REPORT TO DDCA ON RECENT SUBMISSIONS TO GOVERNMENT REVIEWS

JENNY WILSON

Deans and Directors of Creative Arts 2015 Conference, 23 September 2015, Adelaide

The Road Ahead

DDCA Submissions to recent reviews

Focus of DDCA submissions

Short response deadlines therefore DDCA submissions designed to:Raise awareness of DDCA and broad position

of creative arts research Note difficulties in current frameworkHighlight positive contributions that creative

arts research makes to the economy and society

Capture evidence to support statements and claims

Identify areas where DDCA projects better position creative arts within management and evaluation frameworks

Data and information sources

Input from DDCA President and Board members and other creative arts researchers informally (Thank you!)

Own recent researchSpecific literature search to support key

points to be included

Observations on review focus

Canvass system-wide review: ERA; ACGR; Block Grant funding; HDR conditions; application of other policy ‘levers’

Back to 2000’s feel - but greater focus on ‘engagement’ and ‘end-users’

Hints at return of RQF impact measures

ACOLA –research training onlyGovernment review – system-wide policy and

fundingBoth issues papers contain assumptions erroneous for creative arts research

ACOLA: Securing Australia’s Future Project 13:

Review of Australia’s Research Training System

Response questions narrower than topics in discussion paper – implying that preferred direction has already been formulated

Assumptions do not necessarily accord with creative arts perspectives, e.g.:

‘The graduate rather than the research . . . is . . . the most important outcome of HDR candidature’ may not fit with HDRs producing career portfolios, establishing their ‘industry’ connections or established professional artists undertaking HDR to better understand their practice and reinvigorate their genres

ACOLA submission: points raised

HDRs in creative arts need similar skills to other disciplines PLUS discipline/genre specific skills and experiences

HDR output and outcomes are important for careers

HDR skills are transferrable to ‘arts industry’ and broader industry sectors

Internships MAY be useful, providing they encompass the art industry and do not impact on artistic freedom

Agree that better data on long term graduate outcomes needed – AND metrics for career portfolio/ professional arts career destination

ACOLA submission: points raised (2)

Concern that presumed generic ‘employer need’ skills may overshadow HDR’s professional arts career needs

compulsory oral examination (defence/ viva-voce) MAY be useful but further discussion and research needed

Economic contribution of arts and culture to GDP ignored. . . as is contribution of creative arts research to arts, culture and entertainment industry and. . . STEM to STEAM arguments for productivity more generally

Government review of research policy and funding arrangements

Broadly focused to allow creative arts research to demonstrate its current and future relevance

Some less relevant/arts-friendly presumptions (e.g. standardised university IP policies; commercial agenda)

But also – weighting for social impact in grant funding; rewarding engagement with industry, business and end-users

Review perception of key problems with current university research

Significant problems transferring ‘research outcomes’ to industry, practitioners, business

Problems engaging end-users with research agenda

Need to measure and reflect the impact of research

‘. . the underlying question is always ‘is the country gaining the greatest possible practical benefit from its research investment?’. . .Measuring success. . . becomes even more difficult in the face of long time frames and an audience beyond collegial experts. Surely, the traditional yardstick of publishing in highly ranked journals. . . is not enough. . . We need an entirely new evaluation system that recognises the links between academia and industry. . .’ Prof Ian Chubb, Australian Chief Scientist, 2012

Government review DDCA submission: broad points raised and evidenced

Creative arts research is recognised in ERA but not in broader policy and funding setting

Contributes ideas, products, outputs and skilled human resources to arts, culture and entertainment industries‘Cultural activity contributes $50 billion to Australia’s GDP. . . including over $4.2 billion from the arts’ (Australia Council, 2015)

Contributes to productivity and innovation in range of industry sectors

Government review submission: broad points raised and evidenced (2)

Australia lags behind in recognition of important to productivity:

‘adding art and design into Federal programs that target the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields encourages innovation and economic growth in the United States’ US congress (2013)

Australia lags behind in research capacity building

‘Fellowships in the Creative and Performing Arts . . . and Research Grants Practice Led and Applied. . have been highly successful building capacity . . . AHRC remains dedicated to this area of research, and continues to provide many opportunities . . . through established schemes’ (AHRC, 2015)

Support for ‘blue-sky’ discovery research in creative arts is as crucial for productivity as it is in any other discipline

Government review submission: broad points raised and evidenced (2)

Arts HDRs recognised as valuable for industry innovation

“We need people who think with the creative side of their brains,” says GlaxoSmithKline’s Annette Byrd, “people who have played in a band, who have painted . . . It enhances symbiotic thinking capabilities, not always thinking in the same paradigm, learning how to kick-start a new idea, or how to get a job done better, less expensively”

Arts HDRs are already working in portfolio careers, self employed and embedded in their industry and practice – ahead of the ‘new’ global workplace curve

Specific topic response: Overview of Current Policy and Funding Framework for University Research

excluded from most research funding allocations; under represented in AGCR; arts funders not included

Typical international benchmarking systems do not reflect arts –lack of institutional support may be undermining longer-term ranking

Specific topic response: Overview of Current Policy and Funding Framework for University Research

DDCA recommends:Framework should reflect the contribution of

creative arts research to industry, innovation and practice

a comprehensive revision to allow arts-related companies, practitioners and researchers to fully participate in the Government’s R & D and innovation support framework

Australia Council grants should be included in the ACGR

Specific topic response: Research Block Grants

HERDC neglects creative arts research outputs and forms of research dissemination more likely to engage industry and end-users (e.g. film, websites)

creative arts disciplines are disproportionately affected by RBG allocation that supports indirect ACGR costs

Research in the arts attracts significant in-kind support, saving institution and government expense, but rarely recognised in performance evaluation

Specific topic response: Research Block Grants

DDCA recommendsmerger of the current HERDC and ERA

evaluation mechanisms and a revitalisation of the criteria that is used to calculate block funding

government encouragement for universities to better recognise external engagement within internal funding allocations

Specific topic response: Competitive Grants Programmes

few ARC grants are awarded to advance artistic disciplines (compared with application of arts to advance other disciplines)

involvement of arts practitioners, and closer relationship with Australia Council would give ARC understanding of creative arts research contribution

Inclusion of societal benefit within competitive granting schemes would better recognise the contribution made by the arts in health and community wellbeing

schemes to support early stage commercial research/start-ups may help art production and business, providing criteria and descriptions are inclusive

Specific topic response: Competitive Grants Programmes

DDCA recommends:Competitive grant conditions clearly encompass

the contribution that creative arts research makes to economy and society

recognition of the societal benefits of research, the inclusion of practitioners and industry in decision-making and support for start-up activities, providing that the arts is appropriately and equitably considered.

the ARC establish a capacity-building scheme for creative arts research, perhaps in collaboration with the Australia Council

Specific topic response: Performance of the Research System

Creative arts research has exceptional practitioner, industry and end-user engagement but data is not collected nor considered or rewarded

Creative arts research provides innovative thinking, enhanced communication and new approaches for industry but framework needs more data, more inclusion and incentives to enhance

Specific topic response: Performance of the Research System

DDCA recommendsDevelopment and application of engagement

metrics sufficiently inclusive to reflect the contribution of creative arts research.

adoption of strategies to progress productivity and build capacity in creative arts research and a specific focus on supporting creative arts research within the new Industries Growth Centres

DDCA opposes the introduction of a uniform IP policy for the university sector

Specific topic response: Research Training and Employment

HDR students are already embedded in their practice and industries or will work in ‘portfolio careers’. Graduates as ‘full-time employed by an employer’ expectation does not recognise that three quarters of professional artists are operating as freelancers or self employed

Institutional internal processes and outmoded enrolment requirements can prevent HDR students engaging fully with the global industry in which they will work.

creative arts experience and skills are important to employers across many industries

Specific topic response: Research Training and Employment

DDCA recommends: development and inclusion of metrics that can

measure graduate success outside the current traditional employee-employer setting

that the university sector be encouraged to review their own systems to reflect the needs and reality of HDR student engagement with their practice and industries, and facilitate better engagement with global HDR initiatives

In summary. . .

Creative arts research centrally positioned to contribute to improved productivity - if framework is reformed

Extensive, valuable in-kind support: ‘frugal’ research with great results

skills and approaches contribute significantly to business innovation & entrepreneurship

better at connecting research and practitioners than many other disciplines

Graduates’ career paths ahead of the emerging global trends

Produces (undervalued) societal and community engagement benefits

Examples of international support for capacity building and recognition of contribution to national economy

In summary. . .

? better HERDC contribution could be achieved with more arts-appropriate university measures ? there are better ways to capture graduate destination success in creative arts ? creative arts researchers contribute directly to the arts and culture GDP return? Creative arts research demonstrates institutional savings from in-kind contributions? value of research impact and engagement in creative arts research can be quantified? Universities see the need to revitalise their policies to include creative arts benefits