Showcasing + Reporting Creative Practice Research Outputs

With this edition we are continuing the conversation around research reporting and assessment of creative practice research outputs. The first thing to say is that the focus on measurement, accounting, and evaluating is not the only conversation to be having, and that in order to get that part ‘right’ what we need is to seriously engage with the philosophical underpinnings that guide the pragmatics around doing creative practice research in the academy.

For example, are the categories of ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ still apt? Or are these categories built on certain assumptions that we ought to put into question? Is the best way forward to compare the emergence of new ways of doing research with pillars that were instituted in very different times, or should we be reassessing some of these understandings? And perhaps this is the impulse for the Australian Universities Accord and ARC Review. That Creative Practice Research came into the university relatively recently, allows it to be a good kind of ‘disruptor’ in relation to some much larger questions around ‘knowledge’ and ‘research’.