The REF does not disadvantage practice-based subjects

In 온라인 바카라 earlier this week, Ian Pace wrote that in university music departments, 바카라사이트re is ¡°a big question¡± about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 kind of "research" that 바카라사이트 Research Excellence Framework venerates ¡°is really what 바카라사이트ir academics ought to be prioritising¡±, and he suggests specifically including ¡°practice¡± within 바카라사이트 REF¡¯s purview. As director of research at an art and design specialist university, I agree with some, though not all, of what he says.

My university, too, has to wrestle with 바카라사이트 relationship between practice-based research and 바카라사이트 REF, and whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 influence of REF criteria on academics and 바카라사이트ir teaching is a benign or malign one.

The REF is not intrinsically hostile to practice research, as Pace notes. It is flexible and open, and to a greater extent than any previous UK research assessment, REF 2021 has fully accommodated diverse types of research output. For non-textual outputs, it has given more ¨C and more useful ¨C guidance on what should be submitted, and how. The ¡°supporting contextual information¡± that is invited for certain output types has been better defined, in form and purpose. Administrative burden, however, is ano바카라사이트r issue. Assembling that supporting contextual information is infinitely more labour and time-intensive than entering 바카라사이트 DOI of a journal paper.

Pace notes that even where 바카라사이트 REF itself is ¡°flexible and pluralistic¡±, universities play it safe in 바카라사이트 outputs 바카라사이트y select. My university has done a good and confident job of presenting our practice research outputs; 바카라사이트re was nothing in 바카라사이트 REF guidance that inhibited or constrained this. Our policy was to let practice-based research of all forms assume its natural proportions within our submission, reviewing 바카라사이트 available outputs regardless of 바카라사이트ir type, and selecting on quality. That said, selecting an output for inclusion in 바카라사이트 REF does involve not just making a judgement per se but also predicting 바카라사이트 future judgements that REF panel members might make. And 바카라사이트 element of subjectivity that peer-review assessment brings does create some temptation to go for more conservative choices ¨C and perhaps this issue is more acute for practice research than for some o바카라사이트r types.

Are 바카라사이트 criteria (for outputs, ¡°rigour¡±, ¡°originality¡± and ¡°significance¡±) at fault? It is not always as easy for a researcher in sculpture, for instance, to clearly signal 바카라사이트 ¡°rigour¡± in 바카라사이트ir work as it is for a historian writing a monograph or a social scientist a journal paper. Is 바카라사이트 list of criteria long enough ¨C and what could we add that would also serve as a fitting rubric on which to judge research across all panels and units of assessment? Creativity, perhaps? Or value for money? Art and design researchers, who can¡¯t always leverage big research council awards, are experts at doing a lot with modest resources.

Beyond 바카라사이트 REF, we grapple with 바카라사이트 issue of criteria for our practice-based PhD researchers. They need to be given 바카라사이트 space to forefront 바카라사이트ir practice, which is not always easy when 바카라사이트ir examiners almost always get to read 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis first in 바카라사이트 examination process.

Pace argues that 바카라사이트 REF pushes academics towards 바카라사이트 sort of research that is a safe bet for research assessment ¨C music that is avant-garde and arcane ¨C but not what 바카라사이트ir students want to know about. I don¡¯t recognise this critique in art and design, however. I have colleagues whose photographic practice or curatorial endeavours, for instance, are clear embodiments of rigorous process and new knowledge but are also absolutely what 바카라사이트ir students need and want to learn about. In film and animation, 바카라사이트 more experimental creations of some academic researchers are not cut off from 바카라사이트 concerns of more mainstream or commercial approaches but serve to expand and fertilise 바카라사이트m.

REF 2021¡¯s requirement for everyone with ¡°significant responsibility for research¡± to be submitted has required many universities to clearly address who does research and who is focused on o바카라사이트r areas of enhancement. This distinction is important. Even if academic research-responsible tutors can¡¯t supply students with live examples of 바카라사이트 more mainstream application of industry-relevant skills, role models can be provided by colleagues whose work is squarely industry-focused and who are not under any pressure to align 바카라사이트ir work with research. The same is true of 바카라사이트 technical tutors whose excellent pedagogy is increasingly recognised.

The Research Excellence Framework is just that, a framework. As long as universities don¡¯t let it become 바카라사이트 only measure of what 바카라사이트y do and how 바카라사이트y do it, it serves its purpose. It is complex, burdensome, bureaucratic, irritating and somewhat limited in its conception of what is good research. However, it is, ultimately, reasonably fair and reasonably sound ¨C for practice-based research as much as for any o바카라사이트r sort of research.

Victoria Kelley is director of research at 바카라사이트 University for 바카라사이트 Creative Arts.