The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative marked a significant milestone in integrating art and design into the university sector, allowing creative research to be measured and acknowledged at a national level.
Yet, despite multiple iterations, the evaluation process remained frustratingly opaque for many creative researchers.
Central to ERA’s ranking scale is the concept of ‘world standard’, a benchmark against which all Fields of Research (FoRs) were measured. Surprisingly, this crucial term was never clearly defined by the Australian Research Council (ARC) or articulated by the Research Evaluation Committees in their assessment processes. The ARC did provide some guidance, stating that ‘“World Standard” refers to a quality standard. It does not refer to the nature or geographical scope of particular subjects, or to the locus of research nor its place of dissemination’ (2015). However, after three rounds of ERA, with no concrete benchmarks or examples, it became apparent that many assessors disregarded this important qualification.
This ambiguity led to several unintended consequences:
- Misinterpretation of ‘world standard’: The term was often understood as ‘international’ or ‘overseas’, rather than a measure of research quality. This led to outputs being ranked based on venue prestige rather than research merit, skewing the assessment process.
- Overemphasis on venue quality: This approach, despite the ARC’s guidelines, favoured researchers operating within existing institutional networks of galleries and museums, potentially overlooking high-quality work presented in more idiosyncratic locations and modes.
- Methodological misalignment: Evaluation panels comprising a variety of researchers were tasked with reviewing practice-led research projects without necessarily having expertise in these methods. This mismatch led to assessments that may have overvalued industry success markers at the expense of research rigour and conceptual depth. Methodological differences leading to a distortion of what constitutes research excellence was an issue with ERA highlighted by Universities Australia (2022).
- Reductive effect of rigorous critique culture: The visual art field’s culture of criticality and relentless questioning had an unintended negative impact in the ERA context. This led to creative arts codes consistently receiving lower average ratings compared to other disciplines, potentially undervaluing the field’s research contributions.
- Metropolitan bias: The emphasis on prestigious venues inadvertently favoured universities in major cities, particularly Sydney and Melbourne, due to their proximity to influential industry networks. This bias disadvantaged regional institutions.
As we look to the future of research assessment in Australia, there is an opportunity to redefine ‘world standard’ in a way that more accurately captures the quality and complexity of our creative research.
We propose a more nuanced approach based on criteria commonly used in PhD examination processes:
- Originality of contribution: Researchers must clearly articulate their project’s central research problem and its unique contribution to their field of practice. This contribution should demonstrate how the work advances knowledge, techniques, or understanding within the discipline, potentially extending to related domains such as art or design criticism or relevant theoretical areas.
- Methodological rigour: The work should demonstrate an expert grasp of relevant techniques in the field, evidenced through the creative output itself or accompanying exegesis. This includes the ability to critically evaluate the work, its process, and its potential for further exploration, showcasing a depth of engagement with practice-led research methodologies.
- Contextual awareness: Researchers should exhibit a deep and thorough understanding of the disciplinary and research context of their work. This involves situating the project within current debates, practices, and theories in the field, demonstrating how the work responds to or challenges existing paradigms and issues.
These criteria balance the unique aspects of creative practice with the rigour expected in academic research, providing a more robust framework for assessing research quality in creative works.
We contend that the PhD examination process, which already applies similar criteria, should be regarded as the benchmark for ‘world standard’ in creative research.
By adopting this approach – and ensuring assessors have relevant methodological expertise – future research evaluations can more accurately reflect the quality of research produced by our art and design schools, regardless of their size or location.
This refined assessment model would allow creative arts departments of all sizes to effectively measure and articulate their contributions. It would recognise, as many creative researchers know, that rigorous, informed creative practices are not limited to market centres like New York and London but can be found in Kyneton, Mount Gambier, and Toowoomba as well; and that innovative, methodologically rich practices can take place in dilapidated car parks as well as in our esteemed museum halls.
As ACUADS, we advocate for the implementation of these criteria in any future iterations of ERA or similar evaluation frameworks. This approach will ensure a fairer, more comprehensive and more accurate assessment of creative arts research, reinforcing its vital role in Australia’s academic landscape and fostering experimentation, critical thinking, and cultural diversity across the sector.
References
Australian Research Council (2015) State of Australian University Research 2015-16.
Universities Australia (2022) ERA Benchmarking and Rating Scale Consultation Submission, April 2022.
Veronika Kelly is Associate Professor in Design and Professorial Lead, University of South Australia, is Chair of ACUADS, and has extensive experience in higher education academic leadership and design. Veronika researches in the areas of design culture, practice, and ethics and is recognised nationally and internationally with awards for design education. Her current research with Routledge explores the experiences and career trajectories of women in communication design practice from diverse regions across the globe.
Charles Robb is Associate Professor in Visual Art at QUT, Meanjin/Brisbane and ACUADS Executive member. He has been a practicing artist for more than three decades and his work has been seen in numerous group and solo exhibitions at venues including MONA (Hobart), the Museum of Contemporary Art (Sydney) and the Ian Potter Centre: NGV Australia (Melbourne). Robb’s studio-based research explores the relationship between the memorial object and incidental form through sculpture, digital, and photographic media.