Submission to the Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy
The Advisory Group to the Research in the Creative Arts Project
This submission is from the Advisory Group to the Research in the Creative Arts Project, a Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) funded study under the Evaluations and Investigations Program. The Advisory Group consists of senior representatives of most of the key organisations concerned with the creative arts and research in universities. The submission highlights the limitations of existing mechanisms as they relate to the funding of research in the creative arts. It identifies problem areas and structural inequities in these mechanisms which disadvantage the creative arts sector. It focuses on the current lack of a systematic approach to research funding and the need for appropriate support for the creative arts.
In 1996 the Australian Council of University Art and Design Schools (ACUADS) and the National Council of Heads of Tertiary Music Schools (NACHTMUS) were successful in their joint submission to the Higher Education Division of DEETYA for a grant under the Evaluations and Investigations Program (EIP). The grant was for a project to undertake a comprehensive study of research outputs in art, craft, design, music, dance and drama in order to develop a set of performance indicators and weightings in the creative arts which would:
The project got under way in December 1996 and has an expected completion date of September 1997.
The Unified National System (UNS) of university education implemented the amalgamation of creative arts and design schools with universities. The reforms associated with the development and implementation of the UNS include different mechanisms and formulae for distributing funds and changes to data collection and reporting requirements (for example the reporting of research outcomes). There is uniform agreement that these reforms have caused inequities for creative arts disciplines, some of which are discussed below.
The Research Quantum
Minister Vanstone has recently announced important changes to the method for calculating the distribution of the Research Quantum (RQ). Of specific concern to the creative arts sector was the elimination of Category H (Design) and Category J (Creative Works) from the Publications component of the Composite Index. This decision effectively removed the great majority of the sector’s publications output from calculations, worsening a situation that was already considered to be inadequate. While DEETYA may have had good reasons for wanting to simplify the Publications data collection, this decision has caused considerable anxiety among people working the area, many of whom see it as an event that could severely limit their research based activities within the universities.
The inclusion of Categories H and J for the 1994 and 1995 RQ data collection process was considered to be a major breakthrough for the sector. It constituted recognition by DEETYA, the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee and other key players that the research of artists could be published in creative forms and that their work was able to be accommodated within the research sector of universities. Of special significance was the recognition given for the first time to aspects of the performing arts.
While this advance was universally welcomed, the definitions and weightings given to research outcomes for the creative arts were regarded by the sector as superficial, arbitrary and incomplete and not consistent with the publication categories for other disciplines. There were critical gaps in the categorisations which, for example, provided nothing at all for Theatre Studies or Dance in the way of recognising performance as research. In response to these shortcomings, a major task of the EIP project has been to develop a unified and comprehensive range of publication outputs, together with a definition of the output categories and development of suitable weightings, for use within universities. It is intended that they will have general acceptance, both within the creative arts sector and the others, as being accurate and appropriate.
Problems at the institutional level
Research output as quantified by the publications data collection system has been widely used as a measure of academic standing in the redistribution of quantum dividends within universities, when determining appointments, promotions, award of other grants and funding and in comparing relative research output between disciplines and across institutions. It is the only nationally agreed and understood system, and imperfect as it is, it may still continue to be used in some domains even though there have been major changes in DEETYA’s requirements for data.
Inaccurate and undervalued output measures at the institutional level and the use of an index which does not incorporate all research outcomes and forms of publication is likely to significantly disadvantages academics when applying for appointment, promotion or grants. It also results in inaccurate comparisons of research output across disciplines and inaccurate formulae for the distribution of research funds.
Following the Minister’s decision to limit the publication outputs to four - research books, chapters in books, refereed journal articles and refereed conference papers, there is concern in a number of universities that the creative arts sector may not share at all in the distribution of the funds generated by the Publications component of the RQ Composite Index. In some universities funds have been allocated only to those who "score" on the RQ and with the removal of the creative arts categories, some visual and performing arts schools could be in danger of receiving little or no funding for research. We believe that these are warning signs of a need for a more secure and more appropriate support for the creative arts.
The amalgamation of the visual and performing arts schools into the universities is widely regarded as having produced considerable benefits to both partners. Among the benefits for creative arts students and staff are a strengthening of the academic processes including the opportunity to undertake postgraduate degrees and research; and for the universities, an enhancing of their position as centres of cultural and community activity, together with an influx of highly creative people, many of whom are at the top of their profession.
The creative arts sector now represents about 5% of effective full time student enrolments and about 5% of full time equivalent staff, facts that are often either overlooked or not recognised. Its share of the research "cake" is consistently less than 5%.
Three examples from three different funding sources illustrate this situation:
| Distribution of Australian Research Council Research Grants for Five Major Funding Programs*, by Field of Research; 1996 | |||||
Field of Research |
No. of Grants |
Value of Grants |
Average Grant |
% of Grants |
% of all Funds |
Sciences |
2837 |
$133,837,662 |
$47,176 |
70.0% |
80.4% |
Social Sciences |
830 |
$24,369,185 |
$29,360 |
20.5% |
14.6% |
Humanities |
343 |
$7,362,695 |
$21,466 |
8.5% |
4.4% |
Arts |
45 |
$970,363 |
$21,564 |
1.1% |
0.6% |
Totals |
4055 |
$166,539,905 |
$41,070 |
100.0% |
100.0% |
| Source: Derived from Report on Research Funding
Programs 1996; Australian Research Council * does not include Research Infrastructure Block Grants |
|||||
Clearly there are major differences in the emphasis and size of research grants made to the various university sectors and clearly the visual and performing arts receive a great deal less than it would if, for example, a per capita system based on student or staff numbers was used as the basis for distributing funds.
These three examples are indicative of the systematic disadvantage that the creative arts sector experiences in its competition for research funds. This Advisory Group, which has representatives from most of the key organisations concerned with the creative arts in universities, considers it as critical that Australia Council grants are included on the NCGI. We believe that all Australia Council grants awarded to university academics should be counted, including those that are awarded to people who applied as individuals without necessarily seeking the formal support of their university. In addition, the Research Infrastructure Block Grants, currently distributed on the basis of National Competitive Grants, should explicitly cover the non-teaching costs associated with the practice of visual and performing arts. These issues will be taken up in detail in the project’s final report.
While both the universities and the creative arts schools have benefitted from their "marriage" the creative arts sector needs to be funded in the same spirit as other sectors. This necessitates the proper recognition of the full range of creative arts. For example, there has never been any formal recognition of the relationship between research and performance in areas such as drama, music, dance and certainly as far as the RQ is concerned, the only performance based activity that was recognised was recording via audio and/or visual media.
This study will be developing the proposition that teaching, research, scholarship and creative arts practice are complementary and integrated core activities, all of which deserve appropriate funding if there is to be a viable creative arts sector in universities. In areas outside teaching and research, the professional activity of academic artists has never received the recognition and support it deserves and needs. Academics who are artists, dancers, actors, singers, musicians, curators, art theorists or art historians are expected, as part of their professional obligations, to maintain and develop their expertise and professional standing. Apart from their capacity to teach and to communicate, they are hired by the university because of their reputation as highly competent and/or experienced practitioners of their field.
Many distinguished names in the Australian arts scene are, or have been, employed by universities and it is in the institution’s interests to have staff performing at a high level both in the classroom or workshop and in the studio or on the stage. There is a mutual expectation and commitment between the university and the individual to maintain this practice at a high level and to produce original work. This expectation must be appropriately supported.
We urge the Committee to consider these issues and to carefully examine the content of the final report to be released in September. We thank you for this opportunity to present these viewpoints.
Yours sincerely
D.W.Williams
Project Director
on behalf of the Advisory Group
| Emeritus Professor Peter Karmel (Chair) Institute of the Arts Australian National University |
Professor Sue Rowley College of Fine Arts University of NSW |
| Professor Diana Davis School of Creative Arts James Cook University |
Professor David Throsby Department of Economics Macquarie University |
| Professor Adrian Kiernander Department of Theatre Studies University of New England |
Professor Malcolm Gillies Faculty of Music University of Queensland |
| Higher Education Council Prof Jane Morrison University of NSW |
Australian Research Council Dr Terry Stokes Monash University |
| Australia Council for the Arts Mr Mark Stapleton |
DEETYA Mr David McCann |
| Project Team | |
| Project Director | Research Officer |
| Professor David Williams Australian National University |
Mr Dennis Strand Australian National University |