feel the advice at the College level is of too generic a
kind and less relevant to the specific nature of Fine Arts outputs. One staff member confessed
to ‘carrying on as usual, not gearing up’ for the PBRF round. Others were unaware of
16
whether and how previous PBRF funding was returned to the School; several believed none
was returned at all, or that their efforts were counterproductive because they were allegedly
cross-subsidising other parts of the Centre.
It behoves the School as a whole, working with the appropriate College authorities and the
Assistant Vice Chancellor Research, to reconsider the state of the research agenda among
staff, understand the meaning and outputs of research in each studio medium and
communicate these forcefully to College research facilitators and funding committees. All
staff should read, as a matter of priority, the PBRF Quality Evaluation Guidelines 2012.
Appendix D contains material which the School might find useful in establishing its own
construction of Fine Arts research and articulating that as part of a School-based research
policy. The development of research clusters which draw on strengths across studio
boundaries and engage with national and international research conversations should continue
as a matter of priority.
Recommendation 10: The School of Fine Arts work with the appropriate College
authorities and the Assistant Vice Chancellor Research to articulate a research policy
that establishes a clear idea of the meaning of research in the Fine Arts environment,
identifies the research strengths of the School, and sets a realistic list of goals and
priorities for both individuals and the School.
Commendation: The School of Fine Arts is commended for seeking to develop a series
of research clusters based on cross-studio research and is urged to continue this process
in the light of the above recommendation.
4.2.2 Research in teaching
Questions to academic staff about the research-informed nature of their teaching and the
extent to which research methods were a part of the delivery at each level elicited a variety of
answers. The panel found the definition of research in the Self- Review report less than
informative about the nature and extent of the original enquiry being engaged in.
Photography staff talk to students about concepts and contexts and lead by example. The
Design academics emphasise reflection upon practice in the weekly critiques of studio work.
In Film students have to document the rationale in the development of their ideas, done in
dialogue with their teachers about film theory and practice; formal film theory however is not
taught. In Painting students receive ‘advice’ to ‘look up’ contexts of art history in which their
practice may be engaged and discuss these in their workbooks. Sculpture students produce
similar ‘holistic contextualization’s’ in their workbooks which become part of their
assessment.
A system of weekly critiques of work underway is embedded in each studio and student
workbooks are a requirement in some. The panel understands that the critiques normally take
the form of dialogue between students and teachers and among themselves with little formal
feedback in the form of written commentary. The panel discovered no evidence of the
teaching of formal research methods at any level, though Honours students are expected to
produce research-informed written work as a component of their degree. Nor was there
evidence presented of formal development and use of research questions, the assessment of
conceptualizations, abstract reasoning, or of engagement with theory, save what is entered in
workbooks and may or may not be formally assessed.
17
While the research-teaching nexus is at the core of the University’s educational practices, the
panel is concerned that, in the School of Fine Arts, it operates at a basic level in teaching
relations with students and is insufficiently integrated in a formal, assessable manner at the
various levels of training. The Curriculum Workshop is an opportunity for the staff to explore
the whole area of research-informed teaching and make explicit in communication and
assessment the means by which it is part of a Fine Arts student’s education.
Recommendation 11: With the assistance of the Academic Development Group and the
Curriculum Workshop, the School of Fine Arts define the methods in each studio by
which research is integrated with teaching, introduce a research methods component
into each level of study, and ensure formal assessment takes research ability and
outcomes into account.
4.3 The cohesiveness of the BFA
The specialised studio mode from 200 level onwards runs the risk that the learning outcomes
are too dependent on the approaches and personalities of individual studio teachers,
especially as there are no formal connections between the teaching and learning strategies
across studios. This can be accentuated if student attrition causes already small class numbers
to become even smaller.
The impression gained from this situation by the panel is of six separate degree programmes
in the six studios, with occasional, student-driven cross-over. The impression is strengthened
by the array of separate course guides across the studios, with no standardised format for
stating objectives of each studio, hours of teaching, availability of staff, assessment
procedures and criteria. The School needs to possess and to communicate a sense of the
cohesiveness of the BFA and the BFA Honours by coordinating the teaching and learning
requirements at all levels across all studios and presenting these in a consolidated whole-ofdegree handbook . Individual studio course outlines need to comply with and reflect the same
requirements.
Recommendation 12: With the assistance of the Academic Development Group and the
Curriculum Workshop, the School of Fine Arts staff work to produce a cohesive set of
teaching and learning requirements at all levels across all studios for the BFA and the
BFA Honours and produce a consolidated handbook for the degrees in which these
requirements, including expectations of learning outcomes and assessment criteria are
presented in a standardised format.
4.4 Teaching and learning procedures and protocols
4.4.1 Assessment and progression
The School has put in considerable work to redevelop consistent assessment criteria across all
studios, for which it is to be commended. It is imperative that these are reproduced in
uniform manner in all course guides.
18
Commendation: The School of Fine Arts is to be commended for its response to external
moderation comments and re-examining assessment criteria so that they are consistent
across all studios.
In interviews and examination of course guides, however, the panel uncovered a number of
other defects in teaching and learning procedures. The lack of concrete formative assessment
is of particular concern. Students are graded on a 100% scale at the end of the year; no
extenuating circumstances through aegrotats are therefore possible. ‘Indicative’ grades are
given at mid-year but these seem to operate in a very inconsistent and casual manner.
According to our interviews some teachers initiate the grading, in other cases students
themselves initiate them by request; they do not appear to be formalised in writing. The 2009
external moderator claimed only two studios that year gave mid-year grades. Painting staff
told the panel they do not give indicative grades at all, nor any written feedback to students. It
is also unclear what role the student workbooks play in both the indicative and final gradings.
These findings were backed up by the Assistant Vice Chancellor, Professor Richard Duke,
who chairs the Academic Appeals Committee. Professor Duke observed that proportionally
more appeals came from students in the School of Fine Arts than from any other academic
unit (according to the Dean most are from Painting and Design). Among the deficiencies in
due process Professor Duke pointed to lack of adherence to the protocols in course outlines;
student confusion and staff uncertainty about the status of student workbooks; random
communication of indicative grades and no control over feedback to students; and a general
lack of written communication, from critique sessions to grading.
The lack of adherence to university procedures and protocols by the School at large threatens
to harm its reputation and the standing of the degree. It is a matter of urgency that this aspect
of the teaching and learning process be addressed and corrected.
Recommendation 13: With the assistance of the Academic Development Group and the
Curriculum Workshop, the School of Fine Arts staff examine all aspects of the teaching
and learning protocols communicated to students and ensure that the BFA handbook
and course guides are re-written so that:
 assessment criteria across studios are clearly and consistently conveyed;
 progression and expected learning outcomes through the levels of the BFA are
clearly articulated;
 indicative grading is formalised in written form;
 the role of the student workbook is clearly defined;
 formal and informal mechanisms for feedback to students are laid down and
adhered to.
A survey of the distribution of grades 2006-10 at various levels suggested a degree of grade
inflation; the number and proportion of A to A+ grades was certainly high but the panel
acknowledges that the small numbers in studio classes, especially at 300 and 400 level can
account for that.
The panel was pleased to see that the School has moved from external moderation to
independent external examination at Honours level. We recognise that the small numbers of
staff and study leave provisions make the task of finding internal examiners at Masters level
difficult but there can be no compromise with the principle of independent external
19
examination and adherence to the University’s postgraduate examination regulations on this
issue.
Commendation: The School of Fine Arts is to be commended for moving towards a
genuinely independent system of external examination in accord with University
guidelines.
4.4.2 Teaching and Learning Agreements
One of the teaching tools that The School of Fine Arts employs is the ‘Teaching and Learning
Agreement’ (TLA) with each student as a means of documenting proposals for studio
projects. In theory this is an excellent contract that states the objectives of each piece of work
and requires reciprocal action by both parties to attain the stated goals.
In practice the TLA is itself the subject of some confusion. Rather than a contract between
two parties, it seems generally to be treated as a means by which the student can put on paper
a certain proposal, which is then worked through as part of assessment; the agreement is
adjusted in informal dialogue by teacher and student as the year progresses.
Design staff described the TLA as a ‘collective awareness’ of the expectations of the whole
class. Photography agreed it was ‘really a student proposal’ while Film saw it as a dynamic
‘proposal on the industry model’. Sculpture uses TLAs as a point of departure and
conversation in student learning and they are included in the final assessment. Painting does
not use them at all. Again, they are inconsistently applied in studio practice and there is no
attempt to insert a formal written set of obligations on the part of the teacher.
This is unfortunate for the principle is commendable and the TLA should be a valuable tool
in enhancing the cumulative teaching and learning experience. The panel believes the TLA
should be either retained as a more formal and genuinely reciprocal set of learning and
teaching obligations, or reformatted (and retitled) as a student proposal subject to written
critique at stages of learning at each level. Whichever decision is made, it should be adopted
across all studios and made part of formal feedback for both mid-year and end of year
assessment.
Recommendation 14: With the assistance of the Academic Development Group and the
Curriculum Workshop, the School of Fine Arts re-examine the Teaching and Learning
Agreement as a learning tool and make changes that will accord with previous
recommendations on the delivery of teaching and learning.
Commendation: The School of Fine Arts is to be commended on the principle of a
Teaching and Learning agreement that expresses the reciprocal obligations and tasks
undertaken at each level of student engagement.
4.4.3 On-line teaching
The Assistant Vice Chancellor, Academic, commented that The School of Fine Arts makes
very little use of on-line teaching. The panel was not in a position to probe this aspect further
but we would urge the School of Fine Arts to ensure that its on-line presence is up to date and
20
to use the Curriculum Workshop to address the question of innovative on-line teaching and
artistic practice. Course descriptions, requirements and agreements should be posted on
LEARN, and procedures for resolving difficulties and disputes made clear in the same
medium. The use of online forums etc. should be explored in order to provide students the
opportunity to debate teaching and learning issues both within and between studios.
Recommendation 15: With the assistance of the Academic Development Group and the
Curriculum Workshop, the School of Fine Arts move to the active use of LEARN so as
to bring their teaching practices into line with modern University developments.
4.4.4 Postgraduate supervision
At MFA level there is a question mark over the nature and quality of research in a 100%
practice based project (see Programme Structure). If the School of Fine Arts decides that the
MFA is a research degree then staff must decide how to define the new knowledge that
candidates will be expected to seek, and how to supervise such work with the range of
qualifications presently possessed by staff. Recruitment of suitably qualified staff and
upgrading to Doctoral studies will help to solve this latter problem.
The panel got no sense of the nature and quality of supervision provided for candidates of the
current MFA. It is imperative that the School review the entire area of postgraduate study and
supervision to ensure they are in line with University regulations and guidelines. The Dean of
Postgraduate Research would be an appropriate consultant and should be brought in to assist.
Recommendation 16: The Dean of Postgraduate Research ensure that the current
postgraduate supervision practices of the School of Fine Arts are in line with University
regulations and guidelines on postgraduate supervision, the training of supervisors and
external examination requirements.
4.5 Graduate Profile
The current text of the graduate profile is a comprehensive and informative document,
appropriate to the goals and structure of the present suite of degrees. The reference to
education in the ‘theory of contemporary art’ may be slightly wide of the mark, but the
previous recommendations of this review if carried out should adequately fulfil that
aspiration.
5.0 Physical and ICT Resources
Even allowing for the physical effects on the facilities of years of creative industry by staff
and students, the panel found the studios and other work spaces tired-looking and dingy.
However, most staff and students seemed content with their studios. Film and Photography
seemed particularly well equipped and the construction/sculpture workshop is well appointed
with a dedicated and energetic technician in charge.
However we did become aware of a number of areas of risk that will require careful
management by the School and the University. The School is housed in three inter-connected
21
blocks. Block 2 has enjoyed a sympathetic physical upgrade but the panel found Blocks 1 and
3 in a state of some disarray. Some health and safety concerns did not seem attributable to the
earthquake, such as amounts of rubbish piled in darkened corridors and around the edges of
studios. The panel was alarmed that, though the 1997 Review Report had already commented
upon it, the Printmaking studio still seemed especially open to potential dangers from
machinery and the use of chemicals. The panel understands that the School is currently
undergoing a health and safety audit and we would urge this to be speedily completed and
matters identified attended to. We strongly support the planned upgrade of Blocks 1 and 3,
including the provision of an outdoor covered area in the yard, to bring them up to the
standard of Block 2.
Recommendation 17: The College of Arts urgently complete the health and safety audit
of the School of Fine Arts and attend to any major concerns. This should be followed by
the upgrading of Blocks 1 and 3 to bring them to the standard of Block 2 and provide
facilities that are competitive with the best Fine Arts schools in the country.
The School’s dedicated ICT staff member was comfortable with the level of services
provided. There is evidence of a cooperative relationship with ICT Services campus wide.
6.0 School culture
6.1 School leadership
The School’s Self-Review Report points out the partial effect of the rupture from Art History
and Theory. There has been a significant reduction of academic staff in Art History and the
loss of a senior, Head of School position in Fine Arts. This has meant no internal academics
able to co-supervise Honours written projects, the lack of adequately qualified personnel for
research supervision at MFA or doctoral level (if the School were to go to this level) and a
gap in Professorial academic leadership for the School of Fine Arts within the University and
the national Fine Arts community of scholars. The ramifications down the line include
insufficient staff to control studio work, to mentor younger staff with respect to their research
and teaching aspirations, let alone their workloads, and to provide support for exhibitions,
tours and funding grant applications.
Interviewees were unanimous about the deficit in senior academic leadership within the
School itself. ‘Rudderless’ was how one member of staff described the situation. Another
argued that the ‘cultural deportment of the School had unravelled’ since the loss of the
previous Professor and the School was basically in a ‘holding pattern’. The technical staff
made it clear in interviews that they also recognise the confusion and miss a Head of the Fine
Arts enterprise who can give them a lead.
This is not just special pleading. The School of Fine Arts at Canterbury is a small unit by
national and international standards and although two Associate Professors are in place, the
panel did not sense that this makes any difference to the School-level leadership required.
The School’s staffing problems are compounded by the focussed studio approach and the
spatial separation of the Blocks in the school. In addition there is a confusion of leadership
roles between the Director of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre, who is manager of
three Schools, the Dean of the Faculty of Creative Arts, who is also a teaching member of
Fine Arts, and the undergraduate and postgraduate Programme Coordinators within the
22
School of Fine Arts, whose authority seems quite limited in day to day activities. It is difficult
to see who can lead the strategic process to make things happen for Fine Arts.
Interestingly, the Review Report of 1997 commented on a level of disunity in the School of
Fine Arts, with no clearly articulated vision and an apparent slowness in responding to new
developments (1997 Report, pp.4-5). The panel of 2010 felt some of the same conditions still
applied.
The panel can see no alternative to a new, senior presence within the School to provide the
academic and research leadership specific to Fine Arts and to assist the School to develop a
research-informed culture around teaching and PBRF outputs. The panel recognises a need
for collegial direction of human resources and mentoring of younger academic staff in order
to bring consistency and balance to teaching loads, teaching practices, professional
development and research direction for the School.
We commend the work that the two programme coordinators are doing but our observations
lead us to the conclusion that they need more support from senior colleagues within the
School. In a small School such as Fine Arts, taking a rest from the tasks of coordination,
mentoring and teaching across the levels is no more an option than it is in larger departments,
and there has to be a general, collegial working together to produce good educational
outcomes from the resources available. We consider that there is spare capacity among senior
staff which would help alleviate the problem; only an internal or College review of job
descriptions and workloads can settle how to resolve this. But in the panel’s view the present
resources do not adequately meet the needs of a School whose national and international
reputation requires new research-informed leadership to help contend with strong competition
from better staffed Fine Arts programmes at Auckland and Massey (Wellington) universities.
Recommendation 18: The PVC, College of Arts, address the need to invest in a new,
senior appointment for the School of Fine Arts to provide the academic and research
leadership necessary for the School to develop its degree programme and research
strategies in the next five years.
Commendation: The review panel commends the work of the two programme
coordinators in organising the admissions processes, course choices and studio
arrangements and urges the School to adhere to the College of Arts workload formula
to ensure consistency and balance of workloads across all staff.
7.0 Other matters
7.1 Human resources
The panel heard of staffing issues which may require attention by the PVC and the Human
Resources section of the College. We understand that a continuing arrangement for an
academic staff member in Photography to reduce from 1.0 to 0.5 position with teaching in
one semester has meant a fixed-term lecturer to replace this staff member has been on fixed
contracts for some years. The School is soon to acquire a continuing Lecturer in Photography
at 0.5 position as a replacement. The College should ensure that the employment situation of
the current fixed-term lecturer is properly assessed in the process.
Some technical staff also have unresolved issues with the banding policies of the College of
Arts. They are not clear how their professional development is being properly considered
23
under this system, nor how to undertake a successful re-evaluation exercise. This also
requires the attention of Human Resources staff in order that technical staff are better
informed and assisted about how to progress both along and between the bands in the job
description system.
Recommendation 19: The College of Arts Human Resources division examine the terms
of contract and leave arrangements of members of academic and technical staff to
ensure they meet the needs of the School and the staffing policies of the University; steps
should be taken to ensure all staff, academic and technical, understand the terms under
which they are employed and are encouraged to seek redress where necessary.
7.2 Adjunct appointments
In light of the staffing and guidance needs of the School, the policy around Adjunct
appointments requires fresh attention. Only one adjunct appointment seems current – the
Director of the Christchurch Art Gallery. Adjuncts may provide some of the mentoring and
educational mission in a small School like Fine Arts, as well as potentially contribute to
PBRF outputs under appropriate contract conditions. The School should be alert to the wide
network of illustrious alumni that exists as potential support.
Recommendation 20: With the assistance of the Director of the Centre for Fine Arts,
Music and Theatre and the Pro Vice Chancellor of the College of Arts, the School of
Fine Arts proactively seek Adjunct appointments who can assist in mentoring younger
staff and communicate relevant artistic practice from the wider community.
7.3 Marketing the School of Fine Arts
This raised for the panel the associated issue of marketing the School of Fine Arts. It is the
panel’s belief that the School, given its major role in educating Design graduates, should be
given a more active role in expressing its own ‘brand’ within the overall communications
policy of the University; this is also an area where the School could take more initiative with
its online presence. As a Fine Arts School, exposure to the wider community in New Zealand
and Australasia is a prime strategy for both recruitment and reputation.
We commend the School’s liaison with Elam School of Fine Art which delivered the
exhibition of advanced student work which was on display while the review met. The panel
believes it would be profitable for the College of Arts to find the reasonably small resources
necessary to continue the good work of exhibiting the artistic product of the School both in
the regional community and further afield, such as Auckland.
It would also be entirely appropriate and useful to both School and University for the 20 year
Master Plan of the University, currently undergoing comment, to include a strong element of
public art which could be partly sourced from the School of Fine Arts, thus showcasing the
talents of staff and students and enlivening the Plan.
Recommendation 21: The PVC, College of Arts:
 contribute resources to assist the School of Fine Arts to assert its presence both
within University branding policy and further afield through exhibitions;
24

encourage the senior management of the University to incorporate public art
installations drawn from the School of Fine Arts into the 20 year Campus Master
Plan.
7.4 Equity and diversity
The panel did not get any sense of an explicit equity and diversity strategy to target
appointment policies that would even up the gender balance of the School, nor overcome the
predominance of Canterbury graduates among the teaching staff. Nor were there any signs of
formal targets to meet University policies regarding student and staff recruitment from Maori
and Pasifika communities. This is an area that requires the attention of both the Director of
the Centre and the senior staff of the School of Fine Arts, in consultation with both College
and University Equity and Diversity committees and Maori and Pacific support services.
Recommendation 22: The Director of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre take
steps in conjunction with senior staff of the School of Fine Arts to ensure that the
University’s equity and diversity policies are adhered to and realistic targets are set to
recruit appropriately qualified Maori and Pasifika staff.
The 1997 Review Report remarked upon the apparent lack of cultural diversity in studio
practice and recommended that the School provide practical contexts in the area of
interactions among Maori, Pacific and European art practices as part of its educational
mission (1997 Report, pp.8-9) The 2010 panel did not find any evidence that this
recommendation had been satisfactorily attended to. This was a particular surprise given that
the nationally renowned Pacific Artist in Residence programme, run under the auspices of the
Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, operates literally across the road. Though
occasional links have been established over the life of the programme with incoming Pasifika
artists in various mediums, no formal connection with this programme seems to exist. This
should be rectified to help overcome the impression of the School in the rest of the University
as a ‘closed shop’.
Recommendation 23: With the assistance of the Director of the Centre for Fine Arts,
Music and Theatre, the School of Fine Arts take steps to establish more formal links
with the Macmillan Brown Artist in Residence programme as a means to address
aspects of the University equity and diversity policy, and as a tool for supporting its own
artistic educational mission.
8.0 Concluding remarks
The BFA degree programme and its postgraduate extensions are a distinctive suite of degrees
within the context of such degrees in New Zealand and elsewhere. This is because of the
specialised studio approach for students after the foundational year, which comes with small
classes, exceptional staff:student ratios, and individual attention which allows for the
flowering of individual artistic potential.
It has its problems, as we have reported. But with attention to the various issues the panel has
identified we believe the School of Fine Arts has a vibrant role to play both within the
College of Arts and the wider university communities. If Ilam/Canterbury School of Fine
Arts is to regain its stature and leading role within national and international conversations
among Fine Arts researchers, then it will require both some leadership decisions by the
College of Arts and buy-in by the staff of the School. The School already contains creative
25
and energetic staff who, working together, can make the School’s points of difference align
very nicely with the University’s stated aim of ‘making a difference’. Staff need to prosecute
a clearly articulated reflective practice in the best traditions of the history and theory of art,
and create a realistic view of where they want the School to be in the next 5-10 years.
9.0 Acknowledgments
In completing this review the panel was assisted by many significant contributions within
both the School of Fine Arts and the College of Arts.
We thank members of the School of Fine Arts for providing a Self-Review Report which was
both candid and comprehensive. The Review could not have been undertaken without the
attention to detail in this Report.
We are very grateful to the College Academic Manager, Liz Bond, in preparing the portfolio
of documentation we received. The earthquake interrupted the process of preparation very
significantly but Liz and the College staff cheerfully fulfilled every new request the panel
made when we arrived on their doorstep in the middle of their clean-up.
We thank Professor Jarg Pettinga, Acting Pro Vice Chancellor of the College of Arts, who set
the review in motion and gave the initial riding orders. The new Pro Vice Chancellor,
Professor Ed Adelson, sharpened our sense of what we were about in several frank and
informative sessions during the review. We thank him for his courtesy and the hospitality of
the College.
The Director of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre, Dr. Amanda Morris and the
Dean of the Faculty of Creative Arts, Associate Professor Cathryn Shine were particularly
helpful and accommodating of our enquiries. We thank them and all the staff of the School of
Fine Arts who were enthusiastic and candid in answers to our questions. The students we met
were likewise admiring and very positive about their degree programme.
The external members of the review panel are especially grateful to our internal colleague,
Professor Eric Pawson, who made himself available for the whole review in the midst of
dealing with his department’s recovery from the earthquake and the preparations for a new
teaching term.
Our thanks go finally to Erana Breitmeyer, our administrator who organised things around us
efficiently, helped keep us on track and took extensive notes from which this draft was
produced.
26
Appendix A:
School of Fine Arts Staff List
Continuing academics:
Aaron Beehre, Lecturer (Graphic Design)
Roger Boyce, Senior Lecturer (Painting)
Glenn Busch, Senior Lecturer (Photography)
John Chrisstofels, Senior Lecturer (Film)
Bill de Friez, Senior Lecturer (Film)
Robin neate, Lecturer (Painting)
Simon Ogden, Associate Professor (Printmaking)
Louise Palmer, Lecturer (Sculpture)
Cathryn Shine, Associate Professor (Printmaking/Photography)
1.0 position
1.0 position
0.5 position
1.0 position
1.0 position
1.0 position
1.0 position
1.0 position
1.0 position
Fixed term lecturers/tutors in 2010:
Charlotte Burgess, (Graphic Design) teaching FINT
Jillian Cassidy, Co-supervisor (BFA Honours research papers)
Tony de Lautour, Lecturer (Painting), replacing Roger Boyce on study leave
teaching PAIN 301
Tjalling de Vries, lecturer (Painting and Printmaking) replacing Roger Boyce
on leave & Cathryn Shine as Dean teaching FINT Painting Semester 1 and
FINT Print Sem 1 & 2
Sam Eng, Lecturer (Sculpture) replacing Louise Palmer on study leave
teaching SCUL301/401
Matt Galloway, Lecturer (Graphic Design) teaching FINT
Andre Hemer, Lecturer (Printmaking), workload relief
Melinda Johnston, Co-supervisor (1 x MFA Printmaking student)
Melinda Johnston, part-time SOFA Gallery manager
Sam Ludeman, Lecturer (Photography) replacing Cathryn Shine as Dean
teaching FINT & PHOTO 301
Julia Morison, Supervisor (1 x MFA Graphic Design student)
Sarah Jane Parton, Lecturer (Graphic Design) Teaching DESI201, 301, 401 2
week project
Bronwyn Taylor, Senior Lecturer (Sculpture) Teaching FINT SCUL &
SCUL201
Tim Veling, Lecturer (Photography) replacing Glenn Busch Semester 2 &
cover for Cathryn Shine as Dean Semester 1
Luke Wood, Lecturer (Graphic Design) Teaching DESI401 semester 1 &
FINT & DESI401 semester 2
Adjunct Professors:
Jenny Harper, Director of the Christchurch Art Gallery
Technical and General Staff:
Jan Saville, School Administrator
Chris Kitson, Technician (exhibitions/printmaking/general)
Gaby Montejo, Technician (workshop)
Matthew Roland, Technician (computers/digital support)
Dave Covich, Technician (digital video & film)
27
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
Semester 1
Whole year
Semester 1
Semesters 1 & 2
Semester 1
Semester 1
Semester 1
Whole year
Semester 2
Semester 1
Semesters 1 & 2
Semesters 1 & 2
Semesters 1 & 2
Recent External Moderators:
Postgraduate work submitted in March 2009:
Mattys Gerber (Sydney College of the Arts)
Undergraduate work submitted in November 2009:
Richard Fahey (Auckland University of Technology)
Postgraduate & undergraduate work submitted in 2006 – 2008:
Matthys Gerber (Sydney College of the Arts)
Postgraduate & undergraduate work in 2002 – 2005
Bernhard Sachs (University of Melbourne)
Recent External Examiners:
Postgraduate work in November 2009:
David Cross (Massey University)
Judy Darragh (external artist)
Neil Dawson (external artist)
Andrew Drummond (external artist)
Tony de Lautour (external artist)
Alex Monteith (Elam School of Fine Arts, Auckland University)
Michael Morley (Otago Polytechnic)
Postgraduate work submitted in March 2010:
Helen Calder (external artist)
Sean Kerr (Elam School of Fine Arts, Auckland University)
Lisa Reihana (external artist)
Re-examination of undergraduate work appealed in 2009 & 2010:
Jeremy Diggle (Massey University)
28
Appendix B:
School of Fine Arts Self-Review Report
Review from the School of Fine Arts 2010
Contents
Pages
1.
2.
Management structure
Degree structure
a. Graduate profile
b. BFA structure 2011
c. Current selection process
i. Limitation of entry
ii. Selection process
iii. Entry under regulation 4 to Graphic Design & Film
3. Current acceptability
4. Success in achieving objectives
5. Relevance to or coherence with strategic plans
a. the University of Canterbury
b. the College of Arts
c. the Centre for Fine Arts Music and Theatre
6. Discussion about/plans for future modifications
a. Undergraduate degree structure discussion
i. Duration
ii. Studio structure
iii. Interdisciplinary teaching and learning
iv. Printmaking
v. Drawing through research
b. FINT: 100 level structure discussion
c. Non-studio component of the BFA discussion
i. Contemporary art
ii. Art history
d. Postgraduate degree discussion
i. Growth of postgraduate student numbers
ii. Graphic design publication studio
iii. Naming of the BFA (Hons) and MFA
iv. Consideration of doctoral degrees
e. Teaching and learning
i. Student supervision (teaching & learning contracts)
ii. Student feedback
f. Assessment processes
7. Relationships to significant research in the programme
a. Current
b. Future directions
8. Current constraints on the programme
9. Resources needed to overcome these constraints
a. Staffing
b. Facilities
c. Support for student learning
10. Special issues
a. Exhibition opportunities
b. Publication opportunities
c. Professional connections
d. Health and safety
i. Workshops/studios
ii. Field trips/off-site activities
11. Appendices:
a. Appendix A Fine Arts studio EFTS
b. Appendix B Fine Arts postgraduate growth
29
2
3
5
6
8
9
16
17
17
18
22
1. Management structure
The School of Fine Arts
The School of Fine Arts is a programme, situated within the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and
Theatre, one of five schools in the College of Arts at the University of Canterbury in
Christchurch, New Zealand.
The Pro Vice Chancellor, Professor Ed Adelson heads the College of Arts.
The Director, Dr Amanda Morris, heads the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre.
Academic issues are the responsibility of Associate Professor, Cathryn Shine, the Dean of the
Faculty of Creative Arts, which comprises music, fine arts and creative writing.
The Programme Coordinator for Fine Arts is John Chrisstoffels.
The Postgraduate Coordinator for Fine Arts is Louise Palmer.
In 2010 the School of Fine Arts has approximately:
 210 students or 160 EFTS
 9 continuing full-time academic staff
 assisted by fixed-term teaching staff
 2 full-time technical staff and 2 part-time technical staff
 1 school administrator.
A list of current staff is available.
In 2011 the continuing full-time academic staff will increase to 10 and the forecast for student
enrolment is 178 EFTS. See Appendix A showing Fine Arts studio EFTS.
The Centre for Fine Arts, Music & Theatre
The Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre includes the School of Fine Arts, the School of
Music and the Theatre and Film Studies programme. The three schools/programmes have
separate facilities (although Theatre & Film Studies have staff and postgraduate offices situated in
the School of Fine Arts complex since 2010). While Programme Coordinators from Fine Arts,
Music and Theatre meet with the Director to discuss administrative and financial plans and issues
across the Centre, the day-to-day management of the School of Fine Arts is undertaken through
regular staff meetings, which take place on Tuesday afternoons in term-time. These meetings
normally focus on studio teaching, FINT teaching, postgraduate issues and exhibitions
programming. The Centre has a research committee and a postgraduate committee, which work
with the Director to advise and implement plans. The College of Arts supports a biennial festival,
the Platform Arts Festival, which presents staff and student work, much of which is from the
Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre.
The College of Arts has a new Pro Vice Chancellor, who has recently taken up the position
(following a period of about 10 months with an Acting PVC). The Centre for Fine Arts, Music
and Theatre (including the School of Fine Arts) will work closely with the new PVC to develop
strategic directions and plans, in particular in relation to postgraduate growth, research/exhibition
support and the ability of the Centre to profile the creative arts and connect to the community
locally, nationally and internationally.
30
2. Degree structure
a. Fine Arts Graduate profile
The Bachelor of Fine Arts at the University of Canterbury (UC) aims to provide an education in both
the practice and theory of contemporary art, which enables students to develop their capacity for
creative and critical thought.
Students enhance their abilities for creative expression in a variety of fine arts disciplines, including
the ability to:
– research and experiment in a chosen field of fine arts
– analyse outcomes with clarity of purpose
– explore, synthesise and convey that purpose through:
 an understanding of ideas and context
 appropriate processes and procedures
 presentation strategies
– innovate by realising new possibilities, combinations, variations, themes or
strategies associated with the chosen field of fine arts practice.
The Fine Arts degree at UC includes courses taken outside Fine Arts from other undergraduate
degree courses, providing students with a broader liberal arts education. Above all, a fine arts
education encourages students to be self-reflective about and responsive to the world in which they
live.
Studying for a Fine Arts degree at UC:
- develops students’ creative expression and critical thinking
- provides a foundation in the breadth of fine arts disciplines
- provides students with in-depth discipline-based knowledge
- encourages students to develop their own individual art practice, through an
engagement with the creative process, involving research, experimentation,
analysis, exploration, synthesis, innovation and presentation
- fosters students’ personal values, particularly their enjoyment in the acquisition
of knowledge, their capacity to understand the opinions and views of others
including those with whom they disagree, and their capacity to value and
exercise intellectual and artistic independence.
The degree is structured so that these competencies are acquired through:
- a first year introduction to a breadth of fine arts disciplines
- three compulsory Art History and Theory courses
- five courses selected from the BA schedule
- 3 years of practical studio work in one chosen fine arts discipline.
Graduates who have completed a Fine Arts degree at UC are prepared for employment in a variety
of arts areas, as well as for further and higher education. UC Fine Arts graduates are well-positioned
to pursue careers or undertake further specialist training:
- as emerging artists in New Zealand
- as educators in the field of visual arts
- as designers, photographers, film-makers, creative directors, illustrators,
animators, exhibition curators, gallery directors and arts managers in various
professional capacities.
b. BFA structure 2011
31
This year the BFA structure was adapted to meet the requirements for common course sizes. The
major change was to increase points for studio courses from 81 to 90 points. The following diagram
indicates the BFA degree structure, which will be in place from 2011.
BFA
100 level: FINT (90 pts)
200 level: Fine Arts Studio (90 pts)
300 level: Fine Arts Studio (90 pts)
400 level: Fine Arts Studio (90 pts)
Total credits: 480 pts
4 years
Art history (15 pts)
Art history (15 pts)
Other course (15 pts)
Other course (15 pts)
Art history (15 pts)
Other course (15 pts)
Other course (15 pts)
Other course (15 pts)
1 year
BFA Honours
500 level: Fine Arts Studio 75%
Research Paper 25 %
1 year
MFA
600 level: Fine Arts Studio 100%
c. Current selection process
i. Limitation of entry
The School of Fine Arts provides a specialized teaching and learning environment in small studios in
order to allow students access to suitable studio space and workshops and to ensure small-group and
individual tuition. Entry to the School of Fine Arts is therefore limited at the 100 level. Currently 65
students are accepted into the 100 level of Fine Arts to ensure that groups of students can be managed
by the number of academic staff and within the teaching spaces available. It is proposed that this will
increase to up to 70 students for entry to the 2011 programme.
ii. Selection process
Potential students submit applications, including a portfolio of their recent art work and a brief written
explanation as to why they want to study Fine Arts, to the School of Fine Arts by 10 December of the
year prior to entry. The deadline is to be brought forward to 15 November in 2011, so that the
University of Canterbury is in line with other New Zealand Schools of Fine Art application deadlines.
The Fine Arts Programme Coordinator (with a sub-committee of other academic staff) views the
applications and portfolios and selects those that present the best work and/or show the most potential.
The other criteria considered is the NCEA subjects taken and whether applicants have taken one or
more Visual Arts subject. NCEA grades are not available until after the selection process. At present
65 applicants are offered places. It is proposed that this number be increased to 70 places for entry in
2011, in order to allow for a drop-off in students by 200 level (some applicants may not accept the
offer and some students may not progress from 100 to 200 level). The aim is to have 60 students
progressing into the 200 level. (Please see the additional information FINT103 Selection for a BFA,
provided by the Programme Coordinator).
iii. Entry under regulation 4 to Graphic Design & Film
Candidates may qualify for admission to the Film and Graphic Design options at 200 level, if they
have passed a sufficient number of approved courses from any other degree or diploma, or have
relevant experience in the industry. Applicants must provide a portfolio of works and an interview
may be required. Admission under this regulation will be approved only if the candidate can satisfy
the Head of the School of the relevance to the proposed course of study of the courses taken.
3. Current acceptability
The School of Fine Arts was established in 1882 as the Canterbury College School of Art. Since 1957
Fine Arts has had full status as a University of Canterbury department; in 1982 the Bachelor of Fine
Arts degree was introduced; and in 2008 the School became part of the Centre for Fine Arts, Music
32
and Theatre within the College of Arts. It is the longest established art school in New Zealand and
one of the oldest in the English speaking world.
The School of Fine Arts has a substantial reputation both in New Zealand and internationally.
Throughout its history many of New Zealand’s leading artists have either taught at the school (such as
Julia Morison and Andrew Drummond) or have been taught at the school (such as Shane Cotton, Peter
Robinson and Seraphine Pick). The school offers practical studies in design, film, painting,
photography, printmaking and sculpture, with students also having access to the full range of
academic courses and other resources offered in the University. The School of Fine Arts has a vibrant
research culture, with postgraduate students mentored by practicing artists in a purpose-built studio
environment. The School also supports staff and students with opportunities for public art exhibitions
through two galleries, the SOFA Gallery at the Arts Centre in Christchurch city and the Fine Arts
Campus Gallery on the Ilam campus.
The School has been in existence for close to 128 years. The School recognizes that in the past
decade our public profile has been challenged through strong competition from Fine Arts schools in
Auckland and Wellington. Many of our well-known graduates now teach at the Elam School of Fine
Arts in Auckland. Both Elam School of Fine Arts and Massey University’s School of Fine Arts have
grown in stature with a strong push to present national profiles in contemporary research.
Canterbury’s School of Fine Arts has held on to a philosophy of teaching fine arts, based in
discipline-focused studios, which develop the skills and craft required for each discipline over a 4
year undergraduate degree period, with a focus on the evolution of the individual emerging artist’s
unique practice. This educational approach is time-intensive and is only effective in small groups
with studio space and workshop resources to support the academic/artist teaching and mentoring.
While many other Schools of Fine Art in New Zealand and overseas over the past decade have
changed to systems whereby students choose courses from a variety of fine arts disciplines over their
degree duration, Canterbury has held onto a structure whereby after their first year students choose
one discipline on which to focus, from six studios: film, graphic design, painting, photography,
printmaking and sculpture. This discipline-focus is both a strength and a potential weakness for the
School.
The strength that the discipline-focus and individual student contracts for projects gives the School’s
teaching is in the depth of training and education provided to students, who are given opportunities:
a. to explore their field in a number of genres
b. to discover their own approach as an artist to the field
c. to work closely with one or two artist/academics who can assess the individual
abilities of the student and provide unique challenges to extend their practice
d. to drive their own artistic interests and flourish far more than at other Schools where
they might take many papers with little continuity and in larger groups where their
individuality may not so easily be recognized.
The potential weaknesses in this system are that:
- discipline-based studios with small numbers of students can only afford to be resourced
with a small number of academics, which means that individual academics have greater
pressure to be the perfect balance of artist/researcher as well as the ideal teacher for all
styles of learners at all levels
- small discipline-based studios are highly influenced by the specific research interests and
skills-base of the academics employed
- small discipline-based studios do not provide flexibility for staffing; they are vulnerable
to staff absences as well as to personality differences
- small discipline-based studios do not provide flexibility for students.
- the best and brightest will flourish but less able students may flounder because they need
structure provided
33
-
lack of clarity in individual teaching and learning contracts can lead to uncertainty
regarding expectations for student outcomes and assessment
Fine Arts academic staff members at Canterbury are unanimous in valuing the discipline-based
system within which they currently operate. Some colleagues from other New Zealand Schools of
Fine Arts have commented that they see the value of discipline-focused studios in the student
development. The experience of current students and recent graduates will vary, depending on
whether the particular academic/mentor working in their discipline suited their style of learning.
4. Success in achieving its objectives
The objectives of the School of Fine Arts are to:
 provide a world-class education in fine arts for emerging artists and creative thinkers
 develop a world-class research centre in fine arts for academic staff and postgraduate
students
 engage with international, national and local fine arts research communities through
exhibitions, publications, archive systems and online communications
 encourage and promote the fine arts in New Zealand by engaging with:
o graduates to ensure that their successes are communicated and promoted and that
mutual benefits between the School and graduates are possible
o the local community and education sector and young people through exhibitions,
artists talks, public presentations and outreach programmes.
The School is successful in fulfilling the above objectives, and is working to improve in certain areas.

provide a world-class education in fine arts for emerging artists and creative thinkers
The success of Canterbury’s School of Fine Arts over its history is demonstrated in the
success of its graduates, many of whom have a significant international profile, such as
Shane Cotton, while others have formed the backbone of professional artists and art
teachers in New Zealand. Recent highly successful graduates include Francis Upritchard
who represented New Zealand at the Venice Biennale in 2009, Seraphine Pick, who had a
major exhibition at the Christchurch Art Gallery in 2009, Ronnie van Hout, the sculptor
who also had a solo exhibition at the Christchurch Art Gallery in 2009. Graduates have
also found prominent positions at the Elam School of Fine Arts, Auckland University,
including Jonathan Mane-Wheoki (Head of School), Peter Robinson, P. Mule (Merilyn
Tweedie, Et Al), while others are high profile practicing artists and teachers, such as Julia
Morison and Tony de Lautour.
The School is centred on a strong teaching philosophy, which, at its core, values the
development of an individual artist’s practice and the relationship of the academic staff
with students is based on mentoring and a dialogue between staff and student about the
student’s work.

develop a world-class research centre in fine arts for academic staff and postgraduate
students
Currently the School supports individual academic’s research. However, there is a
growing awareness amongst staff that the School as a whole needs to consider its research
strengths and priorities and to support and promote these in order to attract high-profile
staff and more postgraduate students.
34

engage with international, national and local fine arts research communities through
exhibitions, publications, archive systems and online communications
The School is strong in engaging with local and national fine arts research communities,
but we are currently working to strengthen its national connections and build its
international connections.

encourage and promote the fine arts in New Zealand by engaging with:
o graduates to ensure that their successes are communicated and promoted and that
there are mutual benefits for the School
o the local community and education sector (schools, teachers) and young people
through exhibitions, artists talks, public presentations and outreach programmes
The School welcomes graduates to return and re-connect (through use of workshop facilities,
invitation to attend exhibitions and at times through fixed-term teaching or guest lectures), but does
not have a program of active engagement, which is yet to be developed.
The School connects with local community and schools through exhibitions and an Open Day.
However, it would be useful to review these activities and consider the breadth and focus –
particularly how to ensure that all local high schools have opportunities to engage with the School in
enriching ways.
35
5. Relevance to or coherence with the UC profile and CoA strategic plan
The strength of Fine Arts at Canterbury University is that it provides a niche program only available
for the best creative artists and thinkers, and is therefore able to represent a high profile ‘face of the
arts’ on behalf of the UC in the New Zealand community.
a. the University of Canterbury
The UC statement of strategic intent values “people prepared to make a difference” and the School of
Fine Arts is directly engaged in the development of creative thinkers and independent artists, who are
prepared to communicate ideas through their art and through the arts more broadly.
The UC mission is “to contribute to society through knowledge in chosen areas of endeavour by
promoting a world-class learning environment known for attracting people with the greatest potential
to make a difference.”
The School of Fine Arts has clearly delivered on the UC mission by providing a world-class education
for New Zealand artists who are then able to represent New Zealand cultural endeavour in an
international context. As an example, only Canterbury and Elam Schools of Fine Art have had fine
arts graduates represent New Zealand at the Venice Biennale.
b. the College of Arts
The mission for the College of Arts is to be “academically vibrant, culturally diverse and financially
sustainable. We will have a reputation for high quality and relevant programmes taught by innovative
staff, underpinned by world-class research and supported by
responsive policies and structures.”
The School of Fine Arts meets the College’s aims in relation to the provision of high quality and
relevant teaching programmes. The programme is tailored to support the needs and interests of
individual students and the lecturers are accessible to students on a regular weekly (and at times daily)
basis offering mentoring and constructive critiques. The study of fine arts is highly relevant in the
context of a society where communication is often visual rather than verbal or written. The relevance
of the specific studio disciplines offered by the School can be discussed.
c. the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre
The Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre aims to provide the College of Arts and the University
with the visible face of the arts in the community. It is important that the Centre connects with the
community and is an active leader in the creative and performing arts in the Canterbury region. The
Centre also aims to increase its postgraduate and research community, with connections nationally
and internationally. The School of Fine Arts is active in engaging in exhibitions, by operating two
galleries. In particular, the SOFA Gallery provides an invaluable public face for the arts at UC. We
are currently reviewing how we programme these activities to ensure maximum profile nationally and
internationally and effective use of resources. Over the past two years the School has worked to
increase the number of postgraduate students. We are currently discussing ways to develop a stronger
sense of research community.
36
6. Discussion about/plans for future modifications
a. Undergraduate degree structure discussion
Fine Arts staff have discussed the following issues in relation to the structure of the degree:
i. Duration
The duration of the BFA is currently 4 years followed by a 5th year for Honours. We are aware that
this structure is out of alignment with many other BFA degrees in New Zealand and internationally.
We are also aware that the BFA and BFA Honours are out of line with the CUAP definition of those
degrees. The distinctiveness of the Canterbury BFA can be marketed in a positive way. The School is
concerned that the benefits of this structure for students need to be communicated:
 the 4 years allows students to develop their art practice in-depth
 the 4 years allows students to incorporate academic courses (including three compulsory
art history papers)
 the 4 years allows students to undertake a double degree and complete this in 6 years, if
they wish.
If the BFA at Canterbury University had to change to 3 years duration, then the graduate profile
would have to change and the academic component of the degree would be drastically reduced. We
do not believe that this is in the interest of the students.
ii. Studio Structure
Discussion has taken place at staff meetings regarding whether the studio structure should be
maintained and if so, whether the six studios (Film, Graphic Design, Painting, Photography,
Printmaking and Sculpture) are still appropriate. In general, staff believe that the studio structure is
relevant and workable. However, we are aware of difficulties, which arise from the studio structure:
 lack of flexibility in staffing
Staff are experts in their field and are not available to cover leave for their colleagues in other
studios and the current degree structure means that all studios must be offered at all levels
every year. If the studios had more students and we could afford to employ more staff, then
this might not be an issue. At present there are:
o 2 continuing academics allocated to: Film and Painting
o 1.5 continuing academics allocated to: Photography and Printmaking
o 1 continuing academic allocated to: Sculpture and Graphic Design
We are currently recruiting a second lecturer for the Graphic Design studio. Sculpture
has fixed term support at 0.5 in place until the end of 2011.
 differences in teaching, assessment and expectations across studios
Different disciplines do require different approaches to teaching. However, there should be a
balance between differences and similarities. All students are studying for a BFA degree and
assessments and expectations of students should be uniform across the studios.
BFA
100
200
300
400
Film
(2FTE)
90pts
FINT
FILM201
FILM301
FILM401
Design
(2FTE)
90pts
FINT
DESI201
DESI301
DESI401
Painting
(2FTE)
90pts
FINT
PAIN201
PAIN301
PAIN401
Photography
(1.5FTE)
90pts
FINT
PHOT201
PHOT301
PHOT401
Printmaking
(1.5FTE)
90pts
FINT
PRIN201
PRIN301
PRIN401
Sculpture
(1.5FTE)
90pts
FINT
SCUL201
SCUL301
SCUL401
Academic
Courses
30pts
30pts
30pts
30pts
There has been some discussion of alternatives to the studio structure, which could be:
 grouping studios with similar technologies or processes. For instance, Media arts (Film
Graphic Design, Photography) and Plastic arts (Painting, Printmaking/Drawing,
Sculpture). This might allow for shared teaching at 100 and 200 levels, with a focus on
specific disciplines at 300 and 400 levels.
37

Removing separate studio disciplines altogether and offer Studio courses (whole year or
semester), which are taught by available academics in any given year. The BFA would
not provide its current in-depth study of a discipline, but would allow students to work
across disciplines.
However, we have not looked at the practicalities of the above in any detail, because staff believe the
studio structure is the most appropriate for the School.
iii. Interdisciplinary teaching and learning
While the current BFA is structured so that students focus on one discipline, the FINT 100 level year
provides an introduction to all disciplines. Staff are also happy to encourage interdisciplinary
teaching and learning throughout 200 level to postgraduate studies where students are interested in
this approach. In addition, staff are supportive of engagement with other subject areas outside the fine
arts and undertake this on a case by case basis, including connections with biological sciences, music
etc. We are open to working with the review process to see how best to ensure interdisciplinary
opportunities for students.
iv. Printmaking
Students in the Printmaking studio currently engage in art-making practices across disciplines rather
than focused solely on the traditional craft of printmaking. Some discussion has taken place regarding
the future direction for this studio, ranging from whether a printmaking studio is viable/required at all
to whether printmaking should be maintained but as workshops available to students from across the
school.
The printmaking workshop requires academic and technical staff who have the knowledge and time to
commit to manage this facility effectively. At present, the only academic who has expertise in
printmaking is Associate Professor Cathryn Shine, who is allocated to Printmaking at 0.5 and
Photography at 0.5. With Cathryn’s commitments as Dean of Creative Arts, there is little time to run
a fulltime printmaking studio and workshop.
v. Drawing through research
Associate Professor Simon Ogden, who has taught as the one full-time continuing academic in
Printmaking for some 15 years, does not have a background in printmaking, but in drawing, painting
and sculpture. Simon has proposed a new studio in Drawing, which would allow students to develop
art practices across disciplines. This is the method, which he currently teaches in the Printmaking
studio, but he believes Printmaking as a title for his teaching is misleading for current and future
applicants. He is currently attracting strong numbers of students into postgraduate study, wanting to
work in a cross-disciplinary way. The proposal is to offer one studio which does not set projects
relating to a discipline, but which is available for students who are unclear as to which discipline to
work in or who are interested in engaging in a practice that works across disciplines. The philosophy
of this studio would be to allow the students’ research to follow the development of ideas into a
process. A studio, which encourages cross-disciplinary art practices, is of benefit to students and may
provide some flexibility in staffing, if existing staff were prepared to teach into the studio at times.
The Fine Arts academics support the development of this area, and are waiting for a more detailed
course proposal from Simon Ogden, which can be considered in the context of the other studios and
the FINT programme. Discussion has only begun in relation to whether the proposed Drawing studio
would replace the Printmaking studio or be an additional 7th studio. Another alternative would be to
develop Drawing as Research as a postgraduate research focus. There are issues relating to staffing
and financial viability, which would need to be addressed in the development of any of these ideas.
There are examples of Drawing studios or Centres for Drawing in other Schools of Fine Art
internationally:
* the Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Arts, Oxford University. http://www.ruskin-sch.ox.ac.uk/
38
* the University of the Arts London Wimbledon and Chelsea College of Art and Design, which have
the Centre for Drawing as a postgraduate research centre. Stephen Farthing, the Research Chair of
Drawing at the University of London, has offered to assist with advice.
http://www.arts.ac.uk/research/centre-drawing.htm
* the College of Fine Arts at UNSW in Sydney, which has established an International Drawing
Research Initiative, through a consortium with the Central Academy of Fine Arts in Beijing and the
School of Art in Glasgow in order to advance research into and through the discipline of drawing.
http://www.cofa.unsw.edu.au/research/research-units/idri
* the Fine Arts degree offered at the Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design at Dundee
University offers Drawing as a discipline within the undergraduate degree.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/undergraduate/courses/fine_art_digital_media_drawing_painting_printmaki
ng_sculpture.htm
b. FINT: 100 level structure discussion
The current structure for the 100-level year is:
Semester 1: 2 week exercises for each studio discipline – Design, Film, Painting, Photography,
Printmaking, Sculpture
Students choose 2 disciplines to focus on in semester 2.
Semester 2: 5 week projects in two chosen disciplines
At the end of the 100-level year, students elect one studio discipline on which to focus. The
Programme Coordinator (in consultation with staff) allocates students to studios (based on their
preferences and their grades). The majority of students are given their first preference, but in some
instances the School is only able to offer students their second or third studio preference.
The benefit of the FINT structure is that it provides all students with an introduction to all studio
disciplines offered. We have discussed ways to clarify for students the focus of work in FINT, which
is Drawing and Methods, by re-naming the exercises undertaken to make explicit connections with
drawing:
- to emphasise an holistic approach (rather than sample exercises)
- to remind students that while studios are separate they do inter-relate through
fundamental approaches to drawing and that interdisciplinary interaction is encouraged.
The suggestion was to re-name first semester activities, eg. Sculpture – Drawing in Space;
Printmaking – Drawing and Surface etc. Not all staff agreed that this was necessary and so we have
not made changes at present.
Some fixed-term staff who teach into FINT have expressed concerns regarding lack of commitment
from students (in attendance particularly) and that the course might be improved by being more
challenging for students. Other staff (continuing academics) maintain that the programme works well
in its current structure.
Options discussed so far:
 consider strategies to engage with and maintain engagement with students throughout the
year
 review the number of short exercises undertaken by students (to consider whether it’s
better to give students more time to engage in fewer and more substantial projects)
 consider whether the FINT year should include a formalized introduction to discussions
about contemporary art practice and theory (through seminars and practical field trips to
galleries etc).
c. Non-studio component of the BFA discussion
39
i. Contemporary art
Currently students are introduced to the practice of contemporary art through their lecturers in one
studio discipline. They are not provided with a broad-ranging view of international or national
contemporary art unless they choose the one course available in Art History: ARTH215 International
Contemporary Art.
Some staff have expressed the opinion that it’s important to address Contemporary Art as an
introduction at 100 level. This could be incorporated into the FINT year by replacing some aspects of
the studio-based work. Or it could be addressed as a new compulsory course offered in the non-studio
component of the BFA, and taught by a combination of Art History and Fine Arts staff. Or it could be
addressed by making ARTH215 compulsory for Fine Arts students at 200 level.
ii. Art history
Fine Arts staff are unanimous in believing that Fine Arts students have a major gap in their knowledge
of twentieth century art history. This is due to the fact that not all students study art history at
secondary school and it is up to students to choose the three Art History courses, which they wish to
study at UC. The Art History department has been reduced in staff since 2008, which limits the
courses available in any one year.
One proposal, which we’ve discussed with our Art History colleagues, is whether it’s possible to
make ARTH103 Issues in Twentieth Century Art (re-named for 2011 as Picasso Who?) compulsory
for Fine Arts students at 100 level. If students took this course at 100 level, then Fine Arts staff
would know that all students had this foundation knowledge. We are continuing discussions with Art
History to explore options to address this issue. We are aware that at present ARTH103 is not offered
each year due to staff workload and study leave and that we are asking Art History to guarantee that if
we agree on a compulsory Art History course, then this course would need to be offered every year.
d. Postgraduate degree discussion
i. Growth of postgraduate student numbers
Growing the postgraduate programme is a major focus for the School of Fine Arts. See Appendix B
Postgraduate Numbers. Increasing the quality and focus of academic research generated within the
school is critical as we move into the future. The recent refurbishment of Block 2, providing purposebuilt space for postgraduate students, provides a clear signal to the arts community that the school and
the university is committed to developing an environment for visual arts practitioners to investigate
and develop their practices at the highest level. Within this growth we believe there are wider
opportunities to engage not only graduating students from the BFA, but also practitioners who are
involved with and working in various industries related to the fine arts.
One opportunity is to involve some high profile artists, based in Christchurch, with the School as
Adjunct Professors. Some of these artists might also be available to co-supervise postgraduates. In
particular, we expect that this strategy will support the Painting and Sculpture studios, due to the
number of artists in the Christchurch community who work in these disciplines.
ii. Graphic design publication studio
Aaron Beehre, the lecturer in Graphic Design, is keen to create a working postgraduate design studio
that, while broad-minded in its background, will focus on publication – both as its field of inquiry,
and as an output for/from that inquiry. There is currently much speculation around the nature of
publishing and its future. It is our intention that the postgraduate Design studio and its students would
take part in this international conversation by engaging in so-called ‘real world’ projects, while
grounded in an environment of rigorous academic critique. Aaron sees real potential here for such a
studio to operate as a genuine two-way bridge between professional practice and academia.
40
We should point out that we do not see this as a commercial venture, but rather as an academic
gesture that has experimentation, invention, and research at its centre. It goes without saying that the
potential of publishing lies close to the heart of academic research and dissemination, and we would
hope that the work of the studio would be of as much interest and benefit to the wider university as it
would the School of Fine Arts.
While we see this programme can get started operating alongside the current MFA course, our
immediate aspirations are to establish a studio space specifically for the programme, and to develop a
curriculum that better enables large-scale collaborative projects and their examination. While the
fundamentals of its enrolment would be similar, and would allow continuing students to enter into the
one year MFA programme, we would seek to offer practitioners working in the industry (who have an
undergraduate degree) the opportunity to enroll part-time and complete the degree in 2 years. This
would allow postgraduate students to remain in employment during the period of the course and
would be seen by employers as an opportunity to up-skill their staff. We see this as an additional
strength for the studio, where there is the possibility for a student’s research to overlap with, and have
real relevance to their professional practice.
The course structure would require students to engage in their own research (submitting a research
proposal as is required by any MFA student) while working within a collaborative studio environment
that would be generating work for a number of research partners. Picking up on our Aaron’s own
professional background immediate partners might include public art galleries, artists, curators and
arts publishers. As the studio gathers momentum and recognition, this net might be cast more widely.
We would also want for the studio to be generating its own publications and channels for distribution.
The work generated with these partners would help to inform the foundations for the students’
research and allow the students to investigate modes of communication and dissemination through the
medium of publishing. The costs involved, in print publishing especially, usually mean this sort of
research is only ever performed speculatively at design schools.
iii. Naming of the BFA (Hons) and MFA
Currently postgraduate students receive a degree certificate, which states BFA Honours or MFA – not
a named degree (eg. BFA Honours in Film or MFA in Painting). However, they have to enroll using
discipline-specific course codes (eg. Film 501 or Painting 601) and these course names appear on the
student’s university transcript.
Discussion has taken place regarding the name of course codes at BFA (Honours) and MFA level and
whether they are necessary or useful. In particular, discussion stemmed from students enrolling in
Printmaking at Honours and Masters level, because they had been enrolled in this discipline at
undergraduate level, but the nature of their research was in cross-disciplinary work. In other words, a
university transcript with Printmaking course code did not seem appropriate when the postgraduate
student was not specifically engaged in printmaking, but in cross-disciplinary work.
The proposal is to have a generic course code (eg. FINA 690 Fine Arts Research). Further discussion
needs to happen with Fine Arts staff (and via CUAP) regarding whether both options are available
(generic and discipline-specific) or whether the generic course code is sufficient.
iv. Consideration of doctoral degrees
Some discussion has taken place regarding the opportunity for the School to introduce postgraduate
studies higher than the MFA, through doctoral degrees, where the majority of the research is studiobased creative research. The School has some concerns regarding the proliferation of creative
doctorates and the relevance of these for practicing artists. In addition, the School’s current academics
do not have doctorates and so this may pose some issues for doctoral supervision.
41
However, in order to compete with other tertiary institutions, which are offering doctorates, the
University of Canterbury’s School of Fine Arts needs to consider how it might offer this form of
research to its current and future students in order to remain competitive.
e. Teaching and learning
i. Student supervision (Teaching & learning contracts)
Students have access to highly individualized supervision in the studios from 200 level onwards. The
School uses teaching and learning agreements, in which students outline the work which they plan to
undertake within a given period of time, particularly at 300 and 400-level to support self-directed
projects tailored to suit the interests of students. Use of these agreements varies across the studios
(eg. in Film the agreement tends to be based on written proposals and treatments using industry
conventions). The written agreement allows lecturers and students to agree on the planned work,
negotiate adjustments and monitor and evaluate progress. Sample teaching and learning contracts are
available. Currently the course outlines emphasise the teaching and learning contracts as the source
of assessment criteria. We will review course outlines prior to next year to change this so that course
outlines include a copy of the revised assessment criteria, which now apply across all studios, instead
of referring to teaching and learning contracts for assessment criteria.
At 100 level, students access the Fine Arts facilities during weekdays in term-time. From 200 level,
students are given access to the Fine Arts facilities on a 24-hour basis. 200-400 level students who
have been inducted to the workshop and to the use of specific equipment can only access the
workshop when the technician is on duty. Inducted postgraduates can become approved users of the
workshop facilities and may have access at times when the technician is not on duty.
ii. Student feedback
Due to the small numbers of students in studios, there is generally close communication between
students and staff.
Previous Heads of School have recognized that the normal teaching and course surveys are not
appropriate to Fine Arts studios (as they are generally only applied to groups of more than 15 students
and Fine Arts studio groups are below this number). However, at times Fine Arts academics have
requested surveys and at times they have requested Small Group Discussions, as a means of obtaining
student feedback. Examples of the results of both these types of survey are available. The Director is
keen to liaise with the Academic Development Group, which administers course surveys to find the
most appropriate form to gain feedback from Fine Arts students.
The School annually organizes student representatives from each studio and postgraduates. This year
the Programme Coordinator and Director have decided to hold regular meetings with the student
representatives in order to share information and hear and respond to any issues raised by students.
Information is at times circulated to students by email from the Director, Programme Coordinator or
School Administrator. Communication with postgraduate students takes place through the fortnightly
postgraduate seminars. The Programme Coordinator communicates with FINT students at key times
of the year regarding their progress and their choice of studio.
f. Assessment processes
Fine Arts assessment is normally based on a body of work submitted by students at the end of the
year. FINT assessment is the exception because there are a number of short exercises, each of which
is assessed as completed. At present the 200 to 400 level studios provide feedback on work-inprogress after mid-year, but the grade is not given until the end of the year. Waiting for an end-ofyear assessment can be an issue for students who procrastinate in completing work and for those
whose work is not progressing well and who subsequently fail. From 2011 a total of 90 credit points
will be awarded, or not, based on the body of work submitted by the student at the end of the year and
graded by the lecturers. Some discussion has taken place regarding whether grading some work at the
mid-year point would be an improvement because it would assist the student with an indication of
their progress so far. However, lecturers believe that students need the year to develop their work.
42
It should be noted that the lack of grading prior to the end of year means that students who are ill
during the year are not able to use aegrotats, which are effective only at the time of, or just leading up
to, an assessment.
This year we have refined the assessment criteria to ensure that there is a clearly articulated document
outlining work expectations with criteria, which apply to students in all studios. We will review the
assessment criteria for the FINT 100-level prior to next year.
At postgraduate level, we have worked over the past two years to ensure that the School is operating
within the University’s guidelines. For instance, in previous years the postgraduate grades have been
moderated by an external. From 2009 this changed so that at Honours and Masters an external
examiner provided an independent grade as well as the internal examiner. From 2010, the guidelines
have changed again for the Masters so that the internal examiner cannot be a member of the
supervisory team. We will work with this guideline this year to see how well we can meet it;
although we have already raised the question as to how easily we’ll be able to find an internal
examiner (with discipline expertise) who is not a supervisor.
7. Relationships to significant research in the department
a. Current
Each Fine Arts academic is engaged in their own individual research. As examples, this ranges from
Roger Boyce’s current exhibition Roger Boyce: The Illustrated History of Painting at Christchurch
Art Gallery to Cathryn Shine’s Pacific Rim International Print Exhibition, which is a biennial
exhibition for printmakers in the Pacific. Please see the staff CVs for full lists of individual staff
research outputs.
The School of Fine Arts houses Place in Time, a documentary photography research project, led by
Senior Lecturer Glenn Busch. This research project has connected several academics and many
students with the community in Christchurch over a 10-year period. The project has a significant
profile in New Zealand and great potential internationally. Staff were recently successful in gaining a
substantial grant for this project through the New Zealand Centre for Photography, with the aim to
develop a digital archive of material, produce a website and educational resources.
Research connections between staff and postgraduate students in Art History and Fine Arts have
continued through exhibitions. In particular, some key postgraduate students in Art History have
worked to create a vibrant postgraduate community through the publication of Oculus and the
successful Visual Arts Postgraduate conference held at UC in May this year. The conference was
attended by at least 50 people, from across New Zealand and some from overseas. Both the
publication of Oculus and the conference provided Fine Arts postgraduates with a platform to present
and discuss their work and opportunities to connect with their Art History counterparts, who wrote
articles about their work.
b. Future directions
Future directions for research in the School of Fine Arts discussed by staff so far include:
 maintaining a high profile for all disciplines by developing exhibition and screening
opportunities
 developing research through drawing as an opportunity for interdisciplinary art work
 developing a design centre for art publications
 continuing to develop a visiting artists programme with support for instance from the
Canterbury Visiting Fellowship and Fulbright Specialist Scholar programmes
 continuing to develop opportunities for staff/student exchanges with other tertiary
organizations.
43
8. Current constraints on the programme
The Arts Change Proposal of 2008 impacted on School of Fine Arts by separating Fine Arts studio
staff from Art history and theory; it also reduced the number of staff in Art history significantly and
reduced the Fine Arts staff by one (with the removal of a dedicated Head of School position).
The subsequent impact on Fine Arts has been that:
- there are no internal academics able to co-supervise the Honours written research papers
- there is a gap in professorial academic leadership in the School.
Focus has been on undergraduate studios rather than on postgraduate studies, which need support to
develop.
Budget constraints over a period of years have impacted on:
- staffing in studios
- staffing to support postgraduate research essays
- exhibitions or tours of exhibitions
- individual staff research support
- resources to allow for marketing that makes an impact.
9. Resources needed to overcome these constraints
a. Staffing
The small studios require two lecturers in order to provide sustainable teaching, with two different
perspectives on the work and two staff to be able to provide cover when one is on leave. In an ideal
world, we would like to be able to recruit:
 increase staffing in all studios to two full positions (including recruiting for a second
lecturer in Sculpture)
 an academic leader, particularly to work with Honours students on their research papers,
and coordinate the postgraduate seminars.
The School is fortunate to have two full-time technicians and two part-time technicians to support
students’ work across the studios and at times to provide teaching assistance through workshops on
technical processes as well as to assist with specific student projects such as in sculpture or in film
and the mounting of exhibitions and film screenings.
b. Facilities
The School is accommodated in purpose-built facilities from the 1970s. The University has
demonstrated support of the School of Fine Arts by upgrading Block 2 this year, which has provided
much-needed postgraduate studio space. We have a plan for further upgrades to Blocks 1 and 3.
Some of this refurbishment is important to address run-down facilities and some health and safety
issues (such as leaks in roofs). The School has sufficient floor space for student numbers at present.
However, re-distribution of space and re-furbishment is needed in blocks 1 and 3. For instance:
- Block 1: we want to gut the large teaching dark room and replace it with a more usable
teaching space.
- Block 3: we want to extend the sculpture and workshop areas into the yard and provide a
covered outdoor area for external work. We also want to upgrade the foundry area.
It is important to note that while the School has sufficient space at present, if we grow the
postgraduate student numbers, then we will run out of appropriate studio space within two years.
Theatre and Film Studies moved in to share the School’s space in Block 2 in 2010. By the end of
44
2012, the space allocated to Theatre and Film Studies is likely to be needed to support Fine Arts
postgraduate growth.
The School is supported with a construction workshop and with a printmaking workshop, both of
which can be accessed by students. The School is moderately well-equipped with film, photographic,
printing and printmaking equipment.
The University is currently engaged in a Campus Master Planning process, which will provide a
vision and framework for planned improvements to the built environment on campus over the next 20
years. The School will participate in this process to see how it can leverage either refurbished or new
facilities, and raise the profile, visibility and cultural connectedness of the School within the
University and the Christchurch community. Where the University has plans for a possible gateway
building, cultural centre, arts expansion or hub, the activities of the School of Fine Arts should be
integral.
c. Funds for exhibitions
We are currently looking to find ways to support exhibition programmes in an on-going way. The
Centre’s operating budget is unable to support all the activities, which the School wishes to undertake.
In particular, touring exhibitions outside Christchurch, inviting guest artists to speak at the School and
developing an artist-in-residence programme are activities which we wish to develop, but are
constrained by lack of funds. Staff have been entrepreneurial in sourcing funds in the past (eg. the
Print Project, developed by Simon Ogden, which raised substantial funds to support the SOFA
Gallery), and are prepared to assist in seeking external grants, funds and sponsorship.
10. Special issues
a. Exhibition opportunities
Students of the School of Fine Arts are well-resourced in terms of access to gallery spaces and
supported in terms of exhibition opportunities both in Christchurch and elsewhere.
o
School of Fine Arts Campus Gallery: is a large exhibition space opening out to a
foyer area and serviced by a servery area, situated in block 2 of the Fine Arts
complex. This gallery is available to all Fine Arts students and staff to hold
exhibitions. Every Tuesday during term-time, there is a new exhibition opening.
Students (from 200-400 levels and postgraduates) are able to book a week-long
exhibition either as a solo or group show. Students gain experience in selecting and
installing work, marketing and managing shows. Invitations are sent out to UC
colleagues and interested artists and members of the public from Christchurch to
attend. The SFA Campus Gallery is a busy and highly productive space for young,
emerging artists. It also provides space for guest artists’ exhibitions and exchange
exhibitions with other tertiary organizations. For instance in 2010, the gallery will
host exhibitions from Monash University and from Elam School of Fine Arts in
Auckland.
o
SOFA Gallery at the Arts Centre: is a unique exhibition space situated in the
gothic-style old Library of the original University buildings. It is an ideal position at
the heart of the cultural precinct to attract the general public from Christchurch,
nationally and internationally, to exhibitions. A committee of fine arts and art history
academics, assisted by a part-time manager, has oversight of this gallery to date.
Proposals from UC staff, graduates and other artists are considered and decided on by
the committee.
The School’s students have at least two opportunities annually to engage with the
SOFA Gallery, including the Masters exhibition for MFA students’ final submissions
45
and the UC Select exhibition, which presents student work selected for possible
purchase by the UC Art Acquisition Committee. In addition, students from the
Graphic Design course are often engaged to design and produce the SOFA Gallery
catalogues. The SOFA Gallery provides an ideal vehicle for supporting connections
with artists and art communities nationally and internationally. As examples, this
year the gallery connects with international communities through:
 Gazing at the Contemporary World: Japanese Photography from the 1970s
to the Present, connected the School with a touring exhibition from the
Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo, through the Japan Foundation.
 The Chained Lady, the Microscope and the Fish, curated by Tessa Giblin
from Project Arts Centre, Dublin, for the University’s Platform Arts Festival.
Tessa is a graduate of the School and was invited to return to produce this
exhibition in collaboration with Aaron Beehre and Louise Palmer. Students
from Graphic Design engaged with the project to produce a unique catalogue.
 The Pacific Rim International Print Exhibition, director Cathryn Shine,
academic from the School. This project connects the School with
international artists working in print-making media from around the Pacific
rim and basin. This year will be the second exhibition held in Christchurch.
o
Other Exhibition opportunities
 Christchurch
Students and staff are encouraged to participate in the vibrant art scene in
Christchurch, by attending exhibitions, supporting and assisting on
exhibitions and festival activities, undertaking exhibitions as part of their
studies, and making their work available for other exhibitions and creating
their own exhibition opportunities. Examples of the variety of activities, in
which students can engage:
 volunteer as a supporter of SOFA Gallery
 assist at Physics Room
 enter work for competitions and emerging artist exhibitions eg. at
Centre of Contemporary Art (COCA)
 Sculpture students collaborate annually to present an exhibition offsite
 In 2010 all postgraduate students will be invited to present work at an
end-of-year exhibition in the Mair Gallery, Centre of Contemporary
Art (COCA)
 Fine Arts (and particularly Sculpture students) are invited to assist on
the biennal public sculpture festival in Christchurch, SCAPE

Nationally
Students and staff are encouraged to engage in national art activities. In 2009
the School presented a successful student exhibition at Bath St Gallery in
Auckland to ensure visibility of the School’s excellence in the north island.
This year the School is hosting an exhibition from Elam, with the aim of
establishing an exchange of exhibitions on a regular basis.

Internationally
The School aims to develop opportunities for students and staff to exhibit
internationally. As an example, this year we will take a selection of work
produced at the School recently to exhibit at Monash University in Australia.
Other connections being pursued include Leeds College of the Arts and the
Royal College of Art.
From 2011 the direction and management of all the exhibitions undertaken by the School will
be decided by the Fine Arts staff, and supported by a part-time Exhibitions Manager.
46
b. Publication opportunities
Fine Arts staff have the usual opportunities to publish books, articles, essays, reviews.
However, we believe that it’s possible for the School to support this activity, particularly for
the production of exhibition catalogues and art publications. We have described how the
Graphic Design studio is keen to engage in publications through a postgraduate design studio.
The School has requested capital investment in equipment, which will begin this process,
including the purchase of a risograph and binder to support in-house publications, particularly
for the Design and Photography studios, which currently produce publications as projects.
c. Professional connections
The School maintains connections with professional associations, galleries and festivals and
practicing artists, designers and filmmakers. At times we invite artists to give guest lectures
to the School. During 2009 and 2010 guests have included; Emory Douglas, Lisa Jones,
Clare Noonan, Ronnie van Hout, Hannah Beehre, Andrew Drummond. Staff have also
contributed to the research environment by engaging with other Schools of Fine Art in New
Zealand and internationally, with associations, galleries (as Board members, exhibitors and
publication designers) and presenting papers at conferences. We would like to be able to
afford more of these opportunities.
d. Health and safety
i. Workshops/studios
The School of Fine Arts is currently working with a consultant to review induction processes
for workshops for both staff and students. Current practical inductions for students (provided
by technical staff) will continue but they will be supported by written information and online
quizzes.






ii. Field trips/off-site activities
The School engages in numerous activities off-site, which ensure that students connect with
the arts community and are able to participate in practical work. Activities include:
organized field trips, such as studio visits to Cass Field Station
visits to art galleries
engagement with festivals, such as SCAPE
off-site exhibitions using alternative venues in Christchurch
touring exhibitions to other cities, such as last year’s exhibition in Auckland
regular course activities off-site, such as film shoots, photographic shoots and interviews,
design briefs from companies etc.
The University has a new draft Field Trips policy and procedure. The School of Fine Arts
staff and students have begun to work with this policy and procedure in relation to our
activities. We wish to ensure the safety of staff, students and public participants in our
activities. We are also keen to make sure that the amount of work involved in completing
forms is manageable in relation to the number and frequency of our field trip/off-site
activities.
47
Appendix A: Fine Arts Studio EFTS
FINE ARTS
2010
EFTS
43.2
FINT
FINT allocated to studios
7.2
Design
FINT
201
301
401
501
550
601
Film
FINT
201
301
401
501
550
601
Painting
FINT
201
301
401
501
550
601
Photography
FINT
201
301
401
501
550
601
Printmaking
FINT
201
301
401
2011 Forecast
EFTS
Headcount
61
51
68
8.5
Aaron Beehre & fixed term staff: Luke Wood (currently recruiting
2nd lecturer)
7.2
8.5
(90
7.4 11
7.5
10 pts)
6.8 9
6
8
6.1 8
6.75
9
0.8 1
1.5
2
0.3
0.25
0.1
0
29
28.7 29
30.5
John Chrisstoffels & Bill de Friez
7.2
8.5
6.1 9
7.5
10
5.4 6
6
8
3 4
5.25
7
2.3 3
2.25
3
0.8
0.375
1.0 2
1
1
29
25.8 24
30.875
Roger Boyce & Robin Neate
7.2
8.5
6.1 9
7.5
10
5.4 8
5.25
7
6.3 9
4.5
6
3 4
3.75
5
1
1.25
3.1 3
4
4
32
32.1 33
34.75
Glenn Busch 0.5 & Cathryn Shine 0.5 (currently recruiting 0.5
lecturer)
Fixed term: Timothy Veling
7.2
8.5
6.8 7
7.5
10
3.9 5
6
8
3.4 5
3
4
2.3 3
2.25
3
0.8
0.75
0
25
24.4 20
28
Simon Ogden & Cathryn Shine
0.5
7.2 10
8.5
5.4 6
6
8
4.1 5
5.25
7
3.4 5
3.75
5
48
501
550
601
Sculpture
FINT
201
301
401
501
550
601
1.5 2
2.25
0.5
0.375
3.5 3
2
25.6 21
28.125
Louise Palmer & Fixed term: Bronwyn Taylor
7.2
8.5
6.1 7
6.75
4.1 6
5.25
2.7 3
3.75
1.5 2
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.8 1
0
22.9 19
26.25
159.8 207
Total for Fine Arts
178.5
3
2
25
9
7
5
2
23
231
Appendix B: Fine Arts Postgraduate Growth
Student numbers over the past three years
2008
2009
2010
BFA Honours
5
11
16
MFA
4
5
11
49
Appendix C:
School of Fine Arts Degree Information
Fine Arts Degree Information
Title of Programme: Fine Arts (excluding MFA Creative Writing)
Component degrees and courses (current):
Undergraduate Degree: Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA)
Postgraduate Degrees: Bachelor of Fine Arts with Honours (BFA (Hons)), and Master of Fine
Arts (MFA).
The BFA approved by CUAP in 1982.
The BFA (Hons) and MFA were both approved by CUAP in 1989.
These replaced the previous Diploma in Fine Art with and without honours.
The programme is not subject to professional accreditation review nor are graduates subject to
professional registration.
(Degree regulations and CUAP definition of relevant awards attached. Objectives of the
programme and graduate profile provided in School of Fine Arts self-review report.)
Courses:
Fine Arts Intermediate:
FINT103 Drawing and Methods
Design courses:
DESI201 Graphic Design
DESI301 Graphic Design
DESI401 Graphic Design
DESI501 Graphic Design
DESI550 Research Paper
DESI601 Graphic Design
DESI602 Graphic Design
Film courses:
FILM201 Film
FILM301 Film
FILM401 Film
FILM501 Film
FILM550 Research Paper
FILM601 Film
FILM602 Film
Painting courses:
PAIN201 Painting
PAIN301 Painting
PAIN401 Painting
PAIN501 Painting
PAIN550 Research Paper
PAIN601 Painting
PAIN602 Painting
50
Photography courses:
PHOT201 Photography
PHOT301 Photography
PHOT401 Photography
PHOT501 Photography
PHOT550 Photography
PHOT601 Photography
PHOT602 Photography
Printmaking courses:
PRIN201 Printmaking
PRIN301 Printmaking
PRIN401 Printmaking
PRIN501 Printmaking
PRIN550 Research Paper
PRIN601 Printmaking
PRIN602 Printmaking
Sculpture courses:
SCUL201 Sculpture
SCUL301 Sculpture
SCUL401 Sculpture
SCUL501 Sculpture
SCUL550 Research Paper
SCUL601 Sculpture
SCUL602 Sculpture
Fine Arts Degrees, Admission Regulations, UC Calendar 2010
Limitation of Entry Regulations, Part 1:
Limitations of entry on Fine Arts undergraduate courses:
BFA Intermediate: 65 students, international student quota (ISQ): 2
Graphic Design: DESI 201, DESI 301, DESI 401 - 25 total, ISQ: 2
Film: FILM 201, FILM 301, FILM 401 - 24 total, ISQ: 2
Painting: PAIN 201, PAIN 301, PAIN 401 - 30 total, ISQ: 2
Photography: PHOT 201, PHOT 301, PHOT 401 - 24 total, ISQ: 2
Printmaking: PRIN 201, PRIN 301, PRIN 401 - 24 total, ISQ: 2
Sculpture: SCUL 201, SCUL 301, SCUL 401 - 30 total, ISQ: 2
Limitation of Entry Regulations, Part 2:
Enrolment in courses in Fine Arts shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. (a) The total enrolment of students taking Studio courses for the Degree of Bachelor of
Fine Arts shall not exceed 230.
Note: the Studio courses are FINT 103 and the courses listed in Part 2 of the Schedule to the
Regulations for the Degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts.
(b) The total enrolment of students taking courses leading to the degrees of Bachelor of Fine
Arts(Hons) and Master of Fine Arts shall be limited by such constraints on space and staffing as the
School of Fine Arts shall determine as existing in any one year.
51
2. (a) The total enrolment of students in FINT 103 shall normally not exceed 65, with no more than
two international students.
(b) Should more than 65 persons apply for admission to FINT 103 applications will normally be
accepted in order of academic merit.
(c) Normally not more than 50 places will be allocated in the first round of selection to applicants who
have been examined in two NCEA Practical Art subjects. Applications for entry under this regulation
must be made within four years of completing the NCEA Practical Art credits. In assessing academic
merit the School will place the greatest weight on performance in NCEA Practical Art but applicants
must also satisfy the School regarding their ability and potential for success in non-studio areas of
study.
(d) Normally not more than 10 places will be allocated in the first round of selection to applicants
who are not eligible for admission under Regulation 2(c) above or have failed to gain a place in a
previous year but who can satisfy the School that they possess relevant skills and experience
constituting a valid qualification for admission to FINT 103. For admission under this regulation
applicants will be required to submit a portfolio of works and show evidence of ability in nonstudio
academic work.
Notes:
1. Applicants must apply to enrol by the prescribed date, but in addition to this they must return a
fully completed application form for admission to FINT 103 to be received by the Head of the School
of Fine Arts no later than 10 December of the year preceding that for which admission is sought.
Applicants must also include a selection of no less than 12 examples of work that supports each of the
NCEA Practical Art subjects used in the application for entry into FINT 103.
2. This supplementary submission of work will be presented as colour laser copies printed at A4
format and stapled together. These must be available for viewing by the co-ordinator of Stage 1
Studies no later than 10 December of the year in which application is made.
3. Applications from persons wishing to repeat FINT 103 will be subject to the above limitation.
4. Suitably qualified candidates who consider that their personal circumstances are such that a
decision on their admission should be made before selection for the School normally takes place may
apply for a reserved place. Such application must be made in writing to the Head of the School of
Fine Arts before 1 November of the year preceding that for which admission is sought.
5. Applicants who fail to return an application form to the Head of the School of Fine Arts before 10
December will be considered only after an initial selection has been made.
3. Enrolments in 200-level courses in Part 2 of the Schedule to the Regulations for the Degree of
Bachelor of Fine Arts shall normally be limited as follows:
Graphic Design (DESI 201): 9;
Film (FILM 201): 10;
Painting (PAIN 201): 11;
Photography (PHOT 201): 7;
Printmaking (PRIN 201): 8;
Sculpture (SCUL 201): 10.
4. Total enrolments in each area of study in Part 2 of the Schedule to the Regulations for the Degree
of Bachelor of Fine Arts shall normally be limited as follows (international student quotas are shown
in brackets):
Graphic Design (DESI 201, 301, 401): 25 (2);
Film (FILM 201, 301, 401): 24 (2);
Painting (PAIN 201, 301, 401): 30 (2);
Photography (PHOT 201, 301, 401): 24 (2);
Printmaking (PRIN 201, 301, 401): 24 (2);
Sculpture (SCUL 201, 301, 401): 30 (2).
5. When applications exceed the places available for the courses listed in regulations 3 and 4,
selection will normally be made on the basis of performance in appropriate prerequisite courses. This
is provided that not more than two places in each of DESI 201 and FILM 201 will be allocated, on the
52
first round of selection, to applicants who, though they have not been examined in FINT 103, possess
the relevant skills and experience constituting a valid qualification for admission (see Bachelor of
Fine Arts Regulation 4).
Notes:
1. A pass in FINT 103 is normally required for admission to Part 2 courses and a pass in 36 points at
100-level of Art History and Theory and 18 points at 200-level in Art History and Theory is normally
required for admission to 300-level courses in Part 2 of the Schedule to the Regulations for the
Degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts. For Graphic Design (DESI 201) and Film (FILM 201) only, there is
provision for students to be admitted on the basis of other approved qualifications. For details of the
application procedure see Bachelor of Fine Arts Regulation 4.
2. Any person who is or was enrolled in a limited entry studio course who considers his or her
performance severely impaired by illness or injury or other critical circumstance over an extended
period and which caused him or her to discontinue or fail the course may apply for a reserved place
in the said course for the next year following only. Such written applications must be received by the
Head of the School of Fine Arts before 1 November of the year preceding that for which application is
made.
3. While students may normally apply for entry only to those 200-level courses for which they
received specific preparatory instruction in Term 3 and 4 of the FINT 103 programme, they may be
offered places in other courses once the first round of offers has been completed.
6. Additional weight may be given to applications or admission to limited studio courses from persons
who have successfully completed such prerequisite courses as may be required, within three years of
applying for admission.
7. Applications for admission to courses listed in regulations 3 and 4 above must be made on the
correct form and be received by the Head of the School of Fine Arts not later than the 3rd Friday in
October of the year preceding that for which application is made.
Note: Applications received after the 3rd Friday in October will be considered only after the initial
selection has been completed.
Fine Arts Degree Regulations UC Calendar 2011
The Degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA)
 Requirements of the Degree Course
Every candidate for the Degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts shall follow a course of study as laid down in
these Regulations consisting of not fewer than 4 EFTS.
Structure of the Degree
To qualify for the Degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts a candidate must pass courses having a minimum
total value of 480 points comprising:
•
120 points for the Fine Arts Intermediate Examination as defined in Part 1 of
the Schedule, or a course of study approved under Regulation 4;
•
270 points from Part 2 of the Schedule including 90 points at 400-level;
•
A minimum of 90 points or equivalent from Part 3 of the Schedule, including
at least 15 points at 200-level in Art History and Theory and 15 further points
above 100-level.
Progress Beyond the Intermediate Year Examination
53
•
No candidate shall be permitted to enrol in courses for Part 2 of the Schedule
unless he or she has been credited with FINT 103 Drawing and Methods.
•
A candidate may, on the recommendation of the Head of the School of Fine
Arts and with the approval of the Academic Board, substitute an equivalent
course or courses of equivalent weight for 30 points at 100-level of Art
History and Theory in Part 1 of the Schedule.
Film and Graphic Design Options
With the permission of the Head of the School of Fine Arts, candidates may qualify for admission to
the Film and Graphic Design options in Part 2 of the Schedule by passing approved courses totalling
not less than 120 points or the equivalent from any other degree or diploma. Applications for
admission under this Regulation must be received by the Head of the School of Fine Arts no later than
the 3rd Friday in October of the year preceding that for which application is made, and must be
accompanied by a collection of works in the format prescribed by the Head of the School. Applicants
may also be required to attend an interview or to supply a written statement in response to a set of
questions provided by the School. Further information on the procedure for application and the
prescribed submission of works is available from the Administrator of the University of Canterbury
School of Fine Arts.
Note: Admission under this Regulation will be approved only if the candidate can satisfy the Head of
the School of the relevance to the proposed course of study of the courses taken.
Excessive Load
A personal course of study having a value of more than 150 points for a full-year course of study or
75 points for a single semester course of study is regarded as excessive. Candidates who wish to enrol
for a course of study whose points value exceeds 150 points for a whole year or 75 points for a single
semester course of study must first seek the advice of the Dean of Creative Arts.
Admission to Fine Arts Intermediate
Application for admission to FINT 103 must be received by the Head of the School of Fine Arts no
later than 10 December of the year preceding that for which admission is sought.
Admission to Part 2 courses
•
Application for admission to courses in Part 2 of the Schedule must be
received by the Head of the School of Fine Arts no later than the 3rd Friday in
October of the year preceding that for which application is made.
•
The Academic Board may determine that a studio course at the 200-level will
not be offered when too few applications are received for it to be viable.
Students Enrolled Before 1989
These Regulations came into force in 1989; a candidate who has not fulfilled the requirements for the
award of the Degree before 1989 shall complete the Degree in accordance with these Regulations by
taking such courses as may be prescribed by the Dean of Creative Arts and shall be allowed such
credit points in respect of courses passed before 1989 as the Dean of Creative Arts may determine.
The Degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts with Honours (BFA(Hons))

Qualifications Required to Enrol in the Degree
Every candidate for the Degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts with Honours before enrolling in a course of
study for the degree shall have:
 either:
54
(a)
(b)

i. qualified for the Bachelor of Fine Arts degree, and
ii. satisfied the prerequisites for the course as specified in the Schedule to these
regulations; or
been admitted ad eundem statum as entitled to enrol for the Degree of Bachelor of
Fine Arts with Honours; and
(a) submitted a research proposal and work scheme acceptable to the Head of Fine Arts, and
(b) been approved as a candidate for the degree by the Dean of Creative Arts.

Admittance in Special Cases
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these regulations, in special cases the Academic Board
shall determine the conditions under which candidates who do not qualify under Regulation 1 shall be
admitted to the course for the degree, and the courses such candidates must pass to complete the
degree.
Structure of the Degree
1.
2.
3.
(a) Every candidate for the Degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts with Honours shall be
enrolled in a full-time course of study approved by the Head of the School of Fine Arts.
(b) The candidate shall complete the course of full-time study and fulfil all examination
requirements within one year. However where a candidate is prevented from
completing the course because of illness or other serious reasons she or he may apply to
be re-admitted.
The examination shall consist of:
(a) A submission of works which shall be assessed as the equivalent of three courses;
and
(b) A research paper on a topic approved by the Head of the School of Fine Arts.
The examiners may require the candidate to attend a viva voce examination and the
result of this may be taken into consideration when assessing the submission of works
and the research paper.
Works from Two Subject Areas
•
With the prior approval of the Head of the School of Fine Arts the production
of the submission of works may be supervised by two departments of the
School and may include works originating from two subject areas or
consisting in a synthesis of both.
•
A candidate may with the approval of the Head of the School of Fine Arts
substitute a course for the BA(Hons) degree in place of the research paper
referred to in Regulations 3(2) (b) and 3(3) above.
•
The subjects for the degree and the prerequisites for them are set out in the
Schedule to these Regulations.
Class of Honours
The degree may be awarded with Honours in the First Class, the Second Class (Division 1 or 2), or in
the Third Class.
Applications for Admission
Applications for admission to the degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts with Honours must be made in the
form of two proposals, one for a studio programme, the other for a research paper, and be received by
55
the Co-ordinator of Postgraduate Studies in the School of Fine Arts on or before 1 November in the
year preceding that for which admission is sought.
Notes to the Regulations for the BFA(Hons) Degree
1. Applicants are advised to write to the Postgraduate Co-ordinator of Fine Arts well before October
1 to obtain information on how to lodge an application.
2. Intending applicants who have not gained a BFA Degree from either the University of Canterbury
or the University of Auckland should write to the Academic Manager, College of Arts, no later than 1
June of the year preceding that for which admission is being sought requesting instructions on how to
lodge an application.
3. All requirements for the degree shall normally be completed by 31 October in the year of study.
The Degree of Master of Fine Arts (MFA)

Qualifications Required to Enrol in the Degree Every candidate for the Degree of Master
of Fine Arts shall have:
(a) either:
i. completed the course for the Degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts with Honours, or
ii. completed the degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts with Honours or equivalent, or have
provided evidence of significant professional practice or no less than four years
successful teaching or a trained teachers’ certificate or diploma, or
iii. been admitted under the regulations for admission ad eundem statum as entitled to
enrol for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts; and
(b) been approved as a candidate for the degree by the Dean of Creative Arts.
Admission in Special Cases
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these regulations, in special cases the Academic Board
shall determine the conditions under which candidates who do not qualify under Regulation 1 shall be
admitted to the course for the degree, and the courses such candidates must pass to complete the
degree.
3. Structure of the Degree
To qualify for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts a candidate must pass:
Either:
(a) one of FILM 601, DESI 601, PAIN 601, PHOT 601, PRIN 601, SCUL 601, or one of FILM 611,
DESI 611, PAIN 611, PHOT 611, PRIN 611, SCUL 611; or
(b) i. one of FILM 602, DESI 602, PAIN 602, PHOT 602, PRIN 602, SCUL 602, or one of FILM
612, DESI 612, PAIN 612, PHOT 612, PRIN 612, SCUL 612, and ii. ARTT 611, and iii. one of
ARTH 401-418 or ARTT 402-425; or
(c) i. one of FILM 602, DESI 602, PAIN 602, PHOT 602, PRIN 602, SCUL 602, or one of FILM
612, DESI 612, PAIN 612, PHOT 612, PRIN 612, SCUL 612; and ii. two of ARTH 401-418 or
ARTT 402-425.
Candidates may propose a work scheme acceptable to the supervisor and tutors of the course and
approved by the Head of the School of Fine Arts. The examination will be based on a public
presentation of a work or works supported by appropriate documentation.
Part-time Study and Time Limits
Full-time enrolment for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts in 601 studio courses shall be for one year.
Parttime enrolment for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts in 601 studio courses shall be for two years.
Full-time enrolment for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts in 602 studio courses will be for one year.
Parttime enrolment for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts in 602 studio courses will be for two years.
When taken part-time, this option will require 602 studio courses to be taken over two years and one
ARTH or ARTT course in each of the two years of study.
56
Candidates enrolling for a part-time or extramural option will be required to attend a residential
workshop at the University of Canterbury during the last week of January and the second to last week
of the mid-year University break. Details of dates for particular years will be provided to the
candidates by the School of Fine Arts.
MFA with Distinction and Merit
The degree of Master of Fine Arts may be awarded with Distinction or Merit. The degree is awarded
with Distinction where, in the opinion of the examiners, the work presented shows special merit. The
award of Distinction is equivalent to First Class Honours; the award of Merit is equivalent to Second
Class Honours Division 1.
Prerequisites
The following specific prerequisites are required:
(a) Enrolment in FILM 601, DESI 601, PAIN 601, PHOT 601, PRIN 601, or SCUL 601, or
FILM 611, DESI 611, PAIN 611, PHOT 611, PRIN 611, or SCUL 611, requires FILM
501, DESI 501, PAIN 501, PHOT 501, PRIN 501, or SCUL 501, and an approved
research paper.
(b) Enrolment in FILM 602, DESI 602, PAIN 602, PHOT 602, PRIN 602, or SCUL 602, or
FILM 612, DESI 612, PAIN 612, PHOT 612, PRIN 612, or SCUL 612, or ARTH or
ARTT 400 or 600-level courses, requires
i. a Bachelor of Fine Arts with Honours degree, or
ii. no less than a three year tertiary fine arts qualification and a submission of
practical work equivalent in standard to a 500-level studio course, and either
a. at least four years art teaching at secondary or tertiary level, or
b. a trained teachers’ certificate or diploma
Qualifying Courses
Any person who was credited with the prerequisite courses more than four years before the lodging of
an application for admission to the Master of Fine Arts course of studies may be required to pass such
qualifying courses as the Dean of Creative Arts may direct before being admitted. Note: Intending
applicants who have not gained a BFA(Hons) Degree from either the University of Canterbury or the
University of Auckland should write to the Academic Manager of the College of Arts no later than 1
June of the year preceding that for which admission is being sought requesting instructions on how to
lodge an application.
57
Appendix D:
RMIT Guidelines to Examiners of Projects
RMIT RESEARCH COMMITTEE
GUIDELINES TO EXAMINERS OF PROJECTS
(Approved by Higher Degrees Committee 4 September 1998)
Amended November 2007
1. INTRODUCTION
These guidelines are intended to assist examiners in their consideration of projects for the
degree of Master by research or PhD. In particular, they are intended to guide the examiner not
familiar with the standards required for that particular degree to reach a just decision which
does not disadvantage the candidate.
Examiners are expected to be active in research, scholarship and practice (thus ensuring that
their knowledge of the field is current) and should be familiar with the supervision and
examination process for research projects.
At least two examiners are initially invited to examine a Master or PhD project by the Research
Committee (RC). Examiners are asked to individually and independently assess the project,
prepare assessment reports for the guidance of the candidate and recommend to the Research
Committee one classification from those described under Section 4 of this document. The
majority view of the examiners shall normally be accepted by the Research Committee and if
examiners disagree significantly, the Research Committee may invite a third person to examine
the work.
If an examiner is unable to complete the examination within a time satisfactory to the Research
Committee, normally 1 month, another examiner may be appointed in his/her place.
Supporting documentation (refer to section 3 of this document) submitted for assessment is
temporarily bound. After the project is classified as 'Passed' by the Research Committee, it will
normally be submitted in electronic format for lodgement with the Library for uploading onto
the Australian Digital Thesis (ADT) archive and available subject to specified conditions.
Examiners are requested not to mark the supporting documentation in any way.
2. CRITERIA FOR DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND MASTER DEGREE BY RESEARCH
2.1 Master Degree by Research
The Master degree by research is normally undertaken over the equivalent of 2 years fulltime candidature, which is spent primarily undertaking a supervised program of original
research, although the depth of the research and the degree of originality required are less
than those required for the award of a PhD. The topic is agreed between the supervisor
and the candidate, with the supervisor laying down the broad outline of the research
program. The Master degree is aimed at professional development of the candidate, with
particular emphasis on research methodology appropriate to the field of study, conducted
by applying such methodology to a specified program of research under appropriate
supervision. It is intended to provide suitable candidates with the opportunity to develop
their potential for research and to provide the community with graduates of enhanced
ability, knowledge and diversity of experience, particularly in the skills of problem
identification and specification, problem solution and presentation. In the project, the
candidate is required to demonstrate competence in: Guidelines to Examiners of Projects
Approved HDC – 4 September 1998; Last amended 14 November 2007 Guidelines to
Examiners of Projects 14Nov07.doc Page 2 of 7
58
- reviewing the literature relevant to the project;
The candidate should demonstrate that he/she has become sufficiently familiar
with the relevant body of literature to be able to make a critical assessment of the
present state of knowledge in the subject. While not all references in the field need
be included, the list should be reasonably complete and should include most key
references in the relevant area.
- designing an investigation, and gathering and analysing information;
The candidate should present evidence to show that he/she has been trained in the
techniques relevant to the field of research and can apply and adapt these
techniques to other research projects. The candidate should show that he/she has
satisfactorily designed, undertaken and concluded an investigation in the
nominated field of research in a way normal for that field. The aim of the research
should be described clearly and the study design should be appropriate for the aim
and for the field of study. The project should demonstrate that the techniques
adopted were appropriate to the subject matter and were applied properly. Data
should be collected and analysed with care.
- presenting information in a manner consistent with publication, exhibition or public
presentation in the relevant discipline;
The project should communicate the purpose and results of the research in a
concise, logical and effective manner, by presenting them in a manner and at a
level appropriate for publication, exhibition or public presentation in the field of
the research.
A project, such as a work of art, design, photographic work or architectural models
resulting from creative investigations, whether presented to individual examiners
or simultaneously to a panel of examiners, shall be presented in a gallery or other
appropriate venue at time and dates approved by the Research Committee on the
recommendation of the Head of Department/School and Faculty Board. The
project and supporting documentation must be presented clearly and should be of a
scholarly standard and free of typographical and grammatical errors.
- critical appraisal of the candidate's own work relative to that of others;
The candidate should show that he/she recognises the limitations of the study and
should justify fully any conclusions. The project should demonstrate the
candidate's ability to assess the contribution of his/her own original work to the
state of knowledge of the discipline and the more defined area of study, by
identifying key references from the literature for comparison with the results of the
research.
- the ability to carry out supervised research in the field.
The competence of the research design, methodology and reporting should suggest
that the candidate can conduct research work of a publishable or publicly
presentable standard under minimal supervision.
2.2 Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
The PhD degree is normally undertaken over the equivalent of 4 years full-time
candidature, which is spent primarily undertaking a supervised program of original
research. The program provides training and higher education, with the aim of producing
graduates able to conduct research independently at the highest level of originality and
quality. The PhD is recognition of successful research experience at the standard used
internationally in that discipline. In addition to the supporting documentation for the
degree of Master, the PhD candidate is required to submit an assessable written document
of 20,000-40,000 words in thesis format.
The candidate is required to demonstrate, in addition to those qualities required of a
Master candidate:Guidelines to Examiners of Projects Approved HDC – 4 September
59
1998; Last amended 14 November 2007 Guidelines to Examiners of Projects
14Nov07.doc Page 3 of 7
- a significant and original contribution to knowledge of fact and/or theory;
While it is difficult to assess what constitutes a 'significant contribution', one
important way of gauging if a candidate's work meets this expectation is to
consider the extent to which the work is publishable or a project is publicly
presentable at the highest level. Normally a satisfactory PhD project would be
expected to form the basis of at least one article in a recognised research journal,
conference proceedings, a public exhibition in a recognised venue, or, in some
disciplines, a monograph from a specialist publisher. It would be helpful for the
examiner to offer an opinion on the publishable content of the project. However,
the project should not be failed solely because similar work conducted
simultaneously elsewhere has resulted in prior publication, unless such
simultaneous work could be reasonably expected to be known to the candidate.
'Originality' may be shown in several ways. For example, a candidate may have
posed an important new problem, have formulated an existing problem in a novel
and useful way, investigated previously ignored material, offered new and
significant insights about issues which have been examined by other researchers,
developed new techniques for investigating issues or have applied appropriate
techniques to a new set of problems. Replications of previous investigations would
be acceptable only if they incorporated important new elements in the design or
execution of the investigation.
- independent and critical thought;
The candidate should show that he/she has the ability to conceive original ideas for
further investigation from independent, critical examination of the literature, to
state clearly the central theme or argument, to develop this theme systematically
and to assess the results of those investigations in a critical manner, relative to the
work of others.
- the capacity to work independently of supervision;
The originality and significance of the contribution to the field, and the rigor of the
independent, critical thought should be high enough to suggest that the candidate
can initiate and conduct independent research leading to publication in a scholarly
journal or equivalent and exhibition in a recognised venue.
3. PROJECT PRESENTATION
Projects such as works of art, designs, photographic works or architectural models resulting
from creative investigations, shall be presented in a gallery or other appropriate venue.
3.1 The presentation shall include:
A. The project to be assessed. This included essential data and documentation;
B. The supporting documentation. This includes an appropriate durable record of the
submission and complementary data and documentation, where appropriate. In
addition to that specified above, the presentation of a PhD by project shall include
an assessable written document of 20,000 - 40,000 words in the format used for a
thesis defining the purpose and theoretical base of the work and the factors taken
into account in its conception, development and resolution.
C. A catalogue of the presented assessable work including the approved project
description (not for assessment);
The examiners shall attend the presentation and receive for examination the supporting
documentation. In the case of a presentation of a PhD by project, the examiners should
receive the written document of 20,000 - 40,000 words prior to the presentation.
Guidelines to Examiners of Projects Approved HDC – 4 September 1998; Last amended
14 November 2007 Guidelines to Examiners of Projects 14Nov07.doc Page 4 of 7
60
3.2 Projects may be presented to individual examiners or to a project presentation panel
which includes the examiners. All project examinations must be conducted with an
appointed Chair of the project presentation. This is to ensure that examiners are
appropriately briefed and that dialogue between examiners and candidate is at the
appropriate professional level. The procedures for these presentations are as follows:
a) Projects presented to individual examiners: each examiner will attend the
presentation at the appropriate venue and will be briefed by the appointed Chair of the
project presentation. Each examiner will then, within one month, forward an
individual examiner’s report of the evaluation directly to the Research Committee.
b) Projects presented to a project presentation panel which includes the examiners:
• the first part of the process shall take the form of a visual public presentation of the
project by the candidate to a panel in a suitable gallery space or other appropriate
venue;
• the panel shall be chaired by a person appointed by the Research Committee;
• the Chair shall present the candidate to the panel and describe the procedure for the
presentation. A Master candidate shall normally be allocated not more than one hour
for an oral presentation. Additional time may be allocated for an oral presentation by a
Doctor of Philosophy candidate at the discretion of the Chair. Following each oral
presentation, a further period up to ninety minutes will be allocated for discussion.
This will take the form of discussion between members of the panel followed by
discussion opened to the floor. Input from the public and the candidate shall be
directed through the Chair;
• immediately following the presentation(s), the examiners may confer privately on any
aspect of the submission(s) and have the right to recall candidates for further
clarification;
• the examiners shall, within one month of the presentation, prepare individual reports of
their evaluation of the project and submit those reports directly to the Research
Committee.
3.3 Where there is no project presentation such as those projects that are creative writing
pieces, the work is posted to examiners for review. The examiners shall within eight
weeks prepare individual reports of their evaluation of the project and submit those
reports directly to the Research Committee.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS BY EXAMINERS
In assessing the project, the examiners should prepare a report (minimum of 2 pages),
indicating if the criteria stated in Section 2 of this document have been satisfied and, if not,
what modifications are necessary. Examiners are reminded that candidates value as much
feedback as can be provided.
After examination of the project, the examiner must make one of the following
recommendations:
1. the project be classified as PASSED with no requirement for correction or amendments and
the candidate be awarded the degree for which they are enrolled;
The examiner may recommend this category for a project which is accepted as satisfactory
for the degree.
2. the project be classified as PASSED SUBJECT TO MINOR AMENDMENTS being made to
the satisfaction of the Research Committee, without further examination. The candidate
must make minor textual corrections as recommended by the examiner/s;
Guidelines to Examiners of Projects Approved HDC – 4 September 1998; Last amended 14
November 2007 Guidelines to Examiners of Projects 14Nov07.doc Page 5 of 7
61
The examiner may specify this category for a project which requires correction of
deficiencies in the exhibitable works, or minor errors or omissions in the supporting
documentation, but which are not of sufficient importance to warrant submission for reexamination. Such amendments would be minor editing of the script, (eg. spelling,
punctuation, grammar, etc), the insertion of additional information, or the clarification of
points in the text or exhibitable work. The changes should not entail further experimental
work or substantial re-writing, merely editing of the text. Such changes would be carried
out to the satisfaction of the Head of Department, who would recommend to the Research
Committee that the amendments have been made in accordance with the examiners'
requirements.
3. the project be classified as PASSED SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS being made
to the satisfaction of the Research Committee, without further examination. The candidate
must rework/rewrite specific sections of the project as recommended by the examiner/s;
The examiner may specify this category for a project which requires more substantial
amendment than that outlined in Recommendation 2, above, but which still does not
warrant submission for re-examination. In addition to corrections as specified in
Recommendation 2, above, such further amendment might include rewriting and/or
reworking certain aspects of the script and/or the exhibitable work as specified by the
examiner/s. The amendments should not change the substantive conclusions of the project.
Such changes would be carried out to the satisfaction of the Head of Department, who
would recommend to the Research Committee that the amendments have been made in
accordance with the examiners' requirements.
4. the project be classified as DEFERRED FOR MAJOR REVISION and resubmitted for
completion of the examination following revision and/or extra work as recommended by
the examiner/s;
The examiner may specify this category for a project which requires major amendments
and re-submission for examination. This category is to be used when the project contains
flaws which have the potential to affect its substantive conclusions, but shows some merit
which may, by a limited amount of further work (normally twelve months) under approved
supervision, be sufficiently improved for re-submission. The project may require further
work in any or all areas, eg. further experimental work, further analysis, major rewording
of a section of the supporting documentation, expansion of the literature review or revision
of the exhibitable work.
In the report, the examiner should give clear, detailed guidelines as to what the candidate
has omitted or misinterpreted. Your reasons for making this recommendation should stand
scrutiny in an appeal process.
If the project is classified by the Research Committee as 'Deferred for major revision ', the
revised work will normally be resubmitted within twelve months of the notification of the
classification to the candidate. Where possible, the revised work is normally assessed by
the examiner(s) who recommended 'Deferred for major revision' for completion of the
examination. The examiner(s) of the revised work shall recommend to the Research
Committee a grading of 'Passed' or 'Failed' only. (The examiner may advise of changes of
an editorial nature.)
5. the project be classified as FAILED;
The examiner may recommend this category for a project when a limited amount of
additional work or modification will NOT raise the project to an acceptable standard. This
category is to be used when the project contains substantive flaws which are irredeemable
and it is clear that the candidate has not presented sufficient evidence to warrant the award
of the degree. The examiner is requested to detail as fully as possible the reasons for this
recommendation in the report. These reasons should stand scrutiny in an appeal process.
If the project is classified by the Research Committee as 'Failed', the project cannot be resubmitted for the same degree. Guidelines to Examiners of Projects Approved HDC – 4
62
September 1998; Last amended 14 November 2007 Guidelines to Examiners of Projects
14Nov07.doc Page 6 of 7
63
5. THE EXAMINER'S REPORT
The examiner is expected to prepare a detailed report (minimum of 2 pages) on the project;
comments and suggestions should be full enough to enable the Research Committee to gauge
the quality of the work. Comments on the following would be appreciated, particularly for PhD
projects:
• the extent to which the candidate has demonstrated:
- originality;
- critical insight;
- capacity to carry out independent research.
• the extent of the contribution to knowledge made by the project, and in particular its
contribution to the understanding of the subject with which it deals;
• the suitability of the project for publication or presentation at an internationally recognised
public forum, and any suggestions which would be helpful to the candidate in preparation
of the material for publication or public presentation.
Detailed guidance for any revision referred to in the examiner's summary recommendation
should be included. When the examiner recommends major amendments and re-submission, the
revisions required should be sufficiently detailed to act as a specification for the candidate.
Oral Examination
After assessing the project and preparing the examiner's report, in exceptional circumstances,
an examiner may recommend that an oral examination be conducted, as distinct from the oral
presentation given by candidates presenting to a project presentation panel. In recommending
an oral examination, the examiner shall specify clearly the purpose of the oral examination and
the nature of the questions to be put to the candidate. An oral examination shall take place only
at the discretion of the Research Committee, conducted as specified by the Research Committee
and be convened by the Chair of the Research Committee or nominee.
After the oral examination, the examiner shall prepare an examiner’s report recommending one
of the classifications outlined above in Section 4 of this document.
Communication between Examiners, RMIT and the Candidate
• Consultation with other examiner(s) is not encouraged, to preserve the independence of the
examinations. Each examiner should submit an independent report.
• In the case of examination by a project presentation panel, the examiners may confer with
each other during an examiners' meeting held following the presentation by the
candidate. The examiners may not through consensus determine a recommendation for
the status of the project.
• Examiners shall not contact the candidate nor the candidate’s supervisors directly during the
examination process. In the case of an oral examination, such contact is permitted but is
limited to the project presentation phase. Any other communication between examiners
and RMIT or the candidate during the examination process should be channelled through
the Secretary, Research Committee.
• Following the project presentation, an examiner may request the Secretariat of the Research
Committee to question the candidate on any aspect of the work, in which case a copy of
the question and answer is sent to the other examiners.
Confidentiality, and the Anonymity of Examiners
Examiners’ reports will normally be made available to candidates and supervisors. Unless the
examiner agrees to have his/her name revealed to the candidate, the normal practice shall be to
provide anonymous reports to the candidate. Where the examiner’s name is revealed to the
candidate, this shall not occur until after the examination Guidelines to Examiners of Projects
Approved HDC – 4 September 1998; Last amended 14 November 2007 Guidelines to
Examiners of Projects 14Nov07.doc Page 7 of 7
64
process is complete. The examiner may also indicate if any part of the report is to be restricted. In
such instance, that part of the report is to be marked “In Confidence”.
65
RMIT Writing and Reading a Research Proposal
Definition of Research
1.3.8. The Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) uses the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) definition of research:



Creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge,
including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to
devise new applications
Any activity classified as research, which is characterised by originality; it should have
investigation as a primary objective and should have the potential to produce results that are
sufficiently general for humanity's stock of knowledge (theoretical and/or practical) to be
recognisably increased. Most higher education research work would qualify as research
Pure basic research, strategic basic research, applied research and experimental development.
A research proposal is intended:
 To define a sustained research project
 To show that the candidate has the competence to undertake it
 To show that the candidate has a work-plan to complete it.
It should not be assumed that the reader is familiar with the subject and so the proposal should:
 Be written as if intended for the informed layman
 Should give enough background information to enable the project to be placed in the context
of common knowledge
 Should be clear about how the research will advance the field or be important in some way.
The Research Proposal
The Research Proposal consists of 6 main parts —
3.1. Title
3.1.2. Summary
3.2. Brief Description (What?)
3.3. Rationale (Why?)
3.4. Methods (How?)
3.1. Title:
A good title should:
 Be concise and descriptive
 Prick the reader’s interest and predispose them favourably towards the proposal
 Contain the key words that indicate the area of research
3.1.2. Summary:
The summary – or abstract – speaks for the proposal when it is separated from it and provides the
reader with the first impression of the research. It should be approximately 300 words and encapsulate
the research in its entirety. It should:
 Give a quick overview of the proposal
 Present the essential meaning of the proposal and the major objectives of the project
The Summary is on Page 1 after the Title
3.2. Brief Description (What?)
This section needs to be convincing that there is an important research idea, indicate a good grasp of
the relevant literature or existing related artwork and address the major issues involved. The Brief
Description should contain the following sections: Introduction, Background, Proposed Research,
Main Objective, Aims and Research Questions, which can be used as sub-headings.
66
3.2.1. Introduction:
The introduction should begin with a capsule statement of what is being proposed and then proceed to
introduce the subject as if to a stranger. It should not be assumed that the reader is familiar with the
subject—the introduction should be comprehensible to an informed layman.
It should:
 Give enough background information to enable the research to be placed in a context of
common knowledge
 Show how the research will advance the field or be important for some other work.
 Reflect a sober self-confidence. A touch of enthusiasm is not out of place, but extravagant
promises are anathema to most reviewers.
3.2.2. Background:
Previous or related work must be discussed in some detail and the proposed research placed in the
context of an issue that is relevant and current. By describing briefly previous work you can indicate
in what areas you have developed a curiosity to find something out. This can then be contextualized
through positioning your project within a field or body of knowledge, which can be demonstrated
through a literature review or artist review.
3.2.3. Review of Literature and Current Practice:
This is a major part of the proposal. So that it can be demonstrated that the project makes a significant
contribution to the field candidates need to show that they are aware of the traditions, history and
current status of the field. The purpose of doing this kind of review is to set up your own research
project so it should not be undertaken in the broadest sense. Be specific about works and texts that
relate to your project and cite examples of practitioners and their work along with books – theoretical
and monographs, websites etc.
The reviews should:
 Be selective and critical. Reviewers do not want to read through a voluminous working
bibliography
 Indicate the most pertinent works and the candidate’s evaluation of them - be specific in giving
examples and focus on key concepts
 Not simply be a list of works with no clear evidence that the candidate has studied them
 Give a clear impression of how the candidate will be building upon what has already been done
and how the proposed work differs from it.
 Establish what is original or new in the proposed research.
 Locate the work in the context of the wider theoretical, historical and/or technical field
Many art-based projects establish their “contribution to knowledge” by reviewing the literature in a
non-art field and showing how art can interrogate it in a different way.
Use the literature review to define the parameters of your project.
3.2.4. Proposed Project:
The candidate should be realistic when designing the program of work and overly optimistic notions
of what the project can accomplish in one, two, or three years should be avoided.
 The research should be a specific and manageable project.
 The focus should be clear
 The limits of the project should be defined
3.2.5. Main Objective:
This should be a clear statement outlining the specific reason for doing the project and how it will
contribute to the body of knowledge. It should be taken as given that the candidate already has a
curiosity about something that grows out of their engagement with a particular idea, method of
67
working, topic, concept etc and that they want to find something out. Therefore the Main Objective
should:
 Refer to the goal of the research project
 Be clear about what the research will achieve in relation to the questions and the rationale.
“The main objective of this project is…”
3.2.6. Aims
There may be several aims to support the main objective and these might include more details about
the materials, techniques, travel etc
3.2.7. Research Questions
The research questions come out of the objective of the research, so they should be written in relation
to what has been outlined above. The research questions should:
 Be focused and clear
 Not be too broad or general – they should relate very directly to the project
 Not introduce any new information
 Be open-ended, not elicit “yes” or “no” answers
 Provide scope for a problem to be explored through a creative project – this means that they
should relate to the project.
3.3. Rationale (Why?)
The rationale is the reason for undertaking the research for the field of study, the community etc, NOT
for the candidate. The rationale needs to:
 Clearly state how the project will contribute to the body of knowledge
 Be convincing
 Demonstrate that the research will have impact
This statement is useful: “My contribution to this field is…” and completed with the candidate’s
explanation
3.4. Methods (How?)
Methods is about how the project will be achieved or carried out.
Again there should be no new information introduced here. Methods should:
 Expand on the ways that materials may be used, processes carried out etc
 Provide a work-plan
 Describe the activities necessary to complete the project.
 Contain sufficient information for the reader to determine whether the methodology is sound.
3.4.1 Timeline:
Include a timeline, semester by semester for example and indicate what is planned during that period.
3.4.2. Bibliography
The bibliography should:
 Be comprehensive and clearly indicate what is being researched through the literature to be
accessed.
 Include websites, journals etc as well as books.
 Use a recognized referencing system including websites, which must also include the date of
access.
Overall the Research Proposal should:
68
 Provide the proper context to frame the research questions
 Be clear about the limits or boundaries of the research – might include what it is not as well as
what it is.
 Cite appropriate examples/references – artists, literature etc
 Stay focused on what it is trying to achieve
 Have a persuasive and coherent argument
 Have enough details about the major components to make it convincing
 Have a clear sense of direction
 Be clearly written using “good English”
69