This paper analyses the effect of Christopher Frayling's categorisation of artistic research "research into art and design, research through art and design and research for art and design" on the debate surrounding the efficacy of studio-based artistic research as being valid within the university. James Elkins describes this as the "the incommensurability of studio art production and university life". Through an exploration of the positive and negative responses to Frayling this paper explores the influence that these initial definitions have come to have on framing the scope of the debate. The paper presents a range of responses and analyses them; it focuses especially on the alternative frameworks that have been suggested and examines why they have so far not created a coherent and uncontested framework for practice-led research in the art and design field especially in relation to fine art.