As we know, in the case of academic research, the standard, typical or expected has long privileged the written text and traditional publishing places like journal articles, book chapters and books, which are of course primarily designed for and consumed within the academic community. I’ve been in academic leadership roles for over a decade now at different universities and participated in various processes that govern academic careers such as promotion, probation, and appointment panels. These committees are underpinned by professional conventions and capability frameworks built around the standard, typical and expected and of course, fuelled by financial models. Over time, however, and turbocharged by digital disruptions, I’ve seen a shift in how these career-defining panels view research in academic CV’s. This changing culture has come from both sides – academics have become more confident about the value of their own research practices and better at arguing that point; and the institutions, increasingly literate about how creative practice fits into the broader research ecosystem. We should be very proud of this. But of course, we’ve got a long way to go and today will be a much-welcomed discussion about this.
Changing culture takes a long time, especially in institutions and professions that can be traced back to 1088 in Bologna.
But I hold great hope that the national research agenda, focused on impact and what’s often called ‘the beneficiaries’ of the work that we do in higher education, will help change an outdated and far too narrowly focused model and give that final push towards parity between NTROs (using the non) and ‘traditional’ research.
The purpose, format and intended audience of practice related research is often more oriented towards non-academic stakeholders and real-world application. Rather than just satisfying academic publishing requirements, or for that matter, impressing other scholars.
Here’s the provocation of how practice-led creative practice research can create impactful outputs that align with an increasingly dominant national, impact driven, research agenda, as noted in the recent University Accord.
In an era where research is expected to demonstrate tangible benefits to society, economy and the environment, creative practice research offers a powerful pathway to maximize research impact.
Practice related research is often designed and disseminated in ways that directly engage with what is known as ‘end-users’ and stakeholders outside academia – whether it’s an Interactive Data visualisation informing public policy, a design prototype driving industry innovation, or a documentary film sparking social change, these outputs have the potential to build bridges between academe and the wider society.
By expanding the definition of research excellence beyond just academic metrics, universities and funding bodies can incentivise researchers to undertake more applied user centric and interdisciplinary work.
The shift can foster stronger collaborations with the industry, government and community partners, ensuring research agendas are aligned with pressing societal challenges.
The broadening of types of research outputs signals an exciting evolution in the research landscape, one where impact, engagement and real-world application become the markers of success. Leveraging this potential could be transformative not just for the research community, but also for the communities that we serve.
One more, final point: there’s an appetite to think about creative practice research in academia through a diversity and inclusivity lens.
Embracing creative practice research can elevate the contributions of researchers from diverse backgrounds, disciplines, and methodological approaches.
There are so many different approaches to seek answers to questions, that generate new knowledge. This inclusiveness aligns with growing calls for more equitable and representative research systems that serve the broadest possible public good.
Mia Lindgren is Professor of Media and Associate Dean Research Performance at the University of Tasmania. Mia’s research examines podcast practice, storytelling, and aesthetics, with attention to the intersection with journalism and public health. Her interdisciplinary research has been funded by five national competitive grants (ARC and NHMRC). She has served on the DDCA Board since xx.