Era presentation february 2009


Published on

Faculty of Higher Education Colloquium. Investigating the Excellence in Research Australia (mark 1) as applied to Humanities, Arts and Social Science disciplines. 2009
Creative Commons License.

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

Era presentation february 2009

  1. 1. Draft Initiatives in Higher Education Policy 2009 as they apply to CHASS disciplinesPresented by Carol-Anne CrokerResearch AssistantWriting Discipline
  2. 2. The recent history…> In September, the Swinburne Dean of Design, Professor Ken Friedman, Dr Christine Sinclair and I (from the Lilydale Campus) attended the launch of Kim Carr’s Innovation policy Venturous Australis at the National Press Club in Canberra.> This also coincided with a National Summit held by CHASS, the Council for Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, on the specific requirements of our sector in terms of policy change and recommendations.> In November 2008 Deans and academic staff at all Australian Universities were asked to list and comment upon all DEST ranked journals specific to their disciplines and fields of research.> At Swinburne I emphasised the importance of making a submission, so that any discrepancies in journal rankings or actual oversights could be attended to when formulating the new research excellence metrics for journal publication..
  3. 3. © Copyright Cutler & Company Pty Ltd 2008 ISBN 978-0-646-50110-9
  4. 4. Participants at the National Summit onInnovation and Creativity September 2008.Several major representative groups were present at this CHASS summit including: Members of the G8 Members of DASSH: Deans of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences The Australian Academy of the Humanities The National Education and the Arts Network The Music Education Network National Indigenous Higher Education Network CAPA : The Council for Australia Postgraduate Associations
  5. 5. Issues of Interest:> Venturous Australia: Building Strength in Innovation was launched by the Minister Kim Carr, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Based upon recommendations made in the Cutler Review.> There was an consensus amongst Summit participants that the emphasis within this policy remained on economic considerations for the ‘Creative Industries’ and lacked a focus on the broader societal benefits ensured by having a robust creative arts sector.> It was also suggested that indeed CHASS itself needed to emphasise the Arts disciplines more strongly in the presentations to the Federal Government.> There was consensus that the DEST metrics discriminated against Australian journals and discipline specific publications in their ranking system.
  6. 6. Major Outcomes:> Draft Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative was disseminated January 2009 and comments/recommendations closed on February 6th 2009 for inclusion in the Final Guidelines document.> The Bradley Review into Higher Education December 17,2008
  8. 8. Salient issues brought to the fore in the ERA Guidelines documentThis may to be a matter of semantics and simple nomenclature but it is myopinion that the new Clusters of Research will inevitably benefit allSwinburne’s CHASS disciplines, should this proposal be ratified.The Excellence in Research Australia initiative differentiates between:Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences (PCE) which weresituated less comfortably within the old DEST divisions of STEM (Science,Technology, Engineering and Mathematics disciplines) and HASS(Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences)Humanities and Creative Arts (HCA) clustersWhat this means in practice is finally a recognition that the two clustersachieve research excellence through differing measures of productivity andesteem as well as the more traditional means measured by DEST.
  9. 9. The objectives of ERA are to:1.establish an evaluation framework that gives government,industry, business and the wider community assurance of theexcellence of research conducted in Australia’s institutions;2.provide a national stocktake of discipline-level areas ofresearch strength and areas where there is opportunity fordevelopment in Australia’s higher education institutions;3.identify excellence across the full spectrum of researchperformance;4.identify emerging research areas and opportunities forfurther development; and5.allow for comparisons of Australia’s research nationallyand internationally for all discipline areas. P.6
  10. 10. Research Evaluation Committees will look at:Indicators of research qualityResearch quality is considered on the basis of ranked outlets, citationanalysis and peer-reviewed Australian and international researchincome. Peer review is also incorporated where necessary.Indicators of research volume and activityResearch volume and activity is considered on the basis of totalresearch outputs and research income within the context of theeligible researcher profile.Indicators of recognitionIndicators of recognition are considered on the basis of a range ofesteem measures.Indicators of research applicationApplied research is considered on the basis of researchcommercialisation income and other applied measures.
  11. 11. Specific relevance to HCA Cluster sAt Lilydale, the Cluster specificity of Disciplines will be impacted as wenow sit between several Field of Research levels, each with differingmetrics being applied to Research Output.•Built Environment and Design (12);•Law and Legal Studies (18);*** Studies in Creative Arts and Writing (19);•Language, Communication and Culture (20);•History and Archaeology (21); and•Philosophy and Religious Studies (22)Basically, prior to this academics in FoR 19 have not previously hadrecognition for creative outputs due to the metrics being predominantlyqualitative in nature and (perceived as) difficult for Institutions to collate.
  12. 12. Cluster 19 changes to Research Output metricsHCA-Specific Eligible Research Output Types: Creative Works p.29For the HCA cluster, eligible research output types include the followingcreative works (in addition to the research output types outlines in section5.4.1):Original (Creative) Works in the Public Domain;Live Performance Works in the Public Domain;Recorded (Performance) Public Works; andCurated or Produced Substantial Public Exhibitions, Events or Renderings.For these research outputs which are selected for ERA peer review (i.e. thoseoutputs that are part of the sample), a statement identifying the researchcomponent of the output must be available in the institutionally-supportedrepository where possible. Further details on the requirements for thisResearch Statement for Peer Review of Creative Works for the HCA Clusterare specified in section 3.5.2 and at Appendix E.
  13. 13. Cluster 19 changes to Research Output metrics ctdOriginal (Creative) Works in the Public DomainFor Original (Creative) Works in the Public Domain, outputs includepaintings, designs, compositions, choreography, plays, or pieces ofwriting that are in the public domain.The exhibition of an original creative work can be used to demonstratethat the work is in the public domain but each instance of such anoutput can only be claimed once. That is, multiple exhibitions of thesame work are not counted as multiple outputs. However institutionsmay nominate multiple research outputs that appeared in a singleexhibition where each of those outputs meet the research outputeligibility criteria.
  14. 14. Cluster 19 changes to Research Output metrics ctdLive Performance Works in the Public DomainFor live performance research outputs, the actual publicperformance of the output is what is counted. A recording of theperformance must be kept in the institutionally-supported repositoryas evidence and for peer review, but this can only be counted inrecorded work below if the recording has a substantial researchcomponent on its own merit, for instance in terms of innovative useof microphones or sound processing.Where possible, reviews of the performance that are in the publicdomain should also be kept in the repository as evidence of theoutput however these reviews will not be used for ERA peer review.
  15. 15. Cluster 19 changes to Research Output metrics ctdRecorded (Performance) Public WorksFor recorded (performance) works, the recorded/rendered version is theresearch output and the research/creative element is in the recording itselfrather than being a record of a performance (as performances fit into the‘live performance works’ output type outlined in section For arecorded work to be included, the act of recording- or rendering itself musthave a substantial research component.
  16. 16. Cluster 19 changes to Research Output metrics ctdCurated or Produced Substantial Public Exhibitions, Events orRenderingsThis research output type refers to outputs for which the curator is theauthor, rather than the artist. Where a curator is an eligible researcher,the curator may claim the exhibition or event as the research output.This output type does not include the exhibition of original creativeworks which should be submitted under the research output type‘original (creative) work in the public domain’ above.
  17. 17. Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.34Editorial role (editor, member of editorial board) of A* or Aranked journalsThe esteem measure ‘Editorial role’ includes the roles of editorand/or member of an editorial board. Guest editors must not beincluded. Institutions are required to identify the kind of editorialrole.The esteem measure ‘Editorial role’ refers only to roles wherethe journal is ranked A* or A on the Ranked Journal list.Editorial roles for journals that are not on this list are not eligibleto be included.
  18. 18. Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.34Contribution to a prestigious work of referenceA prestigious work of reference is defined as one of the best inits field or subfield, characterised by a refereeing process andhigh scholarly standards that are equivalent to an A* or A rankedjournal. It is expected that most contributions will be of a veryhigh quality. Collectively, the work is expected to be recognisedas one of the best sources of references for the field or subfield,and would have authoritative status.To be included in ERA, a contribution to a prestigious work ofreference must be:specifically commissioned for inclusion in that work of reference;considered in advance (i.e. not included retrospectively); andin excess of 700 words (or non-text equivalent).
  19. 19. Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.35Curatorial role (head curator, membership of curatorial board) of aprestigious eventA curatorial role at a prestigious event is equivalent in prestige to thefulfilment of an editorial role at an A* or A ranked journal and should beconsidered in the context of this comparison.Typically, the output of A* or A-ranked curated events will be characterisedby a highly competitive international curatorial, judging or selectionprocess and the highest professional standards. An example of such anevent is a prestigious international biennale.These events will sometimes have a designated series in which seniorcurators, judges or selectors solicit and appraise projects. In almost allcases, those researchers fulfilling curatorial roles will have disciplinaryexpertise and be internationally recognised in their fields.).
  20. 20. Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.35Curatorial role (head curator, membership of curatorial board) of aprestigious event ctd...Prestigious curated events will focus upon distinguished practitioners asparticipants. The events and works will have a highly significant impact onpractice in the field, as evidenced through professional and/or scholarlypublications, performances, recordings, broadcasts, forums and settings.For the curatorial role esteem measure to be submitted for ERA, aresearcher must fulfil the role of either head curator of an event or be arecognised, active, member of the curatorial board. Institutions are requiredto identify curatorships consistent with this definition (both in terms of theprestige of the event, and the extent of the curatorial role.A review panel convened by the ARC and comprising relevant disciplineexperts will be called upon to verify that curatorships submitted by institutionsfor inclusion are consistent with the definitions of ‘prestigious’ and‘curatorship’ in this context.
  21. 21. Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.35Elected Fellowship of a Learned Academy(national/international)For the purposes of this measure, ‘Elected Fellowship’ refers toFellowships differentiated nationally and internationally.Institutions may submit details regarding eligible researchers’Elected Fellowships to Learned Academies, national andinternational.It is possible that in subsequent rounds a defined list of nationaland international Learned Academies will be developed andinstitutions will be required to select from this list.
  22. 22. Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.36Recipient of a nationally competitive research fellowshipFor the purposes of this measure ‘nationally competitive’ refers to afellowship received from a program listed on the AustralianCompetitive Grants Register for the relevant year.Fellowship programs must:have a highly competitive selection process;incorporate a strong element of peer review;be open to applicants from any state or territory;have a minimum tenure of two years full time equivalent; andbe awarded to an individual.
  23. 23. Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.36Recipient of a prestigious prize or award (national/international)Typically, a prestigious prize or award would be one of the best in itsfield or subfield and would be characterised by a refereeing processand high scholarly standards. These awards and prizes would behighly sought after by researchers and would be recognisednationally and internationally as representing excellence, and wouldhave authoritative status. A competitive selection process involvingrigorous peer review would typically occur as a precursor to thereceipt of one such prize or award.Institutions are required to identify prizes and awards consistentwith this definition, separated into national and international. Areview panel convened by the ARC and comprising relevantdiscipline experts will be called upon to verify that prizes andawards submitted by institutions for inclusion are consistent with thedefinition of prestige in this context.
  24. 24. Research commercialisation income p. 41.Institutions may provide information on research commercialisation income,which includes income resulting from intellectual property protectionsuch as patents and subsequent licensing and royalties. Researchcommercialisation income earned by university-owned subsidiaries andspin-off companies is eligible for inclusion in ERA provided that it meets thisdefinition.Research commercialisation income does not include commercialincome from other sources such as research contracts andconsultancies (which is included in Industry and Other Research Income),commissioned works, student fees, the renting of space at universities orany other source.Institutions are required to provide information on researchcommercialisation income as outlined in the ERA XML schema provided aspart of the ERA-SEER Technology Pack.
  25. 25. Proposed Reference PeriodsSubmission data for ERA will be collected for the followingreference periods: (Our first call for such data WAS Feb5th cob.)Measure type Reference Period YearsResearch Outputs 1 January 2002 – 31 December 2007 6Esteem Measures 1 January 2005 – 31 December 2007 3Research Income 1 January 2005 – 31 December 2007 3Applied Measures 1 January 2005 – 31 December 2007 3 Data regarding eligible researchers is not collected for a reference period but based on a single staff census date, which is 31 March 2008 (see section 5.3.1). P.14
  26. 26. Timeline for PCE and HCA ClustersPhase Activity Start Date End Date Responsible Submission Period (including 20 April 2009 8 May 2009 Institutions lodgement of Cluster SubmissionSubmission Certification Statements) Compile Bibliometrics 11 May 2009 29 May 2009 ARC and external citations supplier Assignment of units of evaluation to 1 June 2009 5 June 2009 ARC and REC ChairAssignment reviewers Preliminary evaluation by reviewers 9 June 2009 3 July 2009 Reviewers RECs view all preliminary 6 July 2009 10 July 2009 ARC and RECs evaluations and aggregated indicator profiles prior to main evaluation meetingEvaluation RECs meet to finalise recommended 13 July 2009 24 July 2009 ARC and REC evaluation outcomes for the ARC Distribution of institutional reports 14 August 2009 ARCDistribution/ and publication of national outcomesPublication of Outcomes
  27. 27. Cluster HCA Discipline Matrix pp. 57-61 VOLUME AND ACTIVITY ANALYSIS RANKED OUTLETS Eligible researchers Proportion of total Research outputs by profiled by academic research outputs Journals Conferences type level activity FoR DISCIPLINE 19 Studies in Creative Arts and Writing1901 Art Theory and Criticism     1902 Film, Television and Digital Media     1903 Journalism and Professional Writing     1904 Performing Arts and Creative Writing     1905 Visual Arts and Crafts     1999 Other Studies in Creative Arts and Writing      CITATION ANALYSIS INCOME Distribution of papers against Category 3 Relative Centile relative Category 1 Category 2 (incl. sub- Category 4 citation impact analysis citation rate categories) bands FoR DISCIPLINE1901 Art Theory and Criticism       1902 Film, Television and Digital Media       1903 Journalism and Professional Writing       1904 Performing Arts and Creative Writing       1905 Visual Arts and Crafts       1999 Other Studies in Creative Arts and Writing        ESTEEM Recipient of a prestigious prize Ele or award (national/ cte international) d Fel low shi p of a Le arn Contribution to a Editorial role of A* or A Curatorial role of a Recipient of a nationally ed prestigious work of ranked journal prestigious event competitive research fellowship Ac reference ade my (na tio nal / int
  28. 28.
  29. 29. Headlines from the Media on Release of Bradley Review > Voucher plan could polarise campuses, cause political woes. > $7bn overhaul for higher education in Bradley review > Failure to deliver a road map > Off to market, equity in hand > Review calls for TAFE, university streamlining > You say you want a revolution > Call for new super regulator for universities > Bonus for infrastructure should last a decade > Bradley drops bomb > Bases are covered
  30. 30. Expected backlash from G8?It is my opinion that Swinburne University and other newer Universities can benefit substantially from the changes outlined in the Bradley review, particularly given our geographic location, socio-economic demographics of the potential student population, and through increased flexibilty to streamline pathways between the dual sectors of Swinburne; TAFE and University.In last weeks Australian University Review, Dr Bob Birrell, demographer/lecturer at Monash University analysed the reviews findings and recommendations in is article: The Bradley Review of higher education in Australia. Birrell and Edwards. AUR Vol 51, no. 1, 2009
  31. 31. Key points from Dr Birrell’s article:> The article concludes that enrolment expansion envisaged by the Review (an increase from 29% in 2006 to 40% by 2020) will necessitate a massive infrastructure commitment by the Government (over and above the $7b already earmarked) with the focus on university expansion and construction in the outer suburban regions of all Australian metropolises.> Swinburne is particularly well suited in this regard, as the Review also recommends better access for lower socio-economic and regional students. (Dr Birrell has mapped the Melbourne regions that are underserviced by Universities and TAFE campuses). Our region will be one marked for University expansion and growth, especially given we are dual sector and have been recognised for Teaching Excellence and catering for student diversity (see VC’s email and last years awards)
  32. 32. Birrell and Edwards ctd...“To achieve an increase on thisscale will require therecruitment of young people fromsocial strata hithertolargely excluded from universityattendance. Itcannot be achieved throughmarginal additions fromthe better off families that currentlydominate ranks ofuniversity students. This isbecause the great majorityof young people from thesefamilies already attend orhave attended university.”
  33. 33. Two scenarios used in preceding table.Table 1 sets the scene for the development of this point. It shows the distributionof students by capital city and ‘rest of state’ under the two scenarios outlinedabove. The first is where university participation rates by age group remainunchanged for each capital city or ‘rest of state’, but population increasesaccording the ABS median projections. In the second scenario, there is anincrease in participation rates in each capital city and ‘rest of state’ by two percent per annum between 2006 and 2016. Thereafter these rates stabilise.It is evident that under both scenarios enrolment growth would occur primarily inthe capital cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and to a lesserextent in Adelaide. The overall share of the enrolment increase between 2006 and2021 in these five cities is 78 per cent for the first scenario and 74 per cent in thesecond scenario. It may be that efforts to increase opportunity in regional areas(as recommended by the Review) would modify this prospect a little. However,given the demographic outlook, it is inevitable that most of the additionalenrolees will be drawn from young metropolitan residents. Within these cities thebulk of the young people who would have to be attracted would be located inouter suburban locations. Most of the expansion in the metropolitan urban youthpopulation is occurring on the outer frontiers of these cities
  34. 34. University participation by region - Victoria
  35. 35. Dr Birrell’s key points from The Australian 11/1/09 p.9“An estimated 20 new outer-suburban teaching universities will be neededto meet the enrolment targets set by the Bradley Review.”“They (Birrell & Edwards) argue that such a massive increase in universityenrolments is unlikely to be met by prestigious inner-city universities moreinterested in quality than quantity [sic]”“New campuses will have to be built in locations that best serve populationswith the least access”{The 40% increase equates to} “ 330,000 new graduates by 2020”Dr Birrell argues for a paradigm shift...designed to meet the needs of amarginalised social stratum: the outer suburban fringe dwellers”“Generally speaking, they have money but are not professionals...Theyhave no tradition of sending their kids to higher education and are not servedby high-performing academic private schools.Dr Birrell called for the increase in “affirmative action measures “ to “openup avenues for students from less-favoured backgrounds.”
  36. 36. A call to action for SwinburneI am recommending that Swinburne deliberately looks at the pathwaysand transition programs directed towards bringing our TAFE graduatesinto relevant higher education courses for example better cross-sectorliaison between the TAFE and University disciplines that share commonIndustry links and affiliations.I also urge Swinburne to expand its association with OUA and increasethe provision of online Undergraduate and Post-Graduate courses.I also urge Swinburne to adequately fund the disciplines staffing suchonline education programs and resist relying on sessional staff andcasualisation of the academic labourforce to meet this demand.Adequate funding must also be allocated for course material re-development and continuous updating to ensure we remain recognisedfor Excellence in Teaching.... Perhaps our $1.6 million awarded lastweek could be the initial funding for existing initiatives?