Margins and mainstream paper


Published on

Refereed Conference paper

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Margins and mainstream paper

  1. 1. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 1Swinburne University of TechnologyCarol-Anne CrokerCreative writing Courses in the Academy: no longermarginalised, and becoming mainstream within the globalinnovation and creativity paradigm for academic excellence. Abstract In 2008 the Australian Federal Government released Venturous Australia, a report which positioned creativity central to the Innovation and Globalisation rhetoric. In 2009 the Australian Research Council (ARC) opened access to the HASS sector (humanities, arts and social science disciplines) in a two year pilot period, for the International Collaborative Grants Funding schemes previously only available to the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine) discipline researchers. Minster Carr is on record as stating that to build a knowledge economy for the twenty-first century and for Australia to improve its export position amongst comparable OECD nations, such a divide between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ innovation, and the creativity that drives it is no longer appropriate. For academics, researcher and practitioners in Creative writing programs, as well as for our colleagues in other arts-based or practice-led research disciplines we are now encouraged into the mainstream educational and societal discourses. We are expected to engage with the globalisation imperatives for Australian Industries, including the publishing and tertiary education industries. In looking at research towards my postdoctoral studies, and research for authoring a chapter for a forthcoming monograph on creativity in a globalised market, I propose that we can no longer be viewed as marginalised within the Academy, nor within the economic and social dialogue about Australia’s future. Author Declaration: I am indebted to the collegial sharing of pre-publication research from Associate Professor James C. Kaufman, Professor of Psychology at the California State University of San Bernadino from his now published book The Dark Side of Creativity (2010). Much of this chapter was presented as a work in progress at the Australasian Association of Writing Programs Annual Conference in Hamilton, New Zealand, December 2009. A previous version of this Chapter is forthcoming in Text Journal, 15(1) 2011 (forthcoming). Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  2. 2. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 2 Biographical note: Carol-Anne Croker is also a PhD student at Swinburne University. She was the first student editor of the month on the AAWP’s Writing Network site in 2009. Carol-Anne is also Postgraduate Representative for 2009 for ASAL (Association for the Study of Australian Literature) and the Swinburne University Postgraduate student representative on the AAWP. In 2010 she is the Postgraduate student representative on the Swinburne (Lildale)Faculty Academic Committee , member of the Swinburne Student Consultative Network and Postgraduate member of CAPA (Council of Australia Postgraduate Associations). Her PhD artefact is a novel, Walking with Madness. Carol-Anne’s research interests and experience include women’s popular fiction, feminist fiction, higher education policy research particularly in Creative Art Practice and teaching. As part of her doctoral studies she interned at the Melbourne Writer’s Festival She presented a paper on Chick Lit at the 5th International Conference on the Book in Madrid, Spain, as well as Conference papers for the AAWP and ASAL. . Carol-Anne has worked as an academic teaching Professional Theatre training, Drama-in-Education, Cinema Studies and Media theory and production. Carol-Anne was also ABC Radio (774 Melbourne) theatre reviewer and worked as an actor for over ten years in Australia and the United Kingdom. Keywords: Globalisation – Research Excellence – Creativity Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  3. 3. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 3For academics, researcher and practitioners in creative writing programs, as well asfor our colleagues in other arts-based or practice-led research disciplines we are nowencouraged into the mainstream educational and societal discourses. We are expectedto engage with the globalisation imperatives for Australian Industries, including thepublishing and tertiary education industries. ‘If the arts are to be valued as an integral part of Australia’s national innovation system, we must:  Develop an understanding of arts-based knowledge that connects it to innovation  Broaden commercialisation of the arts and creative outputs  Develop the argument for the arts as social inclusion  Educate an innovative workforce Meeting these challenges requires further research, sector-wide coordination and leadership.’ (Jaaniste 2008:5)This response to Senator Carr’s review into the National Innovation System (Cutler2008) by Brad Haseman and Luke Jaaniste, from Queensland University ofTechnology outlines the political and social imperatives that will frame theeducational debates within arts and humanities faculties in Australia in the comingmonths and years. For those of us studying and working in creative arts disciplines,especially those of us in creative writing disciplines, these imperatives signify wherethe academic debates need to focus within our own disciplines, sectors, departments,faculties and institutions as well as more broadly within the International tertiaryeducation market.I contend that we can unpack this discourse of creativity and innovation to ascertainthe broader economic and social political machinations at play (Rogers 1998; Cooke2009; Stoneman 2007). This paper calls for the de-construction of this new hegemonictertiary educational discourse, which finds its home within the corporate managerialistpolicies and mission statements of our Universities.(Atkinson & Easthope 2008; May2006; May & Perry 2006; Finkelstein 2005; Oakley 2004)Cropley (2010) asserts that innovation and creativity associated with economicgrowth has been linked internationally since the Cold War era and the “so-calledSputnik shock in 1957 (Cropley, Cropley, Kaufman and Runko 2010:243). He seesthe technological advances demanded by the space race as key motivation for both theUS and (then) USSR investing heavily in R &D, with an emphasis on nurturingcreative innovation.However, as correctly noted by Cropley the ‘creativity question’ remained under-defined and under-researched. Until Anderson discussed the problems in ‘harnessingcreativity’ the concept of the actual processes of creation and creativity wereconflated with the term innovation. ‘Creativity is the gift and discipline that provides the competitive edge – in marketing, production, finance and all other aspects in an organisation. Firms and managers crave it. Awards are given for it. Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  4. 4. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 4 Incentives encourage and cajole it. But it is still the most elusive weapon in an executive’s arsenal.’ (Anderson 1992:40)By linking fuzzy notions of innovation with the as yet under-theorised notion ofcreativity, at least in an Australian context, (and to a lesser extent globally until thelast few years of the twenty-first century) and to imply a direct correlation betweenresearch and excellence as drivers of national economic prosperity is problematic.(Hecq 2008; Lowrie & Wilmott 2006; Jaaniste 2009; Smart Business 2009).As Cropley discovered through their research in 2005 by limiting creativity to theproduction process and marketing of a product is to greatly devalue the broader rolecreativity plays within society as a whole. It equates creativity and innovation withconcepts such as market novelty, which in itself implies an ever decreasingimportance within an ongoing development and improvement cycle. This denied someof the core aspects to creativity as identified by Barron (1969), Rhodes (1961) ‘withthe focus on the product exclusively among the four Ps (Process, Person, Product andPress). (Cropley:340)Runco (2010) took this concept further emphasising the person within the process ofcreativity and innovation, without whom the product and production, distribution andinnovation cannot garner economic benefit for a community, company or society.Similarly, US academic and author Lawrence Lessig delivered a key note speech atthe 5th International Conference on the Book in Madrid, Spain in October 2007 (theyear Madrid was named a UNESCO City of Literature). His keynote address wasfocused on the need for global knowledge sharing for future innovation and indeedknowledge production. His solution was to set up the Creative Commons Licensescheme in 2001, where knowledge workers could freely share and develop furtherinnovative ideas and practices. For Lessig the key to innovation for both economicprosperity between developing and developed nations, and to enhance human capitalfor the new knowledge economy and workforce was collegial and co-operative, a sortof creativity without borders.The importance of the role of the artist/creator/innovator was recognised withinAustralia after the attendance by Richard Florida in Melbourne (another UNESCOCity of Literature) ,as guest speaker for the 2004 Melbourne Fashion Festival,speaking on his book The Rise of the Creative Class (2002).This appears to be theseminal moment when Australian policy makers and influential business groups ‘goton board’ with the idea of creative classes, creative cities and creative industries asdrivers of globalisation and promised economic prosperity. ‘The creative individual, Florida argues, is the "newmainstream", a creature to be feted by governments and companies smart enough to realise that the age of creativity is upon us… Cities that accept and encourage diversity - be it racial, sexual or cerebral - are the economic winners of our age, says Florida. Think San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, even Sydney and Melbourne. Gay- friendly, immigrant-friendly, creative and bohemian is the way to wealth. Or, in Floridas neat summation, its the three Ts - tolerance, Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  5. 5. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 5 talent and technology - that governments and business should foster.’ (Florida 2004)Even now after the GFC Australia still features comparatively high up onglobalization matrices and graphs according to Florida and his colleague CharlottaMellander after examining data produced by the KOF Swiss Economic Institute. [Insert Graph 1] ‘Globalization is closely associated with the level of economic development. There is a considerable correlation (.81) between the Globalization Index and economic output (GDP per capita).’ (Florida 2011)In Australia, this discourse has taken hold and been privileged in the Rudd/GillardFederal government’s education and training policy agenda over the last four years.A timeline showing the emergence of this discourse in the public sphere, based on aquick literature overview, demonstrates the need for Universities to engage with thebroader industry globalisation initiatives.With the Australian economy faring comparably well post GFC (Global FinancialCrisis) it is no surprise that our policy and economic discourse remains tied toglobalisation and gross domestic production, perhaps a coming together Barrons fourP’s. [Insert Graph 2] Post-industrial, knowledge-based economies are also more globalized. Globalization is closely correlated with human capital levels (.73) and the percentage of the workforce in professional, knowledge-based and creative jobs (.68). (Florida 2011)For the purpose of charting the interplay of economic discourse, government policyinitiatives and global research and rhetoric I have selected what appear to be the mostinfluential documents and papers determining Australia’s agenda for the knowledgeeconomy; leading the Higher Education and Post-Secondary education debates on thedesirability of a more highly skilled (read educated) workforce to counter Australia’sageing population and low birth rates. [Figure 1 thumbnail landscape required] Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  6. 6. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 6In overseas literature, creativity and innovation have been linked for decades.(Sasaki2004; Swann & Birke 2005, Finkelstein 2005, May 2006; May & Perry 2006;Stoneman 2007). The difference in the in the C21st century discourse illustrates a‘new paradigm’ with economic constructions of innovation applied to non-science-based disciplines and industries for the first time. Individual Australian state premiersnow recognise the Arts sector as economic drivers, particularly in boosting tourismnumbers and tourist revenue. One early example is South Australian Premier DonDunstan labelling Adelaide ‘the Athens of the South’ in the mid-seventies whenmarketing the Adelaide Arts Festival. However, the reconfiguring of innovation withcreativity, into the term ‘Creative Industries’, with explicit instrumental connotations,was yet to appear in the public discourse in Australia until the twenty-first century.In a paper presented in Barcelona in 2004, Masayuki Sasaki referred to the followingdiagram to position the Creative Industries as drivers of cultural development andinnovative thinking, which in turn drives the ‘hard’ innovations needed for turningideas to practice. [Figure 2 thumbnail]However a model proposed by P Stoneman (2007) on the ‘dimensions of innovation’has been used by NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and theArts) to exemplify the way the innovation-creativity nexus locates the relevance of‘soft’ innovation as found in the Creative Industries for economic prosperity forcreative sectors, cities and regions. [Figure 3 thumbnail]Hecq in her 2008 paper, Banking on Creativity, identified the need to place creativityat the centre of the discourse and indeed education practice within our universitysector. ‘Creativity in universities is offered up as a generic skill, no longer limited to practices involving the arts. It has espoused the political agenda that drives the economy to renaissance heights. It is tied in with development, new ideas and, above all, innovation. Productivity, output, cost effectiveness are here buzz-words, not creativity. Thus neo-liberal globalisation remains a significant challenge facing universities and the creative industries increasingly need to play the game of economics in order to be included in the system.’ (Hecq 2008) Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  7. 7. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 7The system is conceptualised by Swann, P and Birke, D (2005) and when applied tothe Australian higher education sector, with particular reference to the Creativedisciplines, the model solves the dualist dilemma faced by universities. [Figure 4 thumbnail]What can be ‘sold’ in the education market as a ‘quality innovative researchparadigm’ is also able to meet the needs of the local education market, identified bythe Bradley Review (2009).Extrapolating from the Bradley Review, if we allow students to study where theirinterest and indeed skills lie, we can address the predicted shortage of skilled labourfor the knowledge workforce in the twenty-first century, whilst maintainingcompetitive rankings on the global quality scales of measurement.By noting the student-demand and interests shown by Australian Government’s ownstatistical data, the creative arts disciplines in Australian Universities has experiencedgrowth over a number of years.Looking at the Australian Department of Education, Employment and WorkplaceRelations publication; Selected Higher Education Statistics: Award CourseCompletions between 1996 and 2007 the change in domestic student numbers inCreative arts fields of study has increased at 3.9%, the second largest increase apartfrom in the Health fields of study with 7.7% . If we include the field of studyclassified as Society and Culture there has been a further 2.2% increase in domesticstudent numbers across the decade. Although slowing slightly the increases havecontinued in both creative arts enrolments and awards into 2008. [Figure 5 thumbnail]The increase is not confined to domestic students, there is also a smaller, butsubstantial increase in the number of overseas students completing awards in theCreative arts; a 5.1 % increase. This increase is less than the increase in Hospitalityand Personnel Services (460.5%) and 8.8 % increase for management and commercewhich can be explained by Australian Government skilled trades training initiativesand priority study/immigration programs. This increase is from a traditionally lowbase, reflecting the fields’ recent place within University curricula. By ignoring thestatistics for the problematic fields of hospitality and personal services, for overseasstudents, and include the increase for overseas students studying society and culture Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  8. 8. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 8fields of research, we can also see a 1.8% increase in these arts-related fields. creativearts undergraduate courses are popular with students, and demonstrate consistentannual increased enrolments and award completions. Therefore inevitably there hasbeen a student driven demand for higher degree programs in the creative artsdisciplines. [Figure 6 thumbnail]Thus if the university sector is seeking to educate graduates for a fluid andunpredictable employment sector and industry it seems that graduates from creativedisciplines will be highly sought after ‘innovative thinkers’, and even in times offiscal restraint and cutbacks in government funding, the student drive demand for suchcourses, and the training in such disciplines should be considered a core educationimperative best suited to ensuring closer higher education and industry linkages.Brenner has demonstrated that it is in Australian Industry’s interest to focus on highlycreative, and innovative products and designs within an increasingly mass-marketglobal “playing field” for consumer goods. [Figure 7 thumbnail]With the current state of media convergence, content will remain key to informationdissemination and knowledge production. Despite the trend towards thedemocratisation of publishing and the media via wiki-style web content, socialnetworking, text, twitter and print on demand services, what will remain constant isthe reader/market demand for trusted and verifiable content. As television did noteradicate the use of radios, nor will the internet and mobile technology eradicate theneed for or desire for the codex.All these new and emerging forms of mass media and publication will share one thingin common the need for content. Thus to marginalise creative writing disciplines, oreven severely cut back intakes in this area will not only be financially costly (in termsof foregone revenue) but also short-sighted and lacking in vision on the part ofuniversity managements.In the paper, Describing the creative writing thesis : a census of creative writingdoctorates, 2001 -2007, Boyd (Boyd 2009) has determined that the aggregate ofaward course completions for creative arts doctorates by research has increased overthe period from 80 in 2001 to 202 in 2007. The number considered ‘creative theses’ is199. Thus we can extrapolate that there is an increasing demand for student placeswithin Creative writing higher degree programs which is replicated across the broader Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  9. 9. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 9fields of creative arts research and practice in Australian Universities. More researchis being done in this area particularly by Dr Paul Thomas at Curtin University and MsGiselle Kett at the Victorian College of the Arts, but no definitive data is currentlyavailable. ‘In Australia, over the past decade there has been a steady increase in both the number of PhD programs in the creative arts and also in the number of candidates enrolled’. (Creative arts PhD Projects Rountable 2008:8)Given the consensus within the creative arts disciplines, and the impetus to establish aLearned Academy for the Creative Arts, these disciplines demonstrate a significantincrease in student demand within our Universities, especially in creative writingprograms (Boyd, 2009; Muecke 2010). [Figure 8 Boyd chart from Text]If we accept (then) Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd’s imperative in his closing speech atthe 2020 summit; ‘to put to bed the false dichotomy between the arts and sciences” itis increasingly important for Australian Universities to recognise the contributions toknowledge made by the Creative arts disciplines. The Government reinforces thisnew alignment or strategic direction for our Universities, but as yet few have takenthis on board in any systematic and meaningful way. There are some attempts toposition the discourse within the various University strategic plans but I contend thatit is merely ‘window dressing’ to camouflage the lack of administrative will to caterfor the HCA disciplines, other than as a source of “bums on seats” and EFTS dollars. ‘Critics of the creative industries idea are fearful that, by introducing into the rationale for supporting culture too great an emphasis on economics, it might marginalise the traditional arts sectors. However, the benefits of mainstreaming culture and media into policy powerhouses of industry development and innovation arguably outweigh the drawbacks.’ (Cunningham 2006: 16 as cited by Perry 2009)Our universities are slow to respond to institutional change, particularly when it is nottied to additional sources of Government funding in this era of post GFC fiscalrestraint and almost universal political agreement to return the nation’s budget tosurplus. Given the time lag between implementation of higher education strategicfunding initiatives and the graduation of employment-ready professionals and trainedemployees, it appears ludicrous to make short –term decisions and pilot schemesunder the pressure of constantly changing global economic trends and labourforcedemands. What the arts and humanities disciplines can deliver in this era of theknowledge economy is highly skilled and adaptable scholars able to meet Industry Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  10. 10. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 10demands as they arise. By thinking longer than the next electoral cycle our politicianswould do well to see government temporary deficits and increased higher educationinvestment in research and teaching, as a national imperative to remain competitive inan environment where even the experts are unable to predict the nature of jobs,careers and industries emerging in the coming decades.Thus I agree with Howard (2008) when he identifies our creative industries andeducation disciplines are caught between “ a hard rock and a soft space”. Perhaps atthis time of fiscal restraint and political will for budget surpluses, Perry (2009) mightreconfigure this position as being between a metaphorical rock and a hard place,where very little space appears visible. Bullen et al (2004: 14-15) suggest that the approach taken in relation to the creative industries concept must be cautious, however: The creative industries offer a vibrant, future-oriented, relevant, and, therefore, compelling alternative to many of the arguments marshalled in defence of traditional arts and humanities faculties. We argue, however, that the capacity of the creative industries to respond to the push towards the use of new technologies, commercialization, and collaborative partnerships must be approached with caution lest these become the governing imperatives for humanities education and research policy development.)  Perry 2009. For every step forward in recognition that the creative industries are crucial for thedevelopment and nurturing of creative capital, there appears a step backwardswhenever the economy contracts with the creative arts and education fundingshrinking accordingly. I argue that in Australia there is a disconnect between policypublication and implementation, efficient and valid assessment and critiquing of pilotprograms leaving new initiatives designed to bridge the STEM/HCA dividevulnerable and under threat of dismantling at each Federal budget sitting.Competition for scarce, government competitive grant, research funding pitsdiscipline against discipline; with the Humanities generally fairing far worse inAustralian Research Council Discovery and Linkage Grants than the more traditionalSTEM faculties at around a 20% success rate for applications in a ‘good year’.The impetus for national and global knowledge creation to break down artificialdisciplinary barriers intensifies under times of Higher Education Spending cutbacks,corresponds in Australia with the Corporate Mangerialist University Governancemodels implanted in the last decade s of the C20th, and remain beholden toquantifiable indices and matrices of ‘quality’, ‘quantity’ and the more problematiccategory; ‘impact measures’. Existing managerialist metrics remain inadequate formeasuring the efficacy of teaching and the periods od data collation far too brief toallow for adequate assessment of impact of less traditional areas of research. Thisfiscal ‘bunfight’ occurs annually in Australia when the Universities strategic alliancesand lobby groups speak representing their Institutional alliances in direct oppositionagainst each others. The recent decision, March 4th 2011 to disband the AustralianTeaching and Learning Council, the peak body for researching higher educationteaching and promotion of innovative teaching pedagogy, demonstrates the Federal Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  11. 11. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 11Governments negligence in implementing pre and post election promises to ensurethe quality of university teaching and research into effective teaching. This is anotherexample of such short-term electoral cycle thinking at the expense of larger scalevisions articulated in their own research documents and action plans (Cutler andBradley Reports for example).In Australia the most recent discussion centres around just how many ways there existto utilise selectively the ERA (Excellence in Research,Australia) pilot schemestatistics to demonstrate supposed research funding worth and merit. Whilst the Groupof Eight (G8) research intensive institutions promote their world ranked standings aspredominantly five across many disciplines and fields of research (top end of the 1-5scale). It could be argued that the quota system set in place to rank journals is skewedto the traditional research disciplines with more highly ranked world journals in theSTEM disciplines.Groups such as the ATN (Australian Technology Network) universities argue thatcomparisons should be based upon like for like models, taking account of geographyand isolation, age of institution and the discipline spreads offered that stand themapart from the G8s, and thus there is less opportunity for publishing in A* rankedjournals in their discipline areas, as they are emerging research fields. MurdochUniversity’s Acting Vice Chancellor, Gary Martin (2011) noted that they haveidentified several different methodologies to view the ERA outcomes. Our analysis have been geared towards how we compare to other institutions of similar size and history [and] when Murdoch looked at fields of research rated as four or five as a percentage of the number of areas submitted [author emphasis], it was ranked 11th nationally. Martin (2011)Similarly an analysis undertaken by the Australian National University, a member ofthe G8 identified that: 14 Universities did not receive a signle five-star rating, with six receiving neither four or five stars.(Rowbotham 2011)With there being no similar metrics system to measure and acknowledge teaching andthe place of undergraduate education within the university sector, it is unwise toassume that none of the ‘lower-ranked’universities are less than world class inacademic standards. It merely points to the emphasis placed by Governmens aroundthe world to value research over the core university function as places of education.Australia within the next two years is hoping to develop a metric based assessment ofteaching quality that will provide recognition for the world class education beingoffered particularly at under and early post-graduate levels of study.With more and more workplace training being performed within universities (nursing,childcare, primary and secondary education, drafting and design) and the smoothingof pathways between Australia’s two sectors of tertiary education, Technical andFurther Education (TAFE) and higher education (degree programs and above) aradical re-evaluation of the (re-envigoured) publish or perish mantra is critical for the Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  12. 12. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 12viability of the sector and its ability to stem the flow of highly qualified academicsand researchers leaving Australia for more secure tenured postings in other countries.Regulatory authorities audit the practices of our Universities are currently in a state offlux with the AQF (Australian Quality Frameworks Agency) being replaced byTEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) there exists no consensusas to how Universities will be held responsible for beaches of quality and standardsand dispute as to the most effective way such measurement can be achieved. Underthe guise of ensuring global competitiveness for our Universities in an increasinglymarket-driven era, promoted through perceived research excellence and productivity,Australia like many nations developed a pilot scheme to assess and measure researchexcellence to enable compliance with regulatory frameworks. The Excellence inResearch Australia pilot scheme has generated more questions than answers as to howit fits within the larger quality auditing processes.Whilst learning some lessons from the UK’s RAE (Research Assessment Exercise)and other European Schemes, we in creative writing celebrated the fact that creativeoutput was finally recognised and allocated ERA points, as indicators of research,however this was not mandated under the AQF (nor at this stage under TEQSA). Theresult was that many universities preferred to market themselves and their researchprofiles (and scores) as indicated by the Shanghai Jiao Tong index. The creative artsdisciplines are virtually invisible on this index as it is reliant upon citation scores andmatrices designed to suit STEM disciplines and traditional research methodologies.So whilst we in creative arts faculties celebrate our artistic output as professionalresearch practice, these same ERA generating publications, installations andperformances, do not attract high or even numerous citation indices, under the manybibliometric scheme operating globally. In the case of the creative arts disciplines(including creative writing), there is no policy imperative to recognise academicstaff’s creative work as research output or research equivalency even within the newlydefined Excellence in Research Australia. Some Universities have moved theirbibliometrics to include these works but some have not.There still exist no formal sanctions for non-compliance in this area. The currenteducational debates focus on how precisely the ERA scores and metrics will beencompassed within or represented within the TEQSA regulations and sanctions if atall. If academic–practitioners’ creative work in the creative arts remain unrecognisedand undervalued, how can the disciplines ensure that students are taken seriously,despite Cutler’s determination that “Australia’s innovation policy needs toacknowledge and incorporate the role of the creative and liberal arts”(Cutler 2008:48)for the National benefit?Similar difficulties have been identified by Boyd points out in her article evenidentifying and measuring our higher degree completion rates and creative output,including post-graduation publication remains virtually impossible to collate.  There is no universal classification of creative writing PhDs on the Australian Digital Theses Program website and many are missing altogether to be found only on university school websites or library Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  13. 13. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 13 catalogues, albeit with often limited information. Also, classification criteria for theses ranges from: which supervisor the candidate worked with, to the form of the thesis or the type of award. The records are cryptic and incomplete and I mapped my journey, metaphorically speaking, through the research process by marching down dead end roads, finding new routes and peering at broken street signs. There is no central place where all creative writing PhDs can be found and no sure way of searching them all out. (Boyd 2009)Luke Jaaniste, Research Fellow in Queensland University of Technology’s CreativeIndustries Faculty, states, “This response holds the perspective that the creative artsand broader humanities (HASS sector) can drive, produce, apply and diffuseinnovation, in different but equally useful ways to the STEM sector... it does notadequately follow this through in the substance of its discussions andrecommendations.” (Jaaniste 2008)Late in 2008 the Australian Academy of Humanities organised a travelling roadshowto target the research success rates of HASS discipline competitive grant applications.Based upon the Federal Governments innovation agenda to bridge artificialdisciplinary boundaries between STEM and HASS, and even across disciplinary siloswithin each research division, a two year pilot scheme was launched to encourage theHASS disciplines to look broadly at what could be conceptualised as ‘scientificresearch’away from predominantly quantitative studies towards more humanistisqualitative studies suited to the disciplines. Universities were actively encouraged toengage with emerging research nations in co-operative research collaborations underthe existing International Science Linkage Scheme.These “new” destinations, particularly collaboration with the ‘emerging’ researchnations, (India, China and South America) together with a re-invigourated discoursewith interdisciplinary focus between Arts disciplines was viewed as the most effectiveway forward to achieve the Governements innovation policy agenda. This seemedimplicit within the pilot ERA field of research codes for the HCA sector (humanitiesand creative arts sector) encouraging ‘cross, intra, and multi-disciplinary researchbetween humanities, social sciences and arts disciplines. Suddenly a new source offunding was opened up for the HASS sector to boost their research output andrankings.This new research initiative underpinned by the Government’s rhetoric ofglobalisation was administered by the Australian Academy of Humanities. At the timeof writing this paper the pilot programs have concluded or are concluding within thecoming months but as yet there is no written reporting available to examine theefficacy of this pilot funding scheme.Unfortunately changes in the Higher Education sector are at the behest of the Federalgovernment and with Labour holding a tenuous position in a hung parliament relianton independents and the minority party for the passage of legislation through bothlower and upper houses, such radical shifts in higher education funding becomes lostwithin the more conservative calls for ALL Industries to be increasingly positioned asproduct driven with export earning capacity. It is the contention of this paper that Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  14. 14. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 14within changing global political and economic cycles such bold and new inclusiveeducation paradigms should be kept at the forefront of the national political debate.In creative arts disciplines, particularly in creative writing, it is critical thatUniversities heed these shifts in educational policy, as the future Government fundinginitiatives demand a broadening of the education being provided and indeed marketedto both the domestic and international students. It is the contention of this paper thatthe HCA (Humanities and Creative Arts ERA cluster) disciplines are well suited tocapitalise on the development of niche education markets, both at home and abroad.To quote Deakin University’s Douglas Kirsner “…journal rankings, part of the ERAmeasures, had created an “aura of false objectivity”.” (as reported by Rowbotham2011)Universities are being forced to second-guess the Government funding moves and focias expressed by Murdoch University Vice Chancellor Gary Martin stating publicallythat ‘…among his strategic priorities for this year and “arguably the most important one of those” was positioning, re-positioning and consolidating research activites as a result of ERA’ (as reported by Rowbotham 2011)This form of manageralist game playing makes those in the HASS sector even morevulnerable of substantial funding cuts, restrictions to research grants and even loss ofprogram offerings should our student popularity wain, at the time when longer termstrategic thinking and recognition of transferrable skills and humanities recognised asthe science it remains. Professor Martin goes on to say, in the same newspaperfeature article that, “in some instances we will look to disinvest in areas of researchwhich have not met international standards” when the very metrics employed andclassification system surrounding it remains clouded in obscurity and inbuiltdiscrimination against the HASS disciplines.As one of the few nations to have weathered the GFC, Australian Higher EducationPolicy has no rational reason to discontinue the positive movements, (especially forthe HCA ERA fields of research) of the past ten years.It is the contention of this paper that the imperative is even stronger now for Australiato engage globally with universities, research institutes and centres of excellence tomove to the prototype university servicing ‘knowledge without borders’ with thetyranny of distance for us in the southern hemisphere being confined to history. Weare educating a new generation, through new technologies at a time of expandingknowledge demands and provision, both of content (ideas) and skills (creativethinking and innovation).The international and global education agenda as outlined in the policy documentfrom the Australian Federal Government’s Department of Innovation, Industry,Science and Research; Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the Twenty FirstCentury, value is now to be recognised for research proposals and projects thatenhance international co-operation and collaboration between individual researchersand discipline clusters across like-minded global partners.i These global partners are Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  15. 15. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 15located in worlds rapidly growing economies of Asia where there already existimodels for research collaboration in place under the Science Division’s Co-operativeResearch Centres. These CRC’s charter is to: ‘To deliver significant economic, environmental and social benefits to Australia by supporting end-user driven research partnerships between publicly funded researchers and end-users to address clearly articulated, major challenges that require medium to long term collaborative efforts. The CRC Program links researchers with industry to focus R&D efforts on progress towards utilisation and commercialisation. The close interaction between researchers and the users of research is a key feature of the Program. Another feature is industry contribution to CRC education programs to produce industry-ready graduates. To date there have been a total of 168 CRCs. There are currently 48 CRCs operating in 6 sectors: environment (10), agriculture and rural-based manufacturing (14), information and communication technology (5), mining and energy (4), medical science and technology (8) and manufacturing technology (7)’. (Government of Australia 2009)(Government of Australia 2009)Despite the apparent primary target being the existing six CRC sectors and generallyseeking research relationships across the emerging economic giants of the worldeconomy, there is also the imperative to continue Australian involvement indeveloping collaborations and alliances with our Asia Pacific Partners. Japan,Indonesia. Chile and Brazil were recently identified at a meeting between ‘interested’academic members of the Australian Academy of Humanities and the DIIR Nationalroadshow at Melbourne University in May 2009.Dr Jon Lewis, Manager of the Asia, Pacific and Africa International Science Branchof the Science and Research Division (of the Department of Innovation, Industry,Science and Research) encouraged all researchers from all disciplines within the HCAsector to investigate and take advantage of these grant schemes as the Minister KimCarr has publicly indicated that the “false dichotomy” between the Arts and Sciencesserves no purpose under Federal Government’s notion of innovation and research.The old privileging of the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics)disciplines in the academy cannot meet the Nations needs for innovation. The idea of‘hard’ innovation constrains and ignores the ‘soft’ innovation found in non STEMdisciplines, ‘as if creativity is somehow this thing that only applies to the arts, andinnovation is this thing over here which applies uniquely to the sciences, ortechnology, or design.’ (Cutler 2008:47)The ramification of this shift in focus challenges ‘the ‘great cultural divide’ that needsrethinking, between the realm of the conceptual, the intellectual [on the one hand] andthe artisan and craftsman [on the other]’ (Jaaniste citing Venturous Australia 2008:48) Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  16. 16. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 16Therefore, Universities must reconfigure their own disciplinary structures and searchout new research synergies. [ Figure 9 thumbnail] Cooke, P 2009, ‘Inside the ‘Black Box’ of Innovation: New Metrics for New Models’Phil Cooke’s 2009 presentation to the Research Workshop on ‘Innovation andLearning in Global and Local Economies: the Importance of Explicit and TacitKnowledge Flows’ at the Basque Institute of Competitiveness in San Sebastian, Spainclearly articulates the economic value and policy imperatives to position ‘softinnovation’ as situated in the Creative arts Industries and education disciplines.The opportunities for exploring uncharted research terrain and pedagogy within thecreative writing discipline has never been more encouraged or supported under a [life]raft of new funding schemes and additional openings within previously limited andtargeted schemes (Croker & Carthew 2010). We now have an imperative to expandour existing national and international collaborative research linkages. We areencouraged to launch cross and interdisciplinary research to enhance both academiccredibility for the discipline and to ensure direct practical applications within ourIndustry sector and communities.For Australia’s dual sector universities (Technical and Further Education & HigherEducation), the opportunity is present to position themselves as Australia’s, andindeed the world leaders in Creative Industry-linked education, by using the nowaccepted, (academically and structurally), and highly sought after (by students),practice-led research pedagogy and theorising.Powering Ideas: an innovation agenda for the Twenty-first century, (Senator KimCarr 2009), correctly links Australia’s economic prosperity with the development ofan educated and highly skilled workforce. This skilled workforce is aspired to by allOECD nations in the current quest to build ‘knowledge economies’ more adaptable totechnological and scientific change than previous workforces.By challenging traditional conceptions of what constitutes ‘academic knowledge’, the‘innovation agenda’ stresses the importance of the synergies between education(particularly tertiary education), culture, arts, science and technology.It is within this conceptual framework that Australia is pushing ahead with reforms toall levels of education; early childhood, pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary,articulated in the 2009 budget response found in the Cutler Review into the NationalInnovation System (Venturous Australia); the subsequent Powering Ideas report, andfinally, the Bradley Review into Higher Education. These three policy documents tietogether Industry, Education and Social policy agendas for C21st.Each Government document stresses:  the need for dismantling false disciplinary boundaries, especially those that form the science/humanities divide, Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  17. 17. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 17  the need to view education as an Industry (from cradle to grave or as is the favoured buzz words; “life-long learning”) ,  the need to provide skilled knowledge workers for growth export industries, and positions education as an export commodity especially throughout the Asia Pacific region.At the same time as pointing towards new economic alliances in the Asia-Pacific,these reports also look towards the ‘old world’, as represented by the OECD andUNESCO. The OECD reports on Higher Education and indeed, into the educationsector more generally, there exists a common master discourse driving policyformulations and government interventions. Whilst attempting to reconceptualise theimperatives for economic development and sustainability by seeking answers from theeducation sector and its research experts there is a space created where culture, nationand region can be identified.The Humanities and Social Sciences must have their research work judged alongsidethe research generated by ‘hard sciences’. In Australia with the ERA (Excellence inResearch Australia), in the UK’s RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) and in Asiawith the Taiwan Humanities Index, creative works are allowed ‘research points’ andrecognition . The nexus between innovation and practice as driven by both ‘hard’ and‘soft’ research/innovation cannot ignore the role played by our non-science baseddisciplines in mapping human history, social change and cultural development.List of works cited:Anderson, J.V. 1992, ‘Weirder than fivtion: The reality and myths of Creativity. Academy ofManagement Executive, 6, 40-47Atkinson, R & Easthope, H 2008, The Creative Class in Utero? The Australian City, theCreative Economy and the Role of Higher Education., Built Environment, vol. 34: 3,September, p.11Australian Government’s Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, 2009‘Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the Twenty First Century’, at July 6, 2009)Australian Teaching and Learning Council; Creative arts PhD Roundtable, 2008 ‘FutureProofing the Creative arts in Higher Education: A scoping project for quality in creative artsresearch training’, Melbourne, University of Melbourne College of the Arts,. AustralianTeaching and Learning Council Ltd 2008, Creative arts PhD Round Table Report, MelbourneUniversity, Melbourne 11-12 at (accessedJuly 10, 2009)Barron, F.X. 1969, Creative Person and Creative Process, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.New York, NY.Bradley, Denise 2008, ‘Review of Australian Higher Education’, at (accessed July 17,2009) Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  18. 18. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 18Boyd, N 2009, Describing the creative writing thesis: a census of creative writing doctorates,1993 - 2008, Text, vol. 13: 1 AprilBullen, E, S Robb & J Kenway 2004 “Creative destruction": knowledge economy policy andthe future of the arts and humanities in the academy, Journal of education policy 19 (1),January: 3-22Carr, Kim 2009 (Introduction ) ‘Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the Twenty FirstCentury’ Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. AGPS:Canberra, at July 6, 2009)Cooke, Phil 2009 ‘Inside the ‘Black Box’ of Innovation: New Metrics for New Models’,Paper presented at Basque Institute of Competitiveness: San Sebastian (May) at’Coslovich, G (2004) ‘Have Talent, Will Travel’ The Age Mrach 22, 2004 (accessed March 23,2011)Cropley, D 2010 ‘Malevolent Innovation: Opposing the Dark Side of Creativity’ in CropleyD.H, Cropley A.J, Kaufman J.C & Runco M.A. (eds). The Dark Side of Creativity.Cambridge University Press. New York, NY: 339-359Cunningham, S 2006 ‘What price a creative economy’, Strawberry Hills, NSW: CurrencyHouseCutler, T 2008 (ed)_Department of Innovation, Education, Science and Research, Cutler &Company Ltd: North MelbourneCutler, T 2008b, Venturous Australia:Report on the Review into the National InnovationSystem., Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Viewed September 13, 2009,, Judy 2008 Closing the Innovation Gap:reigniting the Spark of Creativity in a GlobalEconomy. Book Review, Industry Week, 257:11, p.62 (accessed July 24 2010)Finkelstein, L 2005 Problems of measurement in soft systems, Measurement The logical andphilosophical aspects of measurement, 38:4, 267-274, Measurement and InstrumentationCentre, School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, City University, NorthamptonSquare, London: U.K.Florida, Richard L. 2002. The rise of the creative class: and how its transforming work,leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books: New York, NY.Florida, Richard L, 2011 US far down the list of glabalization Creative Class Exchange Blog,March 19, 2011. (accessed March 23, 2011) of Australia 2009, (ed) Department of Innovation, Education, Science andResearch.AGPS, Canberra.Hecq, Dominique 2008 Banking on creativity? Paper presented at The Creativity andUncertainty Papers: Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the Australian Association ofWriting Programs (AAWP 2008), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 27-29 November at (accessed July 2010)Howard, John (2008) Between a hard rock and a soft space: design, creative practice andinnovation, CHASS Occasional Paper, No: 5 (accessed August 2008) (accessed July 20, 2009) Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  19. 19. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 19 (accessed July 20, 2009)Jaaniste, Luke. 2009. State of the arts and innovation: before and after the Review of theNational Innovation System Australian journal of public administration 68:3, 272-287.International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, EBSCOhost (accessed July 31, 2010).Jaaniste, Luke 2008 ‘Comments on the Review of the National Innovation System (RNIS):Responding to the RNIS Report: Venturous Australia: building Strength in Innovation’, QUTDigital Repository. at (accessed July 2009)Lowrie, A & Willmott, H 2006 Marketing Higher Education: The Promotion of Relevanceand the Relevance of Promotion, Social Epistemology 20:3/4, 221-240Marginson, Simon 2009 ‘Australian Education and the World: Has the Bradley Report got itright?’ NTEU Breakfast forum, Crown Casino:Melbourne, 9 April, 2009, at April 15, 2009)May, T 2006 Universities: Space, Governance and Transformation, Social Epistemology20:3, 333-345 (accessed February 10 2009)May, T and Perry, B 2006 Cities, Knowledge and Universities: Transformations in the Imageof the Intangible, Social Epistemology 20:3/4, 259-282NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) 2009 Innovationrenovation, Smart Business, 5:5, 16-17, NESTA:U.K.Oakley, K 2004 Not So Cool Britannia: The Role of the Creative Industries in EconomicDevelopment, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7:1 (March), 67-77Perry, G 2009 Ferals, nomads, drifters, gypsies, vagrants, blow-ins, thieves, troublemakers,tricksters and terrorists: creative writing, from creative industries to creative ecologies, TEXT13(2)Rhodes, M. 1961, An Analysis of Creativity, Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310 Rogers, Mark 1998 The Definition and Measurement of Innovation Melbourne InstituteWorking Paper No:10/98, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research:University of Melbourne at, J.2011a Macquarie Breaks Through, The Higher Education Supplement, TheAustralian newspaper, March 9. p33Rowbotham, J.2011b Journal Rankings Dont Reflect Performance, The Higher EducationSupplement, The Australian newspaper, March 9. p33Rowbotham, J.2011a Tactical Moves Ahead of ERA II, The Higher Education Supplement,The Australian newspaper, March 16. p32Runco, M. 1991 Divergent Thinking. Ablex Norwood, New Jersey.Sasaki, M 2004 The Role of Culture in Regeneration. Paper presented at the Dialègs-FòrumUniversal de les Cultures – Barcelona 2004 at August 2007)Swann, P and Birke, D 2005 ‘ How do creativity and design enhance business performance?A framework for interpreting the evidence’, DTI Think Piece, University of NottinghamBusiness School,U.K.P. Stoneman 2007, An introduction to the definition and measurement of soft innovation,NESTA Working Paper, London. Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009
  20. 20. Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 20  Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP Conference 2009