An Alternative Approach to Establishing a Studio Doctorate in Fine Art
As soon as the creative arts migrated from academies into colleges and universities, questions about accreditation and evaluation arose. From its inception, the master of fine arts (MFA) degree has been problematic. Although the College Art Association published standards for the MFA in 1977, confusion remains between this terminal degree and the nonterminal master’s degree (MA) in fine arts. Some believe that the solution to this problem is to establish the PhD as the terminal degree in fine arts; however, this solution is problematic in other ways: Standard approaches to research and publication in PhD programs do not mesh with the reality of studio-based creative inquiry and production. A better solution might be the development of a doctor of fine arts (DFA) degree.
Over the past 10 years, there has been extensive discussion about the PhD as an appropriate degree for university teachers of the visual arts in the United States. Implied in much of this discussion is the eventual supplanting of the MFA as the terminal degree in the field, since the PhD has become the university standard in much of the English-speaking world. While we agree that there are many good reasons for moving toward a doctoral-level terminal degree in the university context, we believe that there are alternatives to the PhD that are better suited to the studio arts.
The MFA (master of fine arts) degree has been problematic since its inception. Among the issues have been confusion of the terminal MFA with the nonterminal master’s degree (MA) in fine arts, questions about acceptability of the MFA in the university setting (for hiring, promotion and tenure purposes) and even questions about its very purpose (is it a professional degree or a teaching degree?).
Despite these issues, the MFA remains the standard terminal degree for the visual arts in the United States, having been affirmed—and reaffirmed—as such by the College Art Association (CAA) and the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD). Attempts to establish doctoral-level fine arts degrees in the United States were relatively rare prior to 2004; only two programs that are currently active were founded earlier (Ohio University, 1963; Texas Tech, 1972) [1]. A doctor of arts (DA) program at New York University was founded in the 1980s but is no longer active [2].
Currently, however, a growing number of fine arts PhD programs are coming into existence in the United States, perhaps spurred by the growth of visual arts PhD programs around the world. James Elkins, in his Artists with PhDs blog, counted seven functioning programs in the United States and several more on the way [3], while Bruce Mackh, Mellon Research Project Director of ArtsEngine at the University of Michigan, listed 15 [4].
Elkins notes the renewed interest in visual arts PhDs while observing that “North America is the least formed of the PhD ‘cultures’ around the world” [5]. He states that this moment gives us “an opportunity to rethink the fundamental conditions of the PhD” [6].
We agree that the present period of transition offers an opportunity, but we are less interested in rethinking the conditions of the PhD than we are in addressing the issue of doctoral-level degrees in the visual arts. The discussion thus far has been far too PhD-centric.
While the PhD may be the appropriate degree in research contexts, the exact relationship between visual arts practice and research is far from resolved, and forcing all visual arts practice in the university into a standard research model would be a serious mistake. The approaches to research and publication in PhD programs do not mesh with the normal processes of studio-based creative inquiry and production [7]. Additionally, research funding for the arts is generally not available in the United States. The so-called practice-based versions of the PhD, which have been created to accommodate creative fields, are already generating their own issues, as some claim that they are—or might be perceived to be—inferior to the traditional PhD degree [8].
We note that there are many professional practice doctoral [End Page 520] degrees currently being awarded in diverse fields—and accepted as terminal—by universities in the United States and globally. Even within the arts, we can look to the example of music performance, whose terminal DM (doctor of music) and DMA (doctor of musical arts) degrees extend back more than 60 years [9]. The DA (doctor of arts) and DFA (doctor of fine arts) are offered as terminal fine arts degrees in countries such as Finland and England [10]. The DFA (as an earned degree) already exists in the United States; it is given in dramaturgy by the Yale School of Drama [11]. This alternative should be a bigger part of the discussion and it is indeed included in statements on the subject by both CAA and NASAD, which acknowledge the possibility of multiple terminal degree options.
And, while we support the move toward a doctoral-level requirement in visual arts at the university level, we are concerned that thousands of MFA holders currently in university teaching positions could be adversely affected. Those in tenured or other long-term positions would likely be grandfathered, but those teaching on short-term contracts or seeking employment might face significantly reduced options. For current MFA holders, earning a professional doctorate such as a DFA is likely to be more expedited and less costly than earning a research doctorate. And, for those who already have significant professional or academic accomplishments, these could be recognized toward DFA degree requirements.
PROBLEMS WITH THE MFA SINCE ITS INCEPTION
In the spring of 1976, George Sadek, then President of CAA and Dean of the School of Art at Cooper Union, convened the CAA MFA Standards Committee, charging it to “evaluate the current practices in graduate studio art programs and to establish a set of MFA degree standards” [12]. The committee set out to clearly distinguish the MFA from the MA, as well as to standardize MFA programs.
As graduate students at the University of California, San Diego, we were contributors to the process. The document that resulted was adopted by the Board of Directors on 16 April 1977.
We didn’t realize at the time just how erratic the development of the MFA had been. The degree was first awarded by the University of Washington in 1924. While the “MFA” title was subsequently adopted by the University of Oregon, Syracuse University and Yale, among other schools, the requirements for the MFA varied wildly [13]. With the huge growth of university art departments post–World War II, the MFA proliferated widely and with little consistency. In 1960, CAA endorsed the MFA as the appropriate terminal degree in the visual arts and broadly defined its nature [14]. However, it took an additional 17 years for the CAA to develop more specific guidelines for the MFA.
These CAA “Standards and Guidelines,” subsequently revised in 1991 and again in 2008, continued to define the MFA as the “recognized terminal degree in the visual arts.” This status was reaffirmed in 2015 [15].
Nonetheless, widespread confusion about the meaning of the degree persists among academics and nonacademics alike. A young artist we know, who recently received her MFA from a low-residency program, indicated on her web-site that she had earned a “master’s” degree in art. Even after three years of MFA studies, she didn’t understand the difference between an MA and an MFA. Another acquaintance asked about the value of enrolling in an MFA program for filmmaking, thinking that it wouldn’t qualify him for college teaching since it was “only a masters.” Even the federal government is confused. Although the U.S. Department of Education acknowledges the MFA as the terminal degree in fine arts (rather than as a degree preceding PhD studies), the Census Bureau puts the MFA and the MA together in the same category. Until recently, the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) survey used the Census categorization. It was only in 2013 that the Institute recognized the MFA as having a different status [16].
CAA still finds itself coming to the rescue of studio arts faculty members unable to advance through academic rankings because of confusion over the meaning of the MFA [17].
Our contribution to the 1977 CAA report includes the following:
The most clearly obvious difference of opinion about the MFA among [the members of the Committee] centers around a perceived academic/professional dichotomy in the degree. Part of this perceived dichotomy derives from a real and significant difference of opinion about the nature of the academics of art—this difference is deep-seated, philosophical and unlikely to be changed (nor should it be) by CAA guidelines. . . . Historically, the degree has operated almost exclusively within the educational establishment; it is obvious that there has not been, by and large, a professional function for the degree. [These conditions leave] the MFA degree in what amounts to a vacuum in practical cultural terms [18].
The nature of the MFA—including its usefulness in academia, its status as a terminal degree and its general irrelevance to the art world at large—has remained a topic of discussion at CAA. In 1980, Maksymowicz participated in a forum/roundtable discussing the post-MFA transition into the academic and professional art world. In 1988, Maksymowicz again took part in a related discussion, “MFA—Treasure or Trash,” this time considering the essential value of holding the degree.
These ongoing arguments reflect the uneasy marriage between the creative arts and the university [19]. The kind of research that artists conduct and the kind of teaching in which artists engage do not easily conform to the expectations of either administrators or faculty colleagues in other disciplines. Carol Becker, Dean of Faculty and Professor of the Arts at Columbia University’s School of the Arts, addressed this tension in her keynote address at the University of Pennsylvania’s recent conference on “The Humanities and the Arts in the Integrated Knowledge University” (HAIKU). She argued passionately that the “unquantifiable results” of such research are equal in importance to the type of positive outcomes that can be measured and indexed [20].
Despite the unease surrounding the MFA, the number of MFA programs continues to increase. Although many [End Page 521] art schools and academies still offer certificates in fine art, most now offer the academic degree as well. In addition, low-residency MFA programs are attracting artists of all ages.
THE INEVITABLE MOVE TO A DOCTORAL-LEVEL DEGREE
The PhD is well established in Great Britain, Ireland, Australia and the Netherlands as the required university teaching credential in the visual studio arts. While the exact nature of the degree varies widely among these countries and even among individual institutions, and while the programs may differ significantly from those in the United States, there is a broad acceptance of the PhD degrees awarded. At a minimum, this means that visual artists in the United States holding MFA degrees will have increasing difficulty being accepted as university teachers abroad. Perhaps more significant is promotional assertion that PhD-holding applicants for university jobs within the United States will have a competitive advantage over those holding “merely” an MFA [21].
As mentioned in our introduction, until recently fine arts doctoral degrees in the United States were rare. The PhD programs that Texas Tech University and Ohio University have offered since 1972 and 1963, respectively, are broadly based across disciplinary, theoretical and philosophical areas. There are also some highly specialized doctoral degrees, such as the PhD in ceramic engineering at the New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred University, and degrees in allied fields such as the EdD (doctor of education) with an emphasis in studio visual arts [22].
Now, possibly in response to developments in Europe and elsewhere, several hybrid philosophy/art, art theory or art/technology PhD programs have been launched, such as the programs at the IDSVA (International Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Electronic Arts) and our own graduate alma mater, the University of California, San Diego (an art practice concentration in the PhD program in Art History, Theory and Criticism). This last degree is offered alongside—but independent of—UCSD’s existing MFA (which has, notably, always been relatively theory and writing intensive). The description of the UCSD degree states that
while candidates are required to fulfill the same academic requirements as the other PhD students . . . including two to three years of graduate-level course work in art and media history, theory and criticism, language exams, passage of a formal qualifying exam, and submission of a dissertation prospectus . . . [their dissertations] combine a shorter written component with a completed art project (film, video, exhibition, installation, public project, etc.) [23].
The line these new programs walk in the attempt to distinguish themselves from studio practice studies is increasingly blurry. Despite making this distinction, some of the programs highlight the potential advantages of their degree in the competition for studio positions. George Smith—a former dean at the Portland School of Art and founder of the IDSVA doctoral program—can be seen in an interview by Maine Public Television [24] stating that his program’s degree, in tandem with an MFA, would be a valuable asset for a studio artist looking for a teaching position. A holder of a PhD from the Texas Tech program, in an interview by Daniel Grant for the Huffington Post [25], states that he is convinced that his new degree will improve his job prospects for a studio position. James Elkins also sees the PhD as offering a competitive advantage [26] and he predicts a rapid growth in the number of such programs.
Ellen Levy, a past president of CAA, organized a panel at the School of Visual Arts (SVA) in 2011 titled “The Reluctant Doctorate: PhD Programs for Artists.” The panelists, while broadly supportive of PhD programs for visual studio artists, did not suggest that the PhD should replace the MFA as the terminal degree in the United States. Several of the panelists, and Levy herself, spoke about the advantages of PhD study in artists’ formation, in improving their writing and in opening up research possibilities—including collaborative opportunities with researchers outside the visual arts. Levy and another panelist, Tim Gilman-Sevchik, had gone to Europe to earn their PhDs, and they noted that the cost is far lower there than in the United States [27].
ISSUES WITH THE PHD AS THE DOCTORAL DEGREE IN VISUAL STUDIO ART
The traditional PhD degree is based in research that is, ultimately, described or analyzed in written form—in a way that, ideally, means the same thing to all readers [28]. A common assumption is that research expressed in written form is superior to—or at least better suited to the university—than research expressed in creative practice. Even when such practice is couched in research terminology, as it is in many “practice-based” PhD programs, the creative output is accompanied by a written thesis, which is said to provide a “deeper level of understanding” [29].
It could be argued that the teaching of creative practices is inherently ill suited to the university context and should be handled in specialized art academies and schools. Yet, in Great Britain and other countries, just the opposite has happened: The most prestigious art academies have been granted university status (such as the Royal College of Art [30]) or have been incorporated into, or allied with, major universities. At the same time, the PhD degree has almost universally become the required degree for university teaching.
One of the results has been a skewing of the creative arts toward history, theory, philosophy and other language-centric fields. The implementation of practice-based programs has offset this to a degree. But the language-centric hierarchy keeps reappearing. In Great Britain and elsewhere, there is an active debate about whether practice-based degrees are equivalent to traditional degrees. This debate emerges out of varied concepts of rigor and the perceived subjectivity of much creative practice, as elucidated by Candlin [31].
For the purposes of a PhD, artwork is deemed inaccessible to judgment unless accompanied by (con)textual material: While the creative work may demonstrate originality and so on, it is actually only the written research that can adequately clarify those factors and provide a basis for judgment. Yet artwork has been and is still successfully judged outside of [End Page 522] an explicit relation to text, so why does the practice-based PhD destabilize what are established and educationally viable modes of judgment within art departments?
In many ways, academia has always been problematic for creative practices, tending to limit and even distort them [32]. Making this context even more language-centric can only exacerbate the problem. Visual art practices that are largely or entirely subsumed by the written word, with some notable exceptions, can become self-limiting. Materiality, sensuality, emotion, intuition, gesture and so many other nonverbal (or at least language-resistant) qualities of art can tend to be minimized in favor of that which can be easily described—or even substituted—by language. Great art can be made by practitioners who are not the most capable of theoretical writing. Nonetheless these artists can be inspirational teachers and stimulating discussants of both their own art and the art and history contextualizing it. It is our own experience that nose-in-paper reading of academic papers can be far less elucidating or stimulating. The nonacademic vitality of creative practice must be preserved within the structures of higher education, whatever the degree standards may be.
Allied to this is the distinction between theory “about” a practice and theory as embodied by a practitioner. In many fields, the master’s degree certifies the ability to practice and the PhD is based in the theoretical/historical aspects of the practice. For example, Jason Bergner in the Journal of Accountancy states:
A PhD in accounting differs from a . . . MAcc degree in subject matter. The PhD coursework does not address accounting fundamentals (financial statements, debits/credits, GAAP, etc.). Rather, the curriculum generally focuses on research about accounting, usually from either or both of two perspectives commonly known as archival and behavioral [33].
If there is a purpose to keeping vital, working studio artists as teachers in the university, then the theory and research in which they engage, and through which they perhaps earn a doctoral degree, must focus, at least to some extent, on their own practice.
Indeed, artists’ reorientation toward the traditional research and writing priorities of PhD programs can cause them to doubt, and even abandon, their studio practices. In the same Huffington Post article cited above, Daniel Grant writes that “many students have found that getting a PhD takes away from work in the studio. Some leave the field of fine arts entirely as practitioners, becoming theoreticians, historians and fine arts scholars instead” [34]. While it isn’t surprising that the experience of pursuing a PhD might cause some artists to cease their studio practice, this is currently a small-scale phenomenon in the United States. However, if these types of language-focused doctoral programs were to become established as the only accepted path to university teaching, the effects could be greatly magnified.
One additional example about the potential perils of language-centric approaches to creative fields: A colleague of ours, a dancer/choreographer hired on a tenure-track line, decided to pursue a PhD in dance history and theory. She did not realize that earning a doctorate would cause a radical shift in the way that she would be evaluated for tenure. She was subsequently advised that only her written publications, not her choreography or performances, would “count” for the research component of her dossier.
An experience that we had several years ago at a sculpture conference in Wales made us aware that many of the issues we raise extend well beyond the United States. Two African artists expressed to us concern about the terminal status of their MFA degrees. They were being questioned by their administration because they did not hold PhDs, so they had turned to CAA for professional support. Another African artist, C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, describes his fear of what might be lost in a poorly thought-out shift in academic standards:
The reality, which is at once dangerous and ugly, is that in the next few years—unless something positive and logical is done—all the visual arts faculty in our universities and polytechnics will become reluctant art historians, yet teaching one aspect of studio or the other. The result, in terms of art scholarship, will indeed be unimaginable [35].
DOCTORATE—BUT NOT NECESSARILY PHD
We believe that the shift to a doctoral-level degree for the fine arts is inevitable in the United States and that there would indeed be benefits to such a shift. Life would be much easier for arts departments in universities if their faculty held degrees with “doctor” in their titles. It would mean less “reeducation” of provosts, deans and college-wide committees upon faculty hiring, tenure, promotion and salary adjustment, and it would reduce surprisingly common barriers to professorate privileges. It could potentially raise standards, encourage rigor and clarify issues of teaching qualification.
However, as we’ve stated in the introduction, we do not believe the degree must be a PhD (even a “practice-based” one). The key is “doctoral level.” Neither the particular research-related school-funding system that required the title “PhD” for university professors in the United Kingdom, nor the strictures of the Bologna Declaration that restructured education in Europe, is present in the United States. Not only do programs of study leading to the PhD vary greatly, but many countries, including our own, use a wide range of doctoral titles. We’ve given the examples of the DA/DFA in Finland and England, as well as the U.S.-based examples of the DM/DMA degree in music performance, and the Yale dramaturgy DFA. Indeed, U.S. universities offer a wide variety of doctoral degrees in addition to the PhD. While some of these degrees are related to professional legal requirements, such as the MD, many others are not, such as the EdD, STD (doctor of sacred theology) and DNP (doctor of nursing practice).
We favor the title “DFA” because it clearly implies an extension beyond the MFA. In the case of the Yale Drama School, for example, the three-year MFA program can be seen as the coursework component of the DFA requirement. Those wanting to go on for the doctorate take comprehensive exams and propose a thesis topic (which may be practice based). If a student’s proposal is accepted, the student carries out work [End Page 523] on the thesis, and the thesis eventually undergoes final review and approval, as in a PhD program [36].
We are not alone in making such a recommendation. In 2011, as part of a panel at the CAA annual meeting, Margaret Kennedy-Dygas, now Dean of the College of Fine Arts at Ohio University, advocated using the DMA as a model for developing the DFA [37]. Victor Burgin has argued for the DFA as one of “three distinct kinds of ‘terminal degree’ in visual arts” [38].
One of our concerns about an exclusively PhD-oriented approach is the potential difficulty for current teachers holding MFA degrees. A viable DFA option might best allow for a reasonable upgrade path from an MFA—perhaps something similar to what is done at Yale Drama. Further, as is currently practiced in some countries, significant professional and academic achievement could be recognized as offsetting a portion of the doctoral requirements. In extraordinary cases, an earned DFA degree could even be awarded to a current MFA holder based entirely on achievement [39].
Another concern is the fate of the hundreds of MFA-granting programs in existence. As we’ve stated, the purpose of the MFA in visual studio practice has never been clearly defined. At times, it is promoted primarily as a teaching degree; at other times, this purpose is downplayed. If qualification for a university teaching position is removed from the mix of motivations, a clearer purpose—and better-defined curricula—might emerge. There is significant value in the further development of one’s creative practice. In this scenario, the MFA might very well remain an acceptable—perhaps even preferred—graduate degree for artists who do not intend to teach in the university.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS MUST BE PROACTIVE
While much of the transition—or nontransition—to one or more doctoral-level visual arts degrees in the United States may sort itself out in the marketplace, we believe that the two principal organizations developing norms for arts education at the undergraduate and graduate levels—CAA and NASAD—should play a leading and proactive role in affirming acceptable terminal degrees in the fine arts. The current situation is chaotic and often blatantly entrepreneurial on the part of degree programs. While CAA has included several panels on the PhD question over the past several years and has been connected to other discussions, such as the one its former president Ellen Levy held at SVA, it is only just beginning to recognize how far the process has already come. The most recent CAA statement (2015) reaffirms the MFA as the terminal degree, while acknowledging “the existence of a variety of PhD and other doctoral degrees that incorporate art and/or design.” It then goes on to state that “offering such opportunities is . . . within the purview of individual institutions” [40]. However, it offers no specific recommendations or further guidance. NASAD, in its Handbook, states under the topic of “purpose” that doctoral degrees in art/design must “emphasize research or scholarship” and does not include proficiency in any creative practice as one of the prerequisites for doctoral study. It does, however, leave the door open for practice-based doctoral study in its inclusion of “doctoral programs with multiple-core objectives in studio and research or scholarship” [41]. A NASAD publication from 2004, a “policy analysis paper” [42], contains a much fuller and more nuanced consideration of both the PhD and professional doctorates in the arts and design.
A clearer statement by one or both of these organizations, recommending that all accredited doctoral-level and MFA degrees in the visual arts be accepted as terminal degrees in the United States, would legitimize competition and allow for the creation of DFA programs. The viability of these programs in the U.S. higher education context would, of course, have to prove itself over time. A DFA degree would start out with less name recognition and less automatic prestige than the PhD, but its value as a teaching degree in the university context, as well its potentially lower cost compared with a PhD, could make it competitive. We believe that a DFA, or something like a DFA, is absolutely necessary as part of a visual arts pedagogical mix that can keep studio practice vibrant and relevant (and dare we even say fun) in a mi-lieu of rising expectations, intense competition and funded-research prioritization that currently favors the PhD degree as a singular solution.
VIRGINIA MAKSYMOWICZ is a sculptor who has taught studio art in universities, liberal arts colleges and art schools. She was a member of the 1976 College Art Association MFA Standards Committee and served as a member of CAA’s Professional Practices Committee from 2013–2016. Maksymowicz is a Professor of Art in the Art & Art History Department of Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, PA, U.S.A.
BLAISE TOBIA is a visual artist and theorist who teaches art in a research university. He has had a lifelong interest in the pedagogy of arts education. Tobia is a Professor in the Art & Art History Department of Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.
Footnotes
See <www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/50/5> for supplemental files associated with this issue.
References and Notes
1. Bruce M. Mackh, <brucemackh.weebly.com/blog/expanding-scholarship-in-the-visual-arts>.
2. The program was housed at NYU in the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development. Source: Marie Andrea Mc-Clendon, Office of Planning and Communication, NYU Steinhardt.
3. James Elkins, “List of PhD Programs around the World,” in Artists with PhDs, <www.jameselkins.com/yy/?page_id=305>, paragraph 47.
7. “The Practice-Based Research Debate,” The National College of Art and Design, University College, Dublin, Ireland, <www.ncad.ie/intranet/research_notes2.shtml>, accessed 14 March 2015.
8. Victor Burgin, in his paper “Thoughts on ‘Research’ Degrees in Visual Arts Departments,” worries that “widely differing conceptions of the quality of intellectual argument and written expression” in such programs undermines “the value not only of research degrees in visual arts but of PhD degrees in general.” <https://avphd.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/victor-burgin-thoughts-on-research.pdf>.
9. Marvin E. Latimer Jr., “The Nation’s First D.M.A. in Choral Music: History, Structure, and Pedagogical Implications,” Journal of Historical Research in Music Education 32, No. 1, 19–36 (October 2010).
10. Aalto University, <www.aalto.fi/en/studies/education/programme/doctoral_programme_art_design>; Finnish Academy of Fine Arts, <www.kuva.fi/en/studies/doctoral-studies>; University of East London, <https://www.uel.ac.uk/postgraduate/courses/prof-doc-fine-art>; Nottingham Trent University, <www.ntu.ac.uk/apps/pss/course_finder/105156-1/39/art_and_design.aspx#overview>. [End Page 524]
11. Yale School of Drama, Yale University, <www.drama.yale.edu/degree-programs>.
12. Letter from George Sadek to the MFA Standards Committee of the CAA, 30 April 1976, first paragraph.
13. Howard Singerman, Art Subjects: Making Artists in the American University (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989) p. 216.
15. College Art Association, “Standards and Guidelines: MFA Standards,” October 2008, <www.collegeart.org/guidelines/mfa>; College Art Association, “Statement on Terminal Degree Programs in the Visual Arts and Design,” 12 January 2015, <www.collegeart.org/guidelines/terminal-degree-programs>.
16. “2013–2014 HERI Faculty Survey Changes,” <www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/surveyAdmin/fac/HERI-Faculty-Survey-Changes.pdf>.
17. Daniel Grant, “For Artists, M.F.A. or Ph.D.?” Inside Higher Ed, <www.insidehighered.com/advice/2013/05/24/phd-challenges-mfa-requisite-degree-arts-professors-essay>. For an open discussion of the continuing confusion about the MFA’s status in higher education, see the blog An MFA *is* a Terminal Degree, <www.terminalmfa.blogspot.com/2004/10/and-again-i-say.html>.
18. Unpublished response by Virginia Maksymowicz and Blaise Tobia to George Sadek, August 1976.
19. The history of the MFA and the question of whether “the university is the proper home for the artist” is discussed in G. James Daichendt’s Artist Scholar: Reflections on Writing and Research (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012) p. 34.
20. The HAIKU conference took place 12–13 September 2014. Although the text of Becker’s address has not been made available, her article, “Artmaking as Irreverent Research,” comes close to her statements; see the Huffington Post, 27 January 2014, <www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-becker/artmaking-as-research_b_4665206.html>.
21. For example, the 2014 publicity brochure for the IDSVA (Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts) low-residency PhD program asserts that as “job candidates,” degree holders “will hold a tremendous advantage in the job market.”
22. Alfred University PhD in ceramics, <engineering.alfred.edu/grad/ce>; Teachers College, Columbia University, EdD in college teaching of studio art, <http://www.tc.columbia.edu/arts-and-humanities/art-and-art-education/degrees/doctor-of-education-in-college-teaching-of-art/>.
23. University of California, San Diego, Department of Visual Arts PhD, <www.visarts.ucsd.edu/p-overview>. Note: When we initially began research for this article in 2012, UCSD called its degree program the “PhD Concentration in Art Practice.” That page equated the MA and the MFA as “master’s-level degrees” that could provide entry into the PhD program. The original URL was <www.va-grad2.ucsd.edu/~gd2/phd-concentration-art-practice>; the page is now archived through the Wayback Machine, <www.web.archive.org/web/20121011005944/http://va-grad2.ucsd.edu/~gd2/phd-concentration-art-practice>.
24. Frank Ferrel, interview with George Smith, “Conversations with Maine,” Maine Public Broadcasting Network, 16 November 2011, <http://video.mainepublic.org/video/2168401167/>.
25. Daniel Grant, “Universities to Artists: Get a Doctorate?” Huffington Post, 31 May 2011, <www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-grant/mfa-degrees_b_868903.html>.
26. James Elkins, Artists with PhDs: On the New Doctoral Degree in Studio Art (Washington, DC: New Academia Publishing, 2009) p. viii.
27. Linda Downs, “Notes on the Panel ‘The Reluctant Doctorate: PhD Programs for Artists?’” 16 November 2011, <http://www.collegeart.org/news/2011/11/16/field-report-5/>.
28. It should be noted that as subject matter moves from mathematics and hard sciences through social sciences into the humanities, the language becomes progressively more open to individual interpretation.
29. “Topic 2: Research and Practice” (part of the CCS PGR Study Report, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia) p. 4, <research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/linda/PBR/pdfs/CCS-PBR-R2.pdf>.
30. Royal College of Art, <www.rca.ac.uk/studying-at-the-rca/the-rca-experience/Note-from-the-Rector/>.
31. Fiona Candlin, “A Proper Anxiety? Practice-Based PhDs and Academic Unease,” Working Papers in Art and Design, 2000, <http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/743/1/candlin4.pdf>.
32. For the historical context of this debate, see Singerman [13] chapter 1, “Writing Artists onto Campuses.”
33. Jason Bergner, “Pursuing a PhD in Accounting: Walking in With Your Eyes Open,” 1 March 2009, <www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2009/mar/pursuingaphdinaccounting.html>.
35. C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, “Art Training in Nigeria and the PhD Syndrome” (2012), <www.heavensgate-ng.com/index.php/8-articles/3-art-training-in-nigeria-and-the-phd-syndrome>, accessed 14 March 2015.
36. Yale School of Drama, Yale University, <www.drama.yale.edu/program/dramaturgy-and-dramatic-criticism>.
37. CAA Education Committee, “MFA? DFA? PhD? DVA? Determining the Terminal Degree in Studio Art Practice for the 21st Century,” presented at the College Art Association Annual Conference, New York, 9 February 2011.
39. In Australia, for example, awards “higher doctorates” can be given to those who have made substantial, original and distinguished contributions to knowledge in their field of expertise (Australian National University: Higher Doctorates Rule [Part 2] 2015, <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01799/Html/Text#_Toc434410446>).
41. National Association of Schools of Art and Design, 2016–2017 Handbook, 143 and 145. See <https://nasad.arts-accredit.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/NASAD_HANDBOOK_2016-17.pdf>.
