[csaa-forum] ERA rankings

[Guy Redden]

I've just finished an article about the RAE/RQF/ERA, reading them as neoliberal performance management frameworks. It looks at public choice theory and other trends in public sector managerialism, and considers the UK RAE (under which I previously laboured) in relation to current/proposed Australian systems. As I've submitted it to a 'B' journal, it's probably of dodgy quality, but if anyone is interested I am happy to forward it off-list.

IMHO, the ERA's current research outlet rankings (and they are also planned for monograph publishers, conferences, etc, not just journals) will open a big can of unintended consequences. Not only is publication venue a questionable proxy for quality, but academic publishing is a broad ecology that includes many kinds of publication, in which people publish for a range of good reasons. Once the A*, A, B, C, tiers become a central focus in the micromanagement of research within institutions, that whole ecology could be distorted in ways not yet known. 

The stampede for A* and A outlets will no doubt produce more Australian publications in them, but at what cost? E.g. whither specialisms? The lists of rankings privilege high-profile ‘general interest’ journals within disciplines. If you happen to work in a field with specialized journals ranked B and C, via which your peer community works though its core issues, what will you do? Accept your designation as a second-class citizen, or give up the work you are dedicated to by vocation in order to strategise about ways of getting into the top tiers? For similar reasons, whither interdisciplinarity? And whither place-specific work. The problem for law, where many publications are directed towards jurisdictions, has been summarized in a piece in the Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23921819-25192,00.html (most of the ‘top’ journals are inevitably focused on U.S. law).  This is likely to be a problem across the humanities and social sciences as publications addressing local issues have smaller readerships/citation counts, meaning they are less likely to be deemed ‘top’ in their fields. This would appear to be a bizzare bias against important Australian-specific research and associated outlets. We are entitled to ask what the public good is of this arbitrary valuation of ‘disciplinary internationalism’ over everything else.

A real concern is the prospect of outlet ranking being used to determine research capacity funding. The ERA is openly being talked about as the successor to the RQF, and the latter was designed as a means of concentrating more research funding ‘at the top’ by bringing more quality-related performance criteria into the funding formula than the current HERDC block grants. Although the ERA is shorn of cumbersome peer review of publications and impact measures, it maintains the fundamental quality ranking approach of the RAE/RQF. The double whammy will come if/when politicians decide what price to put on outlets. I have no idea what the values will be, but imagine they use Who Wants to be a Millionaire logic by rewarding outputs as follows: C=$1,000, B=$2,000, A=$4,000, A*=$8,000. (This would actually be generous to the lowly in comparison with the RAE, which had no funding for the lowest rankings of publications, i.e. 'C')

So what? Possible answer: the Bradley committee review of higher education currently underway is explicitly examining the question of teaching vs. research, which can be decoded as ‘should we revert to a sector of teaching-intensive/only and research-intensive institutions’? (http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/policy_issues_reviews/reviews/highered_review/)

An under-the-radar way of doing this would be to retain a patina of neoliberal meritocracy (all unis are eligible to compete for research funding) while ensuring quality ranking diverts the lion’s share of funds to institutions that are already best placed to earn from the system. If the prices applied to B and C are so low that they do not actually cover real costs of research, institutions that attract those levels of funding in the aggregate will start to lose large amounts in undertaking research, and will have an incentive to give it up.

I acknowledge this may be a conspiracy theory at present, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility. If it comes to pass, it would be a knowledge class system, and not very cultural studies


Cheers,
Guy


----------------------
Dr Guy Redden
Lecturer in Gender and Cultural Studies
School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry
University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Tel: +61 2 9351 8495, Fax: +61 2 9351 3918
Office: J4.03 Main Quadrangle (A14)



-----Original Message-----
From: csaa-forum-bounces at lists.cdu.edu.au on behalf of Ned Rossiter
Sent: Tue 7/8/2008 5:03 PM
To: CSAA discussion list
Subject: Re: [csaa-forum] ERA rankings
 
after an exchange off-list, I've decided to qualify my earlier posting.

I appreciate the strategic need and rationale for nationally  
published, independent journals like MIA and also Arena, Meanjin,  
Overland, Fibreculture Journal, etc to be playing the ERA game.  And  
in that sense, the case and success of MIA is one I would support.  I  
didn't mean to dispute the quality or role of MIA (it is one of the  
few journals I have subscribed to, and intend to renew once I settle  
into wage labour again). My post was blunt to the point of reducing  
the complications/complexities that operate within the research  
funding/award system. Part of my intention was to hint at the  
(national/local) politics/vested interests that have obviously shaped  
the ranking outcomes.  The farce of impartiality is something that I  
find very difficult to take seriously in such exercises (many of  
which, it has to be said, define institutional life in academia), and  
because self-interest can never be declared as such, the academic  
community is supposed to accept a system that is, I would still  
maintain, inherently flawed.  For that reason I would reject it.

I'm also aware that it's easier to adopt such a position from outside  
Australia (though I remain institutionally connected/affiliated in  
Australia and therefore subject to its funding/research system).   
Nonetheless, I do not foresee the outcomes of the ERA determining  
where I (or others) publish, despite the documented funding/ 
institutional ramifications.

An alternative position: given the rule of the bell curve why not  
insist that all nationally/locally/independent published journals are  
assigned A* (MIA, Meanjin, Arena, FCJ, etc), journals that  
predominantly feature Australian academics get an A-B, and all T&F,  
Sage, etc journals get a C.  T&F journals like Continuum fall into C,  
but because they publish the work of many Australian academics they  
might as well get an A or B.

A proposal of this kind is as rational as any other, it supports  
local publishing industries, and it keeps many people happy. And it  
would ensure that the ERA as a system of self-interest and silly bell  
curves remains intact (which it no doubt will anyway).

Ned

_______________________________________

csaa-forum
discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia

www.csaa.asn.au

change your subscription details at http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://bronzewing.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20080708/7baa7546/attachment.html