Agenda Toward the 21st Century (1996), notes," Both Davis (1977) and Hamblen (1989) observed that art educators have worked inductively and idiosyncratically without the base-line data and descriptive information about the field that is necessary for informing art education theory and practice. In art education, there is a preponderence of individual, independent studies that have not been replicated"(p. 8). In the last several years NAEA has worked vigorously to create rational, comprehensive strategies for research in art education, including publications, and the creation of the NAEA Commission on Research in Art Education, and its eight task forces representing research in demographics, conceptual issues, curriculum, instruction, contexts, student learning, teacher education, and evaluation. Each of these strategies seeks a clearer conception of research, promotes discussion of research issues and priorities, and encourages research through coordination, communication, and collaboration.

For research to proceed in a purposeful manner, art educators need a comprehensive view of ongoing research in the field. The broad array of practical and theoretical issues in art education begs the question," What is the current state ofresearch in art education?" In order to answer that question, I surveyed 332 art educators, including 137 members of the Seminar for Research in Art Education (SRAE) and 195 other higher education faculry at US institutions with doctoral and/or masters' programs in art education. The survey asked respondents to identify one or two categories corresponding to the eight NAEA Research Task Forces that most typified each research study. Ofthe 332 art educators surveyed, 75 (or 22.6%) responded, reporting on a total of254 studies completed in 1995 and/or ongoing in 1996. Of these, 102 (or 40.1%) were done by 68 higher education faculry and 10 independent scholars (without an institutional affiliation), 60 (or 23.6%) were doctoral dissertations, and 92 (or 36.2%) were masters' theses. The results are shown in Tables 1-3. Each study is classified by one or two categories corresponding to the eight research task forces. The categories are hierarchically ranked from left to right, and from top to bottom, resulting in a different categorical order for each matrix. In Table 2 and 3, another category, Technology, has been added to reflect write-ins.