[csaa-forum] HERDC/ERA criteria

Wed Mar 2 15:35:13 CST 2011

Dear Colleagues,

Isn¹t it funny how moves designed to import market-like efficiencies
(Œaccountability¹) into the public sector result in situations reminiscent
of nothing so much as the Soviet Union? My bid is that we stop referring to
mechanisms like the ERA as Œneo-liberal¹ and stop talking about things like
the new voucher system  as Œcapitalist¹ (unless, that is, we have in mind
Moishe Postone¹s description of the Soviet Union as Œthe most rigid,
vulnerable and oppressive form of state capitalism¹...).

Here¹s to truth in advertising

Best

P

Dr Paul Magee

Associate Professor of Poetry
Faculty of Arts and Design
University of Canberra
ACT 2601
02 6201 2402

Australian Government Higher Education (CRICOS)
Registered Provider number: #00212K

On 2/03/11 2:41 PM, "Jonathan Stratton" <J.Stratton at curtin.edu.au> wrote:

>  
>   I so completely agree with you, Mark!  I have been saying for years that, if
> that legendary anthropologist were to arrive from Mars to study how we manage
> the publication of research in journals, she would be entirely confounded.
> What--your major research outlets are run by people who get absolutely no
> reward for running them; and the people asked to referee articles get
> absolutely no credit from their universities for taking on this task.  Then,
> really, those same unis use publications in journals as a key measure of
> quality when appointing and promoting people--and, of course, now journals are
> ranked and used as a measure of research quality.  Incredible; unbelievable!!
> And yet, that is just the way it is.  More, as we move towards the ever
> greater importance of online databases, major publishers have picked up the
> more significant journals and get free content, and free editing, from those
> same academics.  
>    What more is there to say?!
> cheers,
> Jon
> 
> 
> From: Mark Gibson (Arts) [mailto:mark.gibson at monash.edu]
> Sent: Wed 3/2/2011 11:26 AM
> To: csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
> Cc: Jonathan Stratton
> Subject: Re: [csaa-forum] HERDC/ERA criteria
> 
> Can I add to this Jon? You're right, there is no reward in the system for
> editing collections. But more serious in my view is that there is no reward
> either for editing journals. I don't mean to diminish the efforts of those who
> edit collections, but journals are a much larger sector of publications.
> 
> There is basic paradox in the whole situation. Our research efforts are being
> made ever more accountable, but there is no attention to the mechanism of
> accounting. Yes, we are all required to provide all our publication details,
> along with photocopies, proof of refereed status, ISBNs and ISSNs etc. etc.
> etc. That level of bureaucratic book-keeping is thoroughly looked after! But
> all of this means nothing unless there's some integrity to the process by
> which things get published in the first place.
> 
> Who ensures this integrity? Well, editors, editorial boards and referees. What
> reward do they get for it? Nothing that is measurable. That might be okay in
> an economy where measurement isn't everything. And, in fact, people still
> contribute to the editorial process for good old intangible reasons -- sense
> of duty to a scholarly community, favours to editors hassling for a referees
> report, motivations around titles and reputations ('Editor' or 'Board Member'
> still looks nice on the CV). But in the system we're moving to, none of that
> really counts for much.
> 
> A decay in the editorial process can be seen in the increasing difficulty of
> finding willing referees. It is not uncommon, in the case of Continuum, to run
> through seven or eight requests before two referees can be found for an
> article. I think the current record stands at ten. From talking to editors of
> other journals, that's not all that unusual. It's a widespread problem -- and
> not just in cultural studies or the HSS sector -- and it's getting worse.
> 
> The reasons for turning down refereeing requests are often entirely
> understandable. An ARC application is due in, teaching is about to begin, the
> revisions to an article or book chapter are overdue, the institution is
> demanding more 'output', illness intervenes, our sanity requires that we keep
> some time aside for that thing called 'life' ... What are you going to
> prioritise? It's difficult for a hard-headed academic to say editing or
> refereeing.
> 
> But that doesn't mean there isn't a systemic problem. If everything is to be
> measured, we need some way of measuring editorial functions. Who is going to
> be the bunny otherwise to take them on?
> 
> I have thought of lobbying HERDC, but senior people I've talked to have
> advised that it's not worth trying. They are absolute in determination to
> maintain purity around the definition of 'research' (largely science-derived,
> of course). Editing will never cut it.
> 
> -- Mark
> 
> PS. Interesting that Curtin does internally reward guest-editing and
> membership of an Ed Board. I don't think many institutions do that (Monash
> certainly doesn't). Very soft-headed of your research managers: it doesn't
> align with any external incentives!
> 
> On 2 March 2011 13:15, Jonathan Stratton <J.Stratton at curtin.edu.au> wrote:
>>  
>>   Hi Everybody,
>>      As we all digest the ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia) results
>> for our own universities I am wondering how our various universities are
>> coping with a decision that the people who administer  HERDC (Higher
>> Education Research Data Collection) made a couple of years ago.  This
>> involves edited collections.  As you may, or may not, know HERDC does not
>> consider the editing of collections as research and a contribution to
>> knowledge.  However, it does count chapters published in edited collections.
>> Thus, for HERDC the editing of collections goes unacknowledged.  Moreover, as
>> HERDC does not count edited collections so, I understand, the ERA data
>> collection likewise does not count edited collections.
>>      Now, at Curtin, where there has been a big push for some years to
>> increase research, the R&D people have tied the criteria for research very
>> closely to HERDC/ERA.  Thus, for example, staff that publish in A and A*
>> ranked journals are more rewarded than staff that publish in B and C ranked
>> journals.  And, staff that edit collections are not given any credit for
>> this.  The only acknowledgement in research terms for editing a collection
>> comes if one has a chapter in that collection.  Thus, there is no
>> encouragement for editing collections--even though having a chapter in a
>> edited collection brings rewards.  I am sure that I don't need to spell out
>> the logic of this!
>>     So, I am wondering how other unis are dealing with this situation.  I am
>> also wondering if any institution has lobbied HERDC about this.
>> cheers,
>> Jon
>>  
>> Dr Jon Stratton, Professor of Cultural Studies,
>> Curtin University.
>>     
>> 
>> _______________________________________
>> 
>> csaa-forum
>> discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
>> 
>> www.csaa.asn.au <http://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://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20110302/e7ac7cae/attachment.html 