Der RAE 2001 erwähnte mehrereBezeichnungen von Forschungen,alle unter dem Begriff practice-led
“Fine Art (including Painting,Printmaking, Photography);Performance/Installation (includingSculpture); Time-Based Arts (includingFilm, Animation, Video, Virtual Reality,Multimedia, Digital and Interactive Artand Design); Textiles (including printed,woven, embroidered, multimedia textiledesign and tapestry); Fashion; AppliedArts/Craft Design (includingSilversmithing/Jewellery, Ceramics,Glass); Graphic and CommunicationDesign (including Software Design forDigital Artefacts); Art and Design in theLandscape; Interior, Theatre, Exhibitionand Events Design; Industrial Design(including Automotive Design, Productand Furniture Design); Pedagogy in Artand Design; Cultural Studies and Art andDesign Theory, where this is related tocurrent practice and culture, performingarts/music (integrated to visual arts)
Das AHRB (ab 1998) :
focussed on the perceived problematicof ‘practice-led’ research in the creativearts and design by emphasising theimportance of process (questions,context, methods, dissemination) at theexpense of types (of knowledge) workingin the field.
B. stellt fest:
Just as the ‘practice-led’ debate mayhave tended to generate more heat thanlight so may it have diverted focus awayfrom discussion on the types of art anddesign knowledge and their complexity— also, the ways in which these may becreated, tested and contested.
Die Anforderung des AHRB wirdvon den Kunstfakultätenmissbilligt, dass nämlich:
a creative, performance, or practice-ledoutput should be allowed to stand on itsown as a record of researchactivity…we have come to theconclusion that this documentation — atleast for the purposes of RAE — shouldbe required to be presented in verbalwritten form.
B. meint, dass eineAuseinandersetzng mit demForschungbegriff nötig ist, wenndie Forschung derKunsthochschulen sich behauptenwill.