Draft Initiatives in Higher Education Policy

2009 as they apply to CHASS disciplines

Presented by Carol-Anne Croker

Research Assistant

Writing Discipline

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..

http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Documents/NIS_review_

Web3.pdf

© Copyright Cutler & Company Pty Ltd 2008

ISBN 978-0-646-50110-9

Participants at the National Summit on

Innovation 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

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.

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

DRAFT ERA SUBMISSION GUIDELINES:

PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND EARTH

SCIENCES (PCE) & HUMANITIES AND

CREATIVE ARTS (HCA) CLUSTERS

Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) Initiative

http://www.arc.gov.au/era/submission.htm

Salient issues brought to the fore in the ERA

Guidelines document

This may to be a matter of semantics and simple nomenclature but it is my

opinion that the new Clusters of Research will inevitably benefit all

Swinburne’s CHASS disciplines, should this proposal be ratified.

The Excellence in Research Australia initiative differentiates between:

Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences (PCE) which were

situated 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) clusters

What this means in practice is finally a recognition that the two clusters

achieve research excellence through differing measures of productivity and

esteem as well as the more traditional means measured by DEST.

The objectives of ERA are to:

1.establish an evaluation framework that gives government,

industry, business and the wider community assurance of the

excellence of research conducted in Australia’s institutions;

2.provide a national stocktake of discipline-level areas of

research strength and areas where there is opportunity for

development in Australia’s higher education institutions;

3.identify excellence across the full spectrum of research

performance;

4.identify emerging research areas and opportunities for

further development; and

5.allow for comparisons of Australia’s research nationally

and internationally for all discipline areas. P.6

Research Evaluation Committees will look at:

Indicators of research quality

Research quality is considered on the basis of ranked outlets, citation

analysis and peer-reviewed Australian and international research

income. Peer review is also incorporated where necessary.

Indicators of research volume and activity

Research volume and activity is considered on the basis of total

research outputs and research income within the context of the

eligible researcher profile.

Indicators of recognition

Indicators of recognition are considered on the basis of a range of

esteem measures.

Indicators of research application

Applied research is considered on the basis of research

commercialisation income and other applied measures.

Specific relevance to HCA Cluster s

At Lilydale, the Cluster specificity of Disciplines will be impacted as we

now sit between several Field of Research levels, each with differing

metrics 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 had

recognition for creative outputs due to the metrics being predominantly

qualitative in nature and (perceived as) difficult for Institutions to collate.

Cluster 19 changes to Research Output metrics

HCA-Specific Eligible Research Output Types: Creative Works p.29

For the HCA cluster, eligible research output types include the following

creative works (in addition to the research output types outlines in section

5.4.1):

Original (Creative) Works in the Public Domain;

Live Performance Works in the Public Domain;

Recorded (Performance) Public Works; and

Curated or Produced Substantial Public Exhibitions, Events or Renderings.

For these research outputs which are selected for ERA peer review (i.e. those

outputs that are part of the sample), a statement identifying the research

component of the output must be available in the institutionally-supported

repository where possible. Further details on the requirements for this

Research Statement for Peer Review of Creative Works for the HCA Cluster

are specified in section 3.5.2 and at Appendix E.

Cluster 19 changes to Research Output metrics ctd

Original (Creative) Works in the Public Domain

For Original (Creative) Works in the Public Domain, outputs include

paintings, designs, compositions, choreography, plays, or pieces of

writing that are in the public domain.

The exhibition of an original creative work can be used to demonstrate

that the work is in the public domain but each instance of such an

output can only be claimed once. That is, multiple exhibitions of the

same work are not counted as multiple outputs. However institutions

may nominate multiple research outputs that appeared in a single

exhibition where each of those outputs meet the research output

eligibility criteria.

Cluster 19 changes to Research Output metrics ctd

Live Performance Works in the Public Domain

For live performance research outputs, the actual public

performance of the output is what is counted. A recording of the

performance must be kept in the institutionally-supported repository

as evidence and for peer review, but this can only be counted in

recorded work below if the recording has a substantial research

component on its own merit, for instance in terms of innovative use

of microphones or sound processing.

Where possible, reviews of the performance that are in the public

domain should also be kept in the repository as evidence of the

output however these reviews will not be used for ERA peer review.

Cluster 19 changes to Research Output metrics ctd

Recorded (Performance) Public Works

For recorded (performance) works, the recorded/rendered version is the

research output and the research/creative element is in the recording itself

rather than being a record of a performance (as performances fit into the

‘live performance works’ output type outlined in section 5.4.2.2). For a

recorded work to be included, the act of recording- or rendering itself must

have a substantial research component.

Cluster 19 changes to Research Output metrics ctd

Curated or Produced Substantial Public Exhibitions, Events or

Renderings

This research output type refers to outputs for which the curator is the

author, 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 creative

works which should be submitted under the research output type

‘original (creative) work in the public domain’ above.

Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.34

Editorial role (editor, member of editorial board) of A* or A

ranked journals

The esteem measure ‘Editorial role’ includes the roles of editor

and/or member of an editorial board. Guest editors must not be

included. Institutions are required to identify the kind of editorial

role.

The esteem measure ‘Editorial role’ refers only to roles where

the journal is ranked A* or A on the Ranked Journal list.

Editorial roles for journals that are not on this list are not eligible

to be included.

Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.34

Contribution to a prestigious work of reference

A prestigious work of reference is defined as one of the best in

its field or subfield, characterised by a refereeing process and

high scholarly standards that are equivalent to an A* or A ranked

journal. It is expected that most contributions will be of a very

high quality. Collectively, the work is expected to be recognised

as 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 of

reference must be:

specifically commissioned for inclusion in that work of reference;

considered in advance (i.e. not included retrospectively); and

in excess of 700 words (or non-text equivalent).

Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.35

Curatorial role (head curator, membership of curatorial board) of a

prestigious event

A curatorial role at a prestigious event is equivalent in prestige to the

fulfilment of an editorial role at an A* or A ranked journal and should be

considered in the context of this comparison.

Typically, the output of A* or A-ranked curated events will be characterised

by a highly competitive international curatorial, judging or selection

process and the highest professional standards. An example of such an

event is a prestigious international biennale.

These events will sometimes have a designated series in which senior

curators, judges or selectors solicit and appraise projects. In almost all

cases, those researchers fulfilling curatorial roles will have disciplinary

expertise and be internationally recognised in their fields.).

Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.35

Curatorial role (head curator, membership of curatorial board) of a

prestigious event ctd...

Prestigious curated events will focus upon distinguished practitioners as

participants. The events and works will have a highly significant impact on

practice in the field, as evidenced through professional and/or scholarly

publications, performances, recordings, broadcasts, forums and settings.

For the curatorial role esteem measure to be submitted for ERA, a

researcher must fulfil the role of either head curator of an event or be a

recognised, active, member of the curatorial board. Institutions are required

to identify curatorships consistent with this definition (both in terms of the

prestige of the event, and the extent of the curatorial role.

A review panel convened by the ARC and comprising relevant discipline

experts will be called upon to verify that curatorships submitted by institutions

for inclusion are consistent with the definitions of ‘prestigious’ and

‘curatorship’ in this context.

Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.35

Elected Fellowship of a Learned Academy

(national/international)

For the purposes of this measure, ‘Elected Fellowship’ refers to

Fellowships differentiated nationally and internationally.

Institutions may submit details regarding eligible researchers’

Elected Fellowships to Learned Academies, national and

international.

It is possible that in subsequent rounds a defined list of national

and international Learned Academies will be developed and

institutions will be required to select from this list.

Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.36

Recipient of a nationally competitive research fellowship

For the purposes of this measure ‘nationally competitive’ refers to a

fellowship received from a program listed on the Australian

Competitive 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; and

be awarded to an individual.

Cluster 19 Esteem Measures p.36

Recipient of a prestigious prize or award (national/international)

Typically, a prestigious prize or award would be one of the best in its

field or subfield and would be characterised by a refereeing process

and high scholarly standards. These awards and prizes would be

highly sought after by researchers and would be recognised

nationally and internationally as representing excellence, and would

have authoritative status. A competitive selection process involving

rigorous peer review would typically occur as a precursor to the

receipt of one such prize or award.

Institutions are required to identify prizes and awards consistent

with this definition, separated into national and international. A

review panel convened by the ARC and comprising relevant

discipline experts will be called upon to verify that prizes and

awards submitted by institutions for inclusion are consistent with the

definition of prestige in this context.

Research commercialisation income p. 41.

Institutions may provide information on research commercialisation income,

which includes income resulting from intellectual property protection

such as patents and subsequent licensing and royalties. Research

commercialisation income earned by university-owned subsidiaries and

spin-off companies is eligible for inclusion in ERA provided that it meets this

definition.

Research commercialisation income does not include commercial

income from other sources such as research contracts and

consultancies (which is included in Industry and Other Research Income),

commissioned works, student fees, the renting of space at universities or

any other source.

Institutions are required to provide information on research

commercialisation income as outlined in the ERA XML schema provided as

part of the ERA-SEER Technology Pack.

Proposed Reference Periods

Measure type Reference Period Years

Research Outputs 1 January 2002 – 31 December 2007 6

Esteem Measures 1 January 2005 – 31 December 2007 3

Research Income 1 January 2005 – 31 December 2007 3

Applied Measures 1 January 2005 – 31 December 2007 3

Submission data for ERA will be collected for the following

reference periods: (Our first call for such data WAS Feb

5th cob.)

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

Timeline for PCE and HCA Clusters Phase Activity Start Date End Date Responsible

Submission

Submission Period (including

lodgement of Cluster Submission

Certification Statements)

20 April 2009

8 May 2009

Institutions

Compile Bibliometrics 11 May 2009 29 May 2009 ARC and external

citations supplier

Assignment Assignment of units of evaluation to

reviewers

1 June 2009 5 June 2009 ARC and REC Chair

Evaluation

Preliminary evaluation by reviewers 9 June 2009 3 July 2009 Reviewers

RECs view all preliminary

evaluations and aggregated indicator

profiles prior to main evaluation

meeting

6 July 2009 10 July 2009 ARC and RECs

RECs meet to finalise recommended

evaluation outcomes for the ARC

13 July 2009 24 July 2009 ARC and REC

Distribution/

Publication of Outcomes

Distribution of institutional reports

and publication of national outcomes

14 August 2009 ARC

Cluster HCA Discipline Matrix pp. 57-61

FoR DISCIPLINE

VOLUME AND ACTIVITY ANALYSIS RANKED OUTLETS

Eligible researchers

profiled by academic

level

Research outputs by

type

Proportion of total

research outputs

activity

Journals Conferences

19 Studies in Creative Arts and Writing

1901 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

FoR DISCIPLINE

CITATION ANALYSIS INCOME

Relative

citation impact

Centile

analysis

Distribution of

papers against

relative

citation rate

bands

Category 1 Category 2

Category 3

(incl. sub-

categories)

Category 4

1901 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

Editorial role of A* or A

ranked journal

Contribution to a

prestigious work of

reference

Curatorial role of a

prestigious event

Recipient of a prestigious prize

or award (national/

international)

Recipient of a nationally

competitive research fellowship

Ele

cte

d

Fel

low

shi

p

of

a

Le

arn

ed

Ac

ade

my

(na

tio

nal

/

int

ern

http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Documents/PDF/High

er%20Education%20Review_one%20document_02.pdf

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

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

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)

“To achieve an increase on this

scale will require the

recruitment of young people from

social strata hitherto

largely excluded from university

attendance. It

cannot be achieved through

marginal additions from

the better off families that currently

dominate ranks of

university students. This is

because the great majority

of young people from these

families already attend or

have attended university.”

Birrell and Edwards ctd...

Two scenarios used in preceding table.

Table 1 sets the scene for the development of this point. It shows the distribution

of students by capital city and ‘rest of state’ under the two scenarios outlined

above. The first is where university participation rates by age group remain

unchanged for each capital city or ‘rest of state’, but population increases

according the ABS median projections. In the second scenario, there is an

increase in participation rates in each capital city and ‘rest of state’ by two per

cent per annum between 2006 and 2016. Thereafter these rates stabilise.

It is evident that under both scenarios enrolment growth would occur primarily in

the capital cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and to a lesser

extent in Adelaide. The overall share of the enrolment increase between 2006 and

2021 in these five cities is 78 per cent for the first scenario and 74 per cent in the

second 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 additional

enrolees will be drawn from young metropolitan residents. Within these cities the

bulk of the young people who would have to be attracted would be located in

outer suburban locations. Most of the expansion in the metropolitan urban youth

population is occurring on the outer frontiers of these cities

University participation by region - Victoria

Dr Birrell’s key points from The Australian 11/1/09 p.9

“An estimated 20 new outer-suburban teaching universities will be needed

to meet the enrolment targets set by the Bradley Review.”

“They (Birrell & Edwards) argue that such a massive increase in university

enrolments is unlikely to be met by prestigious inner-city universities more

interested in quality than quantity [sic]”

“New campuses will have to be built in locations that best serve populations

with 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 a

marginalised social stratum: the outer suburban fringe dwellers”

“Generally speaking, they have money but are not professionals...They

have no tradition of sending their kids to higher education and are not served

by high-performing academic private schools.

Dr Birrell called for the increase in “affirmative action measures “ to “open

up avenues for students from less-favoured backgrounds.”

A call to action for Swinburne

I am recommending that Swinburne deliberately looks at the pathways

and transition programs directed towards bringing our TAFE graduates

into relevant higher education courses for example better cross-sector

liaison between the TAFE and University disciplines that share common

Industry links and affiliations.

I also urge Swinburne to expand its association with OUA and increase

the provision of online Undergraduate and Post-Graduate courses.

I also urge Swinburne to adequately fund the disciplines staffing such

online education programs and resist relying on sessional staff and

casualisation 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 recognised

for Excellence in Teaching.... Perhaps our $1.6 million awarded last

week could be the initial funding for existing initiatives?