Creative writing courses no longer marginalised in the academy

Croker Global innovation and creativity paradigm for CW courses 1

Presented at Margins and Mainstreams: Conference papers of the 14th Annual AAWP

Conference 2009

Swinburne University of Technology

Carol-Anne Croker

Creative writing Courses in the Academy: no longer

marginalised, and becoming mainstream within the global

innovation and creativity paradigm for academic excellence.

Abstract

In 2008 the Australian Federal Government released Venturous Australia, a

report which positioned creativity central to the Innovation and Globalisation

rhetoric. In 2009 the Australian Research Council (ARC) opened access to the

HASS sector (humanities, arts and social science disciplines) in a two year

pilot period, for the International Collaborative Grants Funding schemes

previously only available to the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,

Medicine) discipline researchers.

Minster Carr is on record as stating that to build a knowledge economy for the

twenty-first century and for Australia to improve its export position amongst

comparable OECD nations, such a divide between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’

innovation, and the creativity that drives it is no longer appropriate.

For academics, researcher and practitioners in Creative writing programs, as

well as for our colleagues in other arts-based or practice-led research

disciplines we are now encouraged into the mainstream educational and

societal discourses. We are expected to engage with the globalisation

imperatives for Australian Industries, including the publishing and tertiary

education industries.

In looking at research towards my postdoctoral studies, and research for

authoring a chapter for a forthcoming monograph on creativity in a globalised

market, I propose that we can no longer be viewed as marginalised within the

Academy, nor within the economic and social dialogue about Australia’s

future.

Author Declaration:

I am indebted to the collegial sharing of pre-publication research from

Associate Professor James C. Kaufman, Professor of Psychology at the

California State University of San Bernadino from his now published book

The Dark Side of Creativity (2010).

Much of this chapter was presented as a work in progress at the Australasian

Association of Writing Programs Annual Conference in Hamilton, New

Zealand, December 2009. A previous version of this Chapter is forthcoming in

Text Journal, 15(1) 2011 (forthcoming).



Conference 2009

Biographical note:

Carol-Anne Croker is also a PhD student at Swinburne University. She was

the first student editor of the month on the AAWP’s Writing Network site in

2009. Carol-Anne is also Postgraduate Representative for 2009 for ASAL

(Association for the Study of Australian Literature) and the Swinburne

University Postgraduate student representative on the AAWP. In 2010 she is

the Postgraduate student representative on the Swinburne (Lildale)Faculty

Academic Committee , member of the Swinburne Student Consultative

Network and Postgraduate member of CAPA (Council of Australia

Postgraduate Associations).

Her PhD artefact is a novel, Walking with Madness. Carol-Anne’s research

interests and experience include women’s popular fiction, feminist fiction,

higher education policy research particularly in Creative Art Practice and

teaching. As part of her doctoral studies she interned at the Melbourne

Writer’s Festival She presented a paper on Chick Lit at the 5th

International

Conference on the Book in Madrid, Spain, as well as Conference papers for

the AAWP and ASAL.

. Carol-Anne has worked as an academic teaching Professional Theatre

training, Drama-in-Education, Cinema Studies and Media theory and

production. Carol-Anne was also ABC Radio (774 Melbourne) theatre

reviewer and worked as an actor for over ten years in Australia and the United

Kingdom.

Keywords:

Globalisation – Research Excellence – Creativity



Conference 2009

For academics, researcher and practitioners in creative writing programs, as well as

for our colleagues in other arts-based or practice-led research disciplines we are now

encouraged into the mainstream educational and societal discourses. We are expected

to engage with the globalisation imperatives for Australian Industries, including the

publishing and tertiary education industries.

‘If the arts are to be valued as an integral part of Australia’s national

innovation system, we must:

Develop an understanding of arts-based knowledge that connects it

to innovation

Broaden commercialisation of the arts and creative outputs

Develop the argument for the arts as social inclusion

Educate an innovative workforce

Meeting these challenges requires further research, sector-wide coordination

and leadership.’ (Jaaniste 2008:5)

This response to Senator Carr’s review into the National Innovation System (Cutler

2008) by Brad Haseman and Luke Jaaniste, from Queensland University of

Technology outlines the political and social imperatives that will frame the

educational debates within arts and humanities faculties in Australia in the coming

months and years. For those of us studying and working in creative arts disciplines,

especially those of us in creative writing disciplines, these imperatives signify where

the academic debates need to focus within our own disciplines, sectors, departments,

faculties and institutions as well as more broadly within the International tertiary

education market.

I contend that we can unpack this discourse of creativity and innovation to ascertain

the broader economic and social political machinations at play (Rogers 1998; Cooke

2009; Stoneman 2007). This paper calls for the de-construction of this new hegemonic

tertiary educational discourse, which finds its home within the corporate managerialist

policies and mission statements of our Universities.(Atkinson & Easthope 2008; May

2006; May & Perry 2006; Finkelstein 2005; Oakley 2004)

Cropley (2010) asserts that innovation and creativity associated with economic

growth has been linked internationally since the Cold War era and the “so-called

Sputnik shock in 1957 (Cropley, Cropley, Kaufman and Runko 2010:243). He sees

the technological advances demanded by the space race as key motivation for both the

US and (then) USSR investing heavily in R &D, with an emphasis on nurturing

creative innovation.

However, as correctly noted by Cropley the ‘creativity question’ remained under-

defined and under-researched. Until Anderson discussed the problems in ‘harnessing

creativity’ the concept of the actual processes of creation and creativity were

conflated with the term innovation.

‘Creativity is the gift and discipline that provides the competitive edge

– in marketing, production, finance and all other aspects in an

organisation. Firms and managers crave it. Awards are given for it.



Conference 2009

Incentives encourage and cajole it. But it is still the most elusive

weapon in an executive’s arsenal.’ (Anderson 1992:40)

By linking fuzzy notions of innovation with the as yet under-theorised notion of

creativity, at least in an Australian context, (and to a lesser extent globally until the

last few years of the twenty-first century) and to imply a direct correlation between

research and excellence as drivers of national economic prosperity is problematic.

(Hecq 2008; Lowrie & Wilmott 2006; Jaaniste 2009; Smart Business 2009).

As Cropley discovered through their research in 2005 by limiting creativity to the

production process and marketing of a product is to greatly devalue the broader role

creativity plays within society as a whole. It equates creativity and innovation with

concepts such as market novelty, which in itself implies an ever decreasing

importance within an ongoing development and improvement cycle. This denied some

of the core aspects to creativity as identified by Barron (1969), Rhodes (1961) ‘with

the focus on the product exclusively among the four Ps (Process, Person, Product and

Press). (Cropley:340)

Runco (2010) took this concept further emphasising the person within the process of

creativity and innovation, without whom the product and production, distribution and

innovation cannot garner economic benefit for a community, company or society.

Similarly, US academic and author Lawrence Lessig delivered a key note speech at

the 5th

International Conference on the Book in Madrid, Spain in October 2007 (the

year Madrid was named a UNESCO City of Literature). His keynote address was

focused on the need for global knowledge sharing for future innovation and indeed

knowledge production. His solution was to set up the Creative Commons License

scheme in 2001, where knowledge workers could freely share and develop further

innovative ideas and practices. For Lessig the key to innovation for both economic

prosperity between developing and developed nations, and to enhance human capital

for the new knowledge economy and workforce was collegial and co-operative, a sort

of creativity without borders.

The importance of the role of the artist/creator/innovator was recognised within

Australia after the attendance by Richard Florida in Melbourne (another UNESCO

City of Literature) ,as guest speaker for the 2004 Melbourne Fashion Festival,

speaking on his book The Rise of the Creative Class (2002).This appears to be the

seminal moment when Australian policy makers and influential business groups ‘got

on board’ with the idea of creative classes, creative cities and creative industries as

drivers of globalisation and promised economic prosperity.

‘The creative individual, Florida argues, is the "newmainstream", a

creature to be feted by governments and companies smart enough to

realise that the age of creativity is upon us…

Cities that accept and encourage diversity - be it racial, sexual or

cerebral - are the economic winners of our age, says Florida. Think

San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, even Sydney and Melbourne. Gay-

friendly, immigrant-friendly, creative and bohemian is the way to

wealth. Or, in Florida's neat summation, it's the three Ts - tolerance,



Conference 2009

talent and technology - that governments and business should foster.’

(Florida 2004)

Even now after the GFC Australia still features comparatively high up on

globalization matrices and graphs according to Florida and his colleague Charlotta

Mellander after examining data produced by the KOF Swiss Economic Institute.

[Insert Graph 1]

‘Globalization is closely associated with the level of economic

development. There is a considerable correlation (.81) between the

Globalization Index and economic output (GDP per capita).’ (Florida

2011)

In Australia, this discourse has taken hold and been privileged in the Rudd/Gillard

Federal government’s education and training policy agenda over the last four years.

A timeline showing the emergence of this discourse in the public sphere, based on a

quick literature overview, demonstrates the need for Universities to engage with the

broader industry globalisation initiatives.

With the Australian economy faring comparably well post GFC (Global Financial

Crisis) it is no surprise that our policy and economic discourse remains tied to

globalisation and gross domestic production, perhaps a coming together Barrons four

P’s.

[Insert Graph 2]

Post-industrial, knowledge-based economies are also more

globalized. Globalization is closely correlated with human capital

levels (.73) and the percentage of the workforce in professional,

knowledge-based and creative jobs (.68). (Florida 2011)

For the purpose of charting the interplay of economic discourse, government policy

initiatives and global research and rhetoric I have selected what appear to be the most

influential documents and papers determining Australia’s agenda for the knowledge

economy; leading the Higher Education and Post-Secondary education debates on the

desirability of a more highly skilled (read educated) workforce to counter Australia’s

ageing population and low birth rates.

[Figure 1 thumbnail landscape required]



Conference 2009

In overseas literature, creativity and innovation have been linked for decades.(Sasaki

2004; Swann & Birke 2005, Finkelstein 2005, May 2006; May & Perry 2006;

Stoneman 2007). The difference in the in the C21st century discourse illustrates a

‘new paradigm’ with economic constructions of innovation applied to non-science-

based disciplines and industries for the first time. Individual Australian state premiers

now recognise the Arts sector as economic drivers, particularly in boosting tourism

numbers and tourist revenue. One early example is South Australian Premier Don

Dunstan labelling Adelaide ‘the Athens of the South’ in the mid-seventies when

marketing the Adelaide Arts Festival. However, the reconfiguring of innovation with

creativity, into the term ‘Creative Industries’, with explicit instrumental connotations,

was yet to appear in the public discourse in Australia until the twenty-first century.

In a paper presented in Barcelona in 2004, Masayuki Sasaki referred to the following

diagram to position the Creative Industries as drivers of cultural development and

innovative thinking, which in turn drives the ‘hard’ innovations needed for turning

ideas to practice.

[Figure 2 thumbnail]

However a model proposed by P Stoneman (2007) on the ‘dimensions of innovation’

has been used by NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the

Arts) to exemplify the way the innovation-creativity nexus locates the relevance of

‘soft’ innovation as found in the Creative Industries for economic prosperity for

creative sectors, cities and regions.


Hecq in her 2008 paper, Banking on Creativity, identified the need to place creativity

at the centre of the discourse and indeed education practice within our university

sector.

‘Creativity in universities is offered up as a generic skill, no longer

limited to practices involving the arts. It has espoused the political

agenda that drives the economy to renaissance heights. It is tied in

with development, new ideas and, above all, innovation. Productivity,

output, cost effectiveness are here buzz-words, not creativity. Thus

neo-liberal globalisation remains a significant challenge facing

universities and the creative industries increasingly need to play the

game of economics in order to be included in the system.’ (Hecq 2008)



Conference 2009

The system is conceptualised by Swann, P and Birke, D (2005) and when applied to

the Australian higher education sector, with particular reference to the Creative

disciplines, the model solves the dualist dilemma faced by universities.


What can be ‘sold’ in the education market as a ‘quality innovative research

paradigm’ is also able to meet the needs of the local education market, identified by

the Bradley Review (2009).

Extrapolating from the Bradley Review, if we allow students to study where their

interest and indeed skills lie, we can address the predicted shortage of skilled labour

for the knowledge workforce in the twenty-first century, whilst maintaining

competitive rankings on the global quality scales of measurement.

By noting the student-demand and interests shown by Australian Government’s own

statistical data, the creative arts disciplines in Australian Universities has experienced

growth over a number of years.

Looking at the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace

Relations publication; Selected Higher Education Statistics: Award Course

Completions between 1996 and 2007 the change in domestic student numbers in

Creative arts fields of study has increased at 3.9%, the second largest increase apart

from in the Health fields of study with 7.7% . If we include the field of study

classified as Society and Culture there has been a further 2.2% increase in domestic

student numbers across the decade. Although slowing slightly the increases have

continued in both creative arts enrolments and awards into 2008.


The increase is not confined to domestic students, there is also a smaller, but

substantial increase in the number of overseas students completing awards in the

Creative arts; a 5.1 % increase. This increase is less than the increase in Hospitality

and Personnel Services (460.5%) and 8.8 % increase for management and commerce

which can be explained by Australian Government skilled trades training initiatives

and priority study/immigration programs. This increase is from a traditionally low

base, reflecting the fields’ recent place within University curricula. By ignoring the

statistics for the problematic fields of hospitality and personal services, for overseas

students, and include the increase for overseas students studying society and culture



Conference 2009

fields of research, we can also see a 1.8% increase in these arts-related fields. creative

arts undergraduate courses are popular with students, and demonstrate consistent

annual increased enrolments and award completions. Therefore inevitably there has

been a student driven demand for higher degree programs in the creative arts

disciplines.


Thus if the university sector is seeking to educate graduates for a fluid and

unpredictable employment sector and industry it seems that graduates from creative

disciplines will be highly sought after ‘innovative thinkers’, and even in times of

fiscal restraint and cutbacks in government funding, the student drive demand for such

courses, and the training in such disciplines should be considered a core education

imperative best suited to ensuring closer higher education and industry linkages.

Brenner has demonstrated that it is in Australian Industry’s interest to focus on highly

creative, and innovative products and designs within an increasingly mass-market

global “playing field” for consumer goods.


With the current state of media convergence, content will remain key to information

dissemination and knowledge production. Despite the trend towards the

democratisation of publishing and the media via wiki-style web content, social

networking, text, twitter and print on demand services, what will remain constant is

the reader/market demand for trusted and verifiable content. As television did not

eradicate the use of radios, nor will the internet and mobile technology eradicate the

need for or desire for the codex.

All these new and emerging forms of mass media and publication will share one thing

in common the need for content. Thus to marginalise creative writing disciplines, or

even severely cut back intakes in this area will not only be financially costly (in terms

of foregone revenue) but also short-sighted and lacking in vision on the part of

university managements.

In the paper, Describing the creative writing thesis : a census of creative writing

doctorates, 2001 -2007, Boyd (Boyd 2009) has determined that the aggregate of

award course completions for creative arts doctorates by research has increased over

the period from 80 in 2001 to 202 in 2007. The number considered ‘creative theses’ is

199. Thus we can extrapolate that there is an increasing demand for student places

within Creative writing higher degree programs which is replicated across the broader



Conference 2009

fields of creative arts research and practice in Australian Universities. More research

is being done in this area particularly by Dr Paul Thomas at Curtin University and Ms

Giselle Kett at the Victorian College of the Arts, but no definitive data is currently

available.

‘In Australia, over the past decade there has been a steady increase in

both the number of PhD programs in the creative arts and also in the

number of candidates enrolled’. (Creative arts PhD Projects Rountable

2008:8)

Given the consensus within the creative arts disciplines, and the impetus to establish a

Learned Academy for the Creative Arts, these disciplines demonstrate a significant

increase in student demand within our Universities, especially in creative writing

programs (Boyd, 2009; Muecke 2010).

[Figure 8 Boyd chart from Text]

If we accept (then) Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd’s imperative in his closing speech at

the 2020 summit; ‘to put to bed the false dichotomy between the arts and sciences” it

is increasingly important for Australian Universities to recognise the contributions to

knowledge made by the Creative arts disciplines. The Government reinforces this

new alignment or strategic direction for our Universities, but as yet few have taken

this on board in any systematic and meaningful way. There are some attempts to

position the discourse within the various University strategic plans but I contend that

it is merely ‘window dressing’ to camouflage the lack of administrative will to cater

for the HCA disciplines, other than as a source of “bums on seats” and EFTS dollars.

‘Critics of the creative industries idea are fearful that, by introducing

into the rationale for supporting culture too great an emphasis on

economics, it might marginalise the traditional arts sectors. However,

the benefits of mainstreaming culture and media into policy

powerhouses of industry development and innovation arguably

outweigh the drawbacks.’ (Cunningham 2006: 16 as cited by Perry

2009)

Our universities are slow to respond to institutional change, particularly when it is not

tied to additional sources of Government funding in this era of post GFC fiscal

restraint and almost universal political agreement to return the nation’s budget to

surplus. Given the time lag between implementation of higher education strategic

funding initiatives and the graduation of employment-ready professionals and trained

employees, it appears ludicrous to make short –term decisions and pilot schemes

under the pressure of constantly changing global economic trends and labourforce

demands. What the arts and humanities disciplines can deliver in this era of the

knowledge economy is highly skilled and adaptable scholars able to meet Industry



Conference 2009

demands as they arise. By thinking longer than the next electoral cycle our politicians

would do well to see government temporary deficits and increased higher education

investment in research and teaching, as a national imperative to remain competitive in

an environment where even the experts are unable to predict the nature of jobs,

careers and industries emerging in the coming decades.

Thus I agree with Howard (2008) when he identifies our creative industries and

education disciplines are caught between “ a hard rock and a soft space”. Perhaps at

this time of fiscal restraint and political will for budget surpluses, Perry (2009) might

reconfigure this position as being between a metaphorical rock and a hard place,

where very little space appears visible.

Bullen et al (2004: 14-15) suggest that the approach taken in relation

to the creative industries concept must be cautious, however: The

creative industries offer a vibrant, future-oriented, relevant, and,

therefore, compelling alternative to many of the arguments

marshalled in defence of traditional arts and humanities faculties. We

argue, however, that the capacity of the creative industries to respond

to the push towards the use of new technologies, commercialization,

and collaborative partnerships must be approached with caution lest

these become the governing imperatives for humanities education and

research policy development.) Perry 2009.

For every step forward in recognition that the creative industries are crucial for the

development and nurturing of creative capital, there appears a step backwards

whenever the economy contracts with the creative arts and education funding

shrinking accordingly. I argue that in Australia there is a disconnect between policy

publication and implementation, efficient and valid assessment and critiquing of pilot

programs leaving new initiatives designed to bridge the STEM/HCA divide

vulnerable and under threat of dismantling at each Federal budget sitting.

Competition for scarce, government competitive grant, research funding pits

discipline against discipline; with the Humanities generally fairing far worse in

Australian Research Council Discovery and Linkage Grants than the more traditional

STEM faculties at around a 20% success rate for applications in a ‘good year’.

The impetus for national and global knowledge creation to break down artificial

disciplinary barriers intensifies under times of Higher Education Spending cutbacks,

corresponds in Australia with the Corporate Mangerialist University Governance

models implanted in the last decade s of the C20th, and remain beholden to

quantifiable indices and matrices of ‘quality’, ‘quantity’ and the more problematic

category; ‘impact measures’. Existing managerialist metrics remain inadequate for

measuring the efficacy of teaching and the periods od data collation far too brief to

allow for adequate assessment of impact of less traditional areas of research. This

fiscal ‘bunfight’ occurs annually in Australia when the Universities strategic alliances

and lobby groups speak representing their Institutional alliances in direct opposition

against each others. The recent decision, March 4th

2011 to disband the Australian

Teaching and Learning Council, the peak body for researching higher education

teaching and promotion of innovative teaching pedagogy, demonstrates the Federal



Conference 2009

Governments negligence in implementing pre and post election promises to ensure

the quality of university teaching and research into effective teaching. This is another

example of such short-term electoral cycle thinking at the expense of larger scale

visions articulated in their own research documents and action plans (Cutler and

Bradley Reports for example).

In Australia the most recent discussion centres around just how many ways there exist

to utilise selectively the ERA (Excellence in Research,Australia) pilot scheme

statistics to demonstrate supposed research funding worth and merit. Whilst the Group

of Eight (G8) research intensive institutions promote their world ranked standings as

predominantly five across many disciplines and fields of research (top end of the 1-5

scale). It could be argued that the quota system set in place to rank journals is skewed

to the traditional research disciplines with more highly ranked world journals in the

STEM disciplines.

Groups such as the ATN (Australian Technology Network) universities argue that

comparisons should be based upon like for like models, taking account of geography

and isolation, age of institution and the discipline spreads offered that stand them

apart from the G8s, and thus there is less opportunity for publishing in A* ranked

journals in their discipline areas, as they are emerging research fields. Murdoch

University’s Acting Vice Chancellor, Gary Martin (2011) noted that they have

identified several different methodologies to view the ERA outcomes.

Our analysis have been geared towards how we compare to other

institutions of similar size and history [and] when Murdoch looked at

fields of research rated as four or five as a percentage of the number

of areas submitted [author emphasis], it was ranked 11th

nationally.

Martin (2011)

Similarly an analysis undertaken by the Australian National University, a member of

the G8 identified that:

14 Universities did not receive a signle five-star rating, with six

receiving neither four or five stars.(Rowbotham 2011)

With there being no similar metrics system to measure and acknowledge teaching and

the place of undergraduate education within the university sector, it is unwise to

assume that none of the ‘lower-ranked’universities are less than world class in

academic standards. It merely points to the emphasis placed by Governmens around

the world to value research over the core university function as places of education.

Australia within the next two years is hoping to develop a metric based assessment of

teaching quality that will provide recognition for the world class education being

offered particularly at under and early post-graduate levels of study.

With more and more workplace training being performed within universities (nursing,

childcare, primary and secondary education, drafting and design) and the smoothing

of pathways between Australia’s two sectors of tertiary education, Technical and

Further Education (TAFE) and higher education (degree programs and above) a

radical re-evaluation of the (re-envigoured) publish or perish mantra is critical for the



Conference 2009

viability of the sector and its ability to stem the flow of highly qualified academics

and researchers leaving Australia for more secure tenured postings in other countries.

Regulatory authorities audit the practices of our Universities are currently in a state of

flux with the AQF (Australian Quality Frameworks Agency) being replaced by

TEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) there exists no consensus

as to how Universities will be held responsible for beaches of quality and standards

and dispute as to the most effective way such measurement can be achieved. Under

the guise of ensuring global competitiveness for our Universities in an increasingly

market-driven era, promoted through perceived research excellence and productivity,

Australia like many nations developed a pilot scheme to assess and measure research

excellence to enable compliance with regulatory frameworks. The Excellence in

Research Australia pilot scheme has generated more questions than answers as to how

it fits within the larger quality auditing processes.

Whilst learning some lessons from the UK’s RAE (Research Assessment Exercise)

and other European Schemes, we in creative writing celebrated the fact that creative

output was finally recognised and allocated ERA points, as indicators of research,

however this was not mandated under the AQF (nor at this stage under TEQSA). The

result was that many universities preferred to market themselves and their research

profiles (and scores) as indicated by the Shanghai Jiao Tong index. The creative arts

disciplines are virtually invisible on this index as it is reliant upon citation scores and

matrices designed to suit STEM disciplines and traditional research methodologies.

So whilst we in creative arts faculties celebrate our artistic output as professional

research practice, these same ERA generating publications, installations and

performances, do not attract high or even numerous citation indices, under the many

bibliometric scheme operating globally. In the case of the creative arts disciplines

(including creative writing), there is no policy imperative to recognise academic

staff’s creative work as research output or research equivalency even within the newly

defined Excellence in Research Australia. Some Universities have moved their

bibliometrics to include these works but some have not.

There still exist no formal sanctions for non-compliance in this area. The current

educational debates focus on how precisely the ERA scores and metrics will be

encompassed within or represented within the TEQSA regulations and sanctions if at

all. If academic–practitioners’ creative work in the creative arts remain unrecognised

and undervalued, how can the disciplines ensure that students are taken seriously,

despite Cutler’s determination that “Australia’s innovation policy needs to

acknowledge and incorporate the role of the creative and liberal arts”(Cutler 2008:48)

for the National benefit?

Similar difficulties have been identified by Boyd points out in her article even

identifying and measuring our higher degree completion rates and creative output,

including post-graduation publication remains virtually impossible to collate.

There is no universal classification of creative writing PhDs on the

Australian Digital Theses Program website and many are missing

altogether to be found only on university school websites or library



Conference 2009

catalogues, albeit with often limited information. Also, classification

criteria for theses ranges from: which supervisor the candidate

worked with, to the form of the thesis or the type of award. The

records are cryptic and incomplete and I mapped my journey,

metaphorically speaking, through the research process by marching

down dead end roads, finding new routes and peering at broken street

signs. There is no central place where all creative writing PhDs can

be found and no sure way of searching them all out. (Boyd 2009)

Luke Jaaniste, Research Fellow in Queensland University of Technology’s Creative

Industries Faculty, states, “This response holds the perspective that the creative arts

and broader humanities (HASS sector) can drive, produce, apply and diffuse

innovation, in different but equally useful ways to the STEM sector... it does not

adequately follow this through in the substance of its discussions and

recommendations.” (Jaaniste 2008)

Late in 2008 the Australian Academy of Humanities organised a travelling roadshow

to target the research success rates of HASS discipline competitive grant applications.

Based upon the Federal Governments innovation agenda to bridge artificial

disciplinary boundaries between STEM and HASS, and even across disciplinary silos

within each research division, a two year pilot scheme was launched to encourage the

HASS disciplines to look broadly at what could be conceptualised as ‘scientific

research’away from predominantly quantitative studies towards more humanistis

qualitative studies suited to the disciplines. Universities were actively encouraged to

engage with emerging research nations in co-operative research collaborations under

the existing International Science Linkage Scheme.

These “new” destinations, particularly collaboration with the ‘emerging’ research

nations, (India, China and South America) together with a re-invigourated discourse

with interdisciplinary focus between Arts disciplines was viewed as the most effective

way forward to achieve the Governements innovation policy agenda. This seemed

implicit within the pilot ERA field of research codes for the HCA sector (humanities

and creative arts sector) encouraging ‘cross, intra, and multi-disciplinary research

between humanities, social sciences and arts disciplines. Suddenly a new source of

funding was opened up for the HASS sector to boost their research output and

rankings.

This new research initiative underpinned by the Government’s rhetoric of

globalisation was administered by the Australian Academy of Humanities. At the time

of writing this paper the pilot programs have concluded or are concluding within the

coming months but as yet there is no written reporting available to examine the

efficacy of this pilot funding scheme.

Unfortunately changes in the Higher Education sector are at the behest of the Federal

government and with Labour holding a tenuous position in a hung parliament reliant

on independents and the minority party for the passage of legislation through both

lower and upper houses, such radical shifts in higher education funding becomes lost

within the more conservative calls for ALL Industries to be increasingly positioned as

product driven with export earning capacity. It is the contention of this paper that



Conference 2009

within changing global political and economic cycles such bold and new inclusive

education paradigms should be kept at the forefront of the national political debate.

In creative arts disciplines, particularly in creative writing, it is critical that

Universities heed these shifts in educational policy, as the future Government funding

initiatives demand a broadening of the education being provided and indeed marketed

to both the domestic and international students. It is the contention of this paper that

the HCA (Humanities and Creative Arts ERA cluster) disciplines are well suited to

capitalise on the development of niche education markets, both at home and abroad.

To quote Deakin University’s Douglas Kirsner “…journal rankings, part of the ERA

measures, had created an “aura of false objectivity”.” (as reported by Rowbotham

2011)

Universities are being forced to second-guess the Government funding moves and foci

as expressed by Murdoch University Vice Chancellor Gary Martin stating publically

that

‘…among his strategic priorities for this year and “arguably the most

important one of those” was positioning, re-positioning and

consolidating research activites as a result of ERA’ (as reported by

Rowbotham 2011)

This form of manageralist game playing makes those in the HASS sector even more

vulnerable of substantial funding cuts, restrictions to research grants and even loss of

program offerings should our student popularity wain, at the time when longer term

strategic thinking and recognition of transferrable skills and humanities recognised as

the science it remains. Professor Martin goes on to say, in the same newspaper

feature article that, “in some instances we will look to disinvest in areas of research

which have not met international standards” when the very metrics employed and

classification system surrounding it remains clouded in obscurity and inbuilt

discrimination against the HASS disciplines.

As one of the few nations to have weathered the GFC, Australian Higher Education

Policy has no rational reason to discontinue the positive movements, (especially for

the HCA ERA fields of research) of the past ten years.

It is the contention of this paper that the imperative is even stronger now for Australia

to engage globally with universities, research institutes and centres of excellence to

move to the prototype university servicing ‘knowledge without borders’ with the

tyranny of distance for us in the southern hemisphere being confined to history. We

are educating a new generation, through new technologies at a time of expanding

knowledge demands and provision, both of content (ideas) and skills (creative

thinking and innovation).

The international and global education agenda as outlined in the policy document

from the Australian Federal Government’s Department of Innovation, Industry,

Science and Research; Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the Twenty First

Century, value is now to be recognised for research proposals and projects that

enhance international co-operation and collaboration between individual researchers

and discipline clusters across like-minded global partners.i These global partners are



Conference 2009

located in worlds rapidly growing economies of Asia where there already existi

models for research collaboration in place under the Science Division’s Co-operative

Research Centres. These CRC’s charter is to:

‘To deliver significant economic, environmental and social benefits to

Australia by supporting end-user driven research partnerships

between publicly funded researchers and end-users to address clearly

articulated, major challenges that require medium to long term

collaborative efforts.

The CRC Program links researchers with industry to focus R&D

efforts on progress towards utilisation and commercialisation. The

close interaction between researchers and the users of research is a

key feature of the Program. Another feature is industry contribution to

CRC education programs to produce industry-ready graduates. To

date there have been a total of 168 CRCs.

There are currently 48 CRCs operating in 6 sectors: environment (10),

agriculture and rural-based manufacturing (14), information and

communication technology (5), mining and energy (4), medical science

and technology (8) and manufacturing technology (7)’. (Government of

Australia 2009)(Government of Australia 2009)

Despite the apparent primary target being the existing six CRC sectors and generally

seeking research relationships across the emerging economic giants of the world

economy, there is also the imperative to continue Australian involvement in

developing collaborations and alliances with our Asia Pacific Partners. Japan,

Indonesia. Chile and Brazil were recently identified at a meeting between ‘interested’

academic members of the Australian Academy of Humanities and the DIIR National

roadshow at Melbourne University in May 2009.

Dr Jon Lewis, Manager of the Asia, Pacific and Africa International Science Branch

of the Science and Research Division (of the Department of Innovation, Industry,

Science and Research) encouraged all researchers from all disciplines within the HCA

sector to investigate and take advantage of these grant schemes as the Minister Kim

Carr has publicly indicated that the “false dichotomy” between the Arts and Sciences

serves no purpose under Federal Government’s notion of innovation and research.

The old privileging of the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics)

disciplines in the academy cannot meet the Nations needs for innovation. The idea of

‘hard’ innovation constrains and ignores the ‘soft’ innovation found in non STEM

disciplines, ‘as if creativity is somehow this thing that only applies to the arts, and

innovation is this thing over here which applies uniquely to the sciences, or

technology, or design.’ (Cutler 2008:47)

The ramification of this shift in focus challenges ‘the ‘great cultural divide’ that needs

rethinking, between the realm of the conceptual, the intellectual [on the one hand] and

the artisan and craftsman [on the other]’ (Jaaniste citing Venturous Australia 2008:48)



Conference 2009

Therefore, Universities must reconfigure their own disciplinary structures and search

out new research synergies.

[ Figure 9 thumbnail]

Cooke, P 2009, ‘Inside the ‘Black Box’ of Innovation: New Metrics for New Models’

Phil Cooke’s 2009 presentation to the Research Workshop on ‘Innovation and

Learning in Global and Local Economies: the Importance of Explicit and Tacit

Knowledge Flows’ at the Basque Institute of Competitiveness in San Sebastian, Spain

clearly articulates the economic value and policy imperatives to position ‘soft

innovation’ as situated in the Creative arts Industries and education disciplines.

The opportunities for exploring uncharted research terrain and pedagogy within the

creative writing discipline has never been more encouraged or supported under a [life]

raft of new funding schemes and additional openings within previously limited and

targeted schemes (Croker & Carthew 2010). We now have an imperative to expand

our existing national and international collaborative research linkages. We are

encouraged to launch cross and interdisciplinary research to enhance both academic

credibility for the discipline and to ensure direct practical applications within our

Industry sector and communities.

For Australia’s dual sector universities (Technical and Further Education & Higher

Education), the opportunity is present to position themselves as Australia’s, and

indeed the world leaders in Creative Industry-linked education, by using the now

accepted, (academically and structurally), and highly sought after (by students),

practice-led research pedagogy and theorising.

Powering Ideas: an innovation agenda for the Twenty-first century, (Senator Kim

Carr 2009), correctly links Australia’s economic prosperity with the development of

an educated and highly skilled workforce. This skilled workforce is aspired to by all

OECD nations in the current quest to build ‘knowledge economies’ more adaptable to

technological and scientific change than previous workforces.

By challenging traditional conceptions of what constitutes ‘academic knowledge’, the

‘innovation agenda’ stresses the importance of the synergies between education

(particularly tertiary education), culture, arts, science and technology.

It is within this conceptual framework that Australia is pushing ahead with reforms to

all levels of education; early childhood, pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary,

articulated in the 2009 budget response found in the Cutler Review into the National

Innovation System (Venturous Australia); the subsequent Powering Ideas report, and

finally, the Bradley Review into Higher Education. These three policy documents tie

together Industry, Education and Social policy agendas for C21st.

Each Government document stresses:

the need for dismantling false disciplinary boundaries, especially those that

form the science/humanities divide,



Conference 2009

the need to view education as an Industry (from cradle to grave or as is the

favoured buzz words; “life-long learning”) ,

the need to provide skilled knowledge workers for growth export industries,

and positions education as an export commodity especially throughout the

Asia Pacific region.

At the same time as pointing towards new economic alliances in the Asia-Pacific,

these reports also look towards the ‘old world’, as represented by the OECD and

UNESCO. The OECD reports on Higher Education and indeed, into the education

sector more generally, there exists a common master discourse driving policy

formulations and government interventions. Whilst attempting to reconceptualise the

imperatives for economic development and sustainability by seeking answers from the

education sector and its research experts there is a space created where culture, nation

and region can be identified.

The Humanities and Social Sciences must have their research work judged alongside

the research generated by ‘hard sciences’. In Australia with the ERA (Excellence in

Research Australia), in the UK’s RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) and in Asia

with the Taiwan Humanities Index, creative works are allowed ‘research points’ and

recognition . The nexus between innovation and practice as driven by both ‘hard’ and

‘soft’ research/innovation cannot ignore the role played by our non-science based

disciplines in mapping human history, social change and cultural development.

List of works cited:

Anderson, J.V. 1992, ‘Weirder than fivtion: The reality and myths of Creativity. Academy of

Management Executive, 6, 40-47

Atkinson, R & Easthope, H 2008, 'The Creative Class in Utero? The Australian City, the

Creative Economy and the Role of Higher Education.', Built Environment, vol. 34: 3,

September, p.11

Australian Government’s Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, 2009

‘Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the Twenty First Century’, at

http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Documents/PoweringIdeas_fullreport.pdf

(accessed July 6, 2009)

Australian Teaching and Learning Council; Creative arts PhD Roundtable, 2008 ‘Future

Proofing the Creative arts in Higher Education: A scoping project for quality in creative arts

research training’, Melbourne, University of Melbourne College of the Arts,. Australian

Teaching and Learning Council Ltd 2008, Creative arts PhD Round Table Report, Melbourne

University, Melbourne 11-12 at http://www.creativeartsphd.com/news_events.html (accessed

July 10, 2009)

Barron, F.X. 1969, Creative Person and Creative Process, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.

New York, NY.

Bradley, Denise 2008, ‘Review of Australian Higher Education’, at

http://www.deer.gov.au/Higher

Education/Review/Pages/ReviewofAustralianHigherEducationReport.aspx (accessed July 17,

2009)


http://www.creativeartsphd.com/news_events.html

http://www.deer.gov.au/Higher%20Education/Review/Pages/ReviewofAustralianHigherEducationReport.aspx

http://www.deer.gov.au/Higher%20Education/Review/Pages/ReviewofAustralianHigherEducationReport.aspx



Conference 2009

Boyd, N 2009, 'Describing the creative writing thesis: a census of creative writing doctorates,

1993 - 2008', Text, vol. 13: 1 April

Bullen, E, S Robb & J Kenway 2004 ' “Creative destruction": knowledge economy policy and

the future of the arts and humanities in the academy', Journal of education policy 19 (1),

January: 3-22

Carr, Kim 2009 (Introduction ) ‘Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the Twenty First

Century’ Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. AGPS:Canberra, at


(accessed July 6, 2009)

Cooke, Phil 2009 ‘Inside the ‘Black Box’ of Innovation: New Metrics for New Models’,

Paper presented at Basque Institute of Competitiveness: San Sebastian (May) at

http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Documents/481-CHASS_Supporting2.pdf’

Coslovich, G (2004) ‘Have Talent, Will Travel’ The Age Mrach 22, 2004

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/21/1079823233944.html (accessed March 23,

2011)

Cropley, D 2010 ‘Malevolent Innovation: Opposing the Dark Side of Creativity’ in Cropley

D.H, Cropley A.J, Kaufman J.C & Runco M.A. (eds). The Dark Side of Creativity.

Cambridge University Press. New York, NY: 339-359

Cunningham, S 2006 ‘What price a creative economy’, Strawberry Hills, NSW: Currency

House

Cutler, T 2008 (ed)_Department of Innovation, Education, Science and Research, Cutler &

Company Ltd: North Melbourne

Cutler, T 2008b, Venturous Australia:Report on the Review into the National Innovation

System., Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Viewed September 13, 2009,

http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Pages/home.aspx.

Eastin, Judy 2008 'Closing the Innovation Gap:reigniting the Spark of Creativity in a Global

Economy. Book Review', Industry Week, 257:11, p.62 (accessed July 24 2010)

Finkelstein, L 2005 'Problems of measurement in soft systems', Measurement The logical and

philosophical aspects of measurement, 38:4, 267-274, Measurement and Instrumentation

Centre, School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, City University, Northampton

Square, London: U.K.

Florida, Richard L. 2002. The rise of the creative class: and how it's transforming work,

leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books: New York, NY.

Florida, Richard L, 2011 'US far down the list of glabalization' Creative Class Exchange Blog,

March 19, 2011. (accessed March 23, 2011)

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/2011/03/19/u-s-far-down-the-list-of-

globalization/

Government of Australia 2009, (ed) Department of Innovation, Education, Science and

Research.AGPS, Canberra.

Hecq, Dominique 2008 Banking on creativity? Paper presented at The Creativity and

Uncertainty Papers: Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the Australian Association of

Writing Programs (AAWP 2008), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 27-29 November at

http://aawp.org.au/creativity-and-uncertainty-papers (accessed July 2010)

Howard, John (2008) 'Between a hard rock and a soft space: design, creative practice and

innovation', CHASS Occasional Paper, No: 5 at

www.chass.org.au/papers/pdf/PAP20080521JH.pdf (accessed August 2008)

http://www.rae.ac.uk/ (accessed July 20, 2009)


http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Documents/481-CHASS_Supporting2.pdf

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/21/1079823233944.html

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/2011/03/19/u-s-far-down-the-list-of-globalization/

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/2011/03/19/u-s-far-down-the-list-of-globalization/

http://aawp.org.au/creativity-and-uncertainty-papers

http://www.rae.ac.uk/



Conference 2009

http://www.lis.ntu.edu.tw/~khchen/writings/pdf/p410.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009)

Jaaniste, Luke. 2009. 'State of the arts and innovation: before and after the Review of the

National Innovation System' Australian journal of public administration 68:3, 272-287.

International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, EBSCOhost (accessed July 31, 2010).

Jaaniste, Luke 2008 ‘Comments on the Review of the National Innovation System (RNIS):

Responding to the RNIS Report: Venturous Australia: building Strength in Innovation’, QUT

Digital Repository. at http://eprints.qut.edu.au/15767/1/15767.pdf (accessed July 2009)

Lowrie, A & Willmott, H 2006 'Marketing Higher Education: The Promotion of Relevance

and the Relevance of Promotion', Social Epistemology 20:3/4, 221-240

Marginson, Simon 2009 ‘Australian Education and the World: Has the Bradley Report got it

right?’ NTEU Breakfast forum, Crown Casino:Melbourne, 9 April, 2009, at

http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/Marginson/NTEUApril09paper.pdf

(accessed April 15, 2009)

May, T 2006 'Universities: Space, Governance and Transformation', Social Epistemology

20:3, 333-345 (accessed February 10 2009)

May, T and Perry, B 2006 'Cities, Knowledge and Universities: Transformations in the Image

of the Intangible', Social Epistemology 20:3/4, 259-282

NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) 2009 'Innovation

renovation', Smart Business, 5:5, 16-17, NESTA:U.K.

Oakley, K 2004 'Not So Cool Britannia: The Role of the Creative Industries in Economic

Development', International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7:1 (March), 67-77

Perry, G 2009 'Ferals, nomads, drifters, gypsies, vagrants, blow-ins, thieves, troublemakers,

tricksters and terrorists: creative writing, from creative industries to creative ecologies', TEXT

13(2)

Rhodes, M. 1961, 'An Analysis of Creativity', Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310

Rogers, Mark 1998 'The Definition and Measurement of Innovation' Melbourne Institute

Working Paper No:10/98, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research:

University of Melbourne at http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/wp/wp1998n10.pdf

Rowbotham, J.2011a ' 'Macquarie Breaks Through', The Higher Education Supplement, The

Australian newspaper, March 9. p33

Rowbotham, J.2011b ' 'Journal Rankings Don't Reflect Performance', The Higher Education

Supplement, The Australian newspaper, March 9. p33

Rowbotham, J.2011a ' 'Tactical Moves Ahead of ERA II', The Higher Education Supplement,

The Australian newspaper, March 16. p32

Runco, M. 1991 Divergent Thinking. Ablex Norwood, New Jersey.

Sasaki, M 2004 The Role of Culture in Regeneration. Paper presented at the Dialègs-Fòrum

Universal de les Cultures – Barcelona 2004 at

http://www.barcelona2004.org/esp/banco_del_conocimiento/docs/PO_22_EN_SASAKI.pdf

(accessed August 2007)

Swann, P and Birke, D 2005 ‘ How do creativity and design enhance business performance?

A framework for interpreting the evidence’, DTI Think Piece, University of Nottingham

Business School,U.K.

P. Stoneman 2007, 'An introduction to the definition and measurement of soft innovation',

NESTA Working Paper, London.

http://www.lis.ntu.edu.tw/~khchen/writings/pdf/p410.pdf

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/15767/1/15767.pdf

http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/Marginson/NTEUApril09paper.pdf

http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/wp/wp1998n10.pdf

http://www.barcelona2004.org/esp/banco_del_conocimiento/docs/PO_22_EN_SASAKI.pdf



Conference 2009