There is still, perhaps surprisingly given the advances in the literature we have (especially in Australia), no consensus on what research excellence looks like. We know what creative practice research is and why it’s undertaken, but when and how do we know it is excellent (or not)?
Might we be bold and put out a statement (like the Manifesto, 2023) via the Australian Research Council which is bolder and more specific in asserting the criteria? Have we been too accommodating of nuance and interpretation? Has this inadvertently undone us?
I will draw here on the difference between what I call research-enabled practice, and practice-enabled knowledge (see Batty and Zalipour 2024).
This is the difference between a creative artefact that contributes knowledge in and of itself, and creative works/iterations/experiments that form a method from which to draw knowledge about process and practice. There are different contributions in these models, found in different places or artefacts, so when judging excellence in a creative artefact, are we looking for the same thing?
If we want robust data and a level playing-field for research evaluation – excellence and impact – then we need to have a consistent and reliable dataset.
We currently do not have this. Each university has its own way of collecting and assessing a creative research output, from sophisticated digital systems to in-person committees where people literally bring in piles of materials and notes to table and discuss. And let’s not ignore personal agendas here – for those who have been involved in assessing creative research works, who can, hand on heart, say that they have never brought in or seen from others personal opinion (rather than balanced critique) about someone’s work? I don’t have enough hands on which to count how many times I have experienced this.
How can we be confident that we are all coming to evaluation on the same basis, with the same data, and therefore are producing a national dataset that is able to do a good, robust job of research evaluation?
This is where we need a national, fit-for-purpose NTRO (or creative research output) system – informed and built by experts, with sector-wide consultation – to ensure that we’re all putting in the same data, to the same level, assessed to national standards, which would then lead to a better outcome for all universities participating in whatever the new Excellence in Research for Australia becomes.
On reviewers: this proposed national system – a national standard, if you like – ought to then give reviewers, experienced and emerging, more confidence in how they assess research. And by association, university research committees and research offices confidence in the verifiability of their research output collection. For example, how many people here today have been sent a work to assess – in whatever system, university committee or creative journal – and have struggled with what to say? How many can say, hand on heart, that they are crystal clear about the criteria – and that academic buzz words (e.g., affordances, intersectionality, methodological innovation), and that name-dropping, industry awards and other accolades haven’t swayed their thinking? Are we sure that we are looking for the research contribution only, despite how many awards the book won, how many international festivals the film played at, or how many aged care facilities have taken on the co-design framework? I suggest that most of us here today oscillate between ‘this looks great’ and ‘this sounds pretty standard practice’; between ‘I have no idea what this research statement means, so it must be genius’ and ‘this research statement has clearly been written by someone else, to make it sound better than it probably is’. I won’t ask for a virtual show of hands, but you get my drift.
Craig Batty is Professor and Executive Dean of UniSA Creative, University of South Australia. Craig is also President of the Australian Council of Deans and Directors of Creative Arts (DDCA). Craig is an award-winning educator, researcher and supervisor in the areas of screenwriting, creative writing and screen production, and the broader field of creative practice research, which includes the creative doctorate.