[csaa-forum] ERA rankings

[Greg Hainge]

It seems that many people are aware of the deeply flawed nature of the exercise. It is interesting that in emails and discussions I've had recently with people who know the UK system very well, it would appear that in spite of the distinctly superior processes in place there to draw up the ERIH lists, those lists are effectively being abandoned for the purposes of judging research in the Humanities in the UK because of a realisation that any form of bibliometrics in the Humanities is rife with problems. 

On that front I agree with Ned entirely that the best thing to do in many ways is simply to get rid of this attempt to do the impossible simply because it's a cheaper way to do things (and this surely is one of the incentives to using bibliometrics). 

However, where I differ perhaps is in how I think this might be achieved. I'm not sure that at this stage in the game mass refusal (to publish in A* or A journals, especially ones run by large publishing houses, I think that's your ultimate recommendation Ned?) is either possible or desirable. How can that be coordinated or enforced? What does someone who is on probation and undergoing annual appraisal say to his/her head of school when asked why s/he is not trying to publish in A* or A ranked journals? I think that if there is to be any kind of refusal of the system then the way to do this is to point out the flaws of the system in as many public for a as possible (as some of the excellent pieces in the HES have done recently) and to get our associations, Academies and other professional bodies to get the message heard by the ARC. 

There are certain difficulties here though. 
1. There seems to be no other way to have input into the process of consultation at this stage (as far as I can see, if I'm wrong please let me know) other than through the excel spreadsheet to be submitted by each institution. That being the case, as I said when this thread started, what I've done is to put as many omissions and misrankings forward as possible in order to make a point that this exercise is far from complete. 

2. Let's just imagine that the exercise is scrapped (at least for the humanities, some other discipline areas seem to find this eminently unproblematic): what other system can be implemented? As Ned points out, some kind of peer review as the UK had with the RAE would seem to be more desirable, a system wherein each individual piece of work is assessed. However, as it stands at the moment, and indeed at the time of the RQF, the amount of money linked to the quantification of research publication outcomes in Australia simply doesn't make it sensible to implement such a costly system. This surely is why bibliometrics are being foisted upon us, because (I think I'm right in saying this) at the present time ERA is not linked to any funding mechanism. This is not to say that it won't be used by institutions to change the way that block grants are divvied up internally, but it would not appear that it's going to change the amount of federal money flowing to Universities for the present time. So who wants to implement as costly a system as full peer review for that? Not the Unis, that's for sure. 

3. We should also remember that even with a system such as the RAE, which appears to be upheld here as a better model, it has now been scrapped, in part because it created so many unintended consequences. And that surely is precisely the same thing that we are saying could happen here. So given that there is probably no perfect system, what does one do? 

Well, given that we seem to be well on the way down a route that has already been decided upon, I think it vital that we try to get the best result we can out of an imperfect system. Given that I'm taking very seriously the response I feed in to my institution's spreadsheet if that's the only mechanism I've got. This doesn't mean though that we have to just passively accept a fait accompli; I think it equally important that we try to point out the flaws in the system in the right places, that we show our real, justified concerns (either as individuals or as collective responses from societies) for the unintended consequences that this system could bring to those who can actually make a difference in this process, be that Associate Deans of Research, DVCRs, the Executive of Academies, Societies and other bodies, the ARC directly, the Higher Ed community via publications and letters, whatever. So I agree with many many of the points you make here Ned, but where else can they be made in order to make a difference that could buck the system by doing something other than just refusing to publish? Given the publication lag of many journals, if we do that we'll have to wait a long time for our revolution to come. 

Greg


Dr Greg Hainge, Senior Lecturer in French, French Coordinator,
School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies, University of Queensland, Qld 4072, Australia.
tel: (Int. + 61) (07) 3365 2282  fax: 3365 6799
personal web page: geocities.com/ghainge/
                    ******
President of the Australian Society for French Studies 
                    ******
_Culture Theory and Critique_ Editorial Board.
                    ******
_Contemporary French Civilization_ Editorial Board.
                    ******
_Etudes Celiniennes_ Editorial Board.
                    ******
Australia and NZ Representative of the Société d'Études Céliniennes
-----------------------------------------------------------
CRICOS Provider No:00025B
-----------------------------------------------------------
This email message is intended only for the addressee(s)and contains information that may be confidential and/or copyright.  If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. No representation is made that this email or any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient. 


-----Original Message-----
From: csaa-forum-bounces at lists.cdu.edu.au [mailto:csaa-forum-bounces at lists.cdu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Ned Rossiter
Sent: Thursday, 10 July 2008 10:11 AM
To: CSAA discussion list
Subject: Re: [csaa-forum] ERA rankings