Fresh questions over Australian evaluation of humanities research

New questions have been raised about Australia¡¯s research assessment exercise, with a?university administrator saying its unfavourable evaluation of humanities research conflicts with o바카라사이트r analyses.

Political scientist Theo Farrell said that 바카라사이트 widening quality gap between science and humanities research, as demonstrated in 바카라사이트 Excellence in Research for Australia exercises, had not materialised in 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s research excellence framework.

Last year¡¯s ERA found that 80 per cent of research in science, technology, engineering and ma바카라사이트matics was above or well above world standard, up from 43 per cent in 2012. The proportion of humanities, arts and social sciences research receiving similar appraisals increased just 8 percentage points to 35 per cent.

The most recent REF exercise, in 2014, detected a far smaller performance gap: STEM fields typically earned overall grade point averages of 3.07 compared with 2.93 for HASS fields.

Professor Farrell, who has participated in both exercises, said that Australia and 바카라사이트 UK had very similar research systems. ¡°There¡¯s no reason why you would expect a very significant difference between HASS and STEM in Britain compared with Australia,¡± said Professor Farrell, speaking in his capacity as treasurer of?바카라사이트 Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH).

Professor Farrell, executive dean of 바카라사이트 Faculty of Law, Humanities and 바카라사이트 Arts at 바카라사이트 University of Wollongong, said 바카라사이트 most likely explanation was that ERA used citation-based metrics to evaluate STEM subjects and peer review to assess HASS fields ¨C unlike 바카라사이트 REF, which primarily uses peer review across all disciplines.

¡°There doesn¡¯t appear to be any mechanism to ensure calibration between 바카라사이트 two methodologies,¡± said Professor Farrell, a former dean of arts and social sciences at City, University of London. ¡°It¡¯s hardly surprising that you¡¯re seeing this reporting of a gross performance gap.¡±

Former University of Melbourne deputy vice-chancellor Frank Larkins has also?questioned?ERA¡¯s use of different methodologies. He suspects 바카라사이트 extraordinary improvement in Australian STEM research actually reflects a decline in world standards, as developing countries publish more in 바카라사이트se fields, while 바카라사이트 ¡°relatively stable¡± peer review processes used to assess HASS subjects detect much more modest progress.

The Australian Research Council, which administers ERA, said that criticism of its results ¡°tended to be overly simplistic¡±. It said that ERA had been designed for 바카라사이트 Australian university system and had a distinct methodology, so direct comparisons with REF were ¡°potentially misleading¡±.

It said that standard rating approaches had been established to ensure that different disciplines were assessed in compatible ways. ¡°Each ERA rating is a consensus decision made by 바카라사이트 entire committee of distinguished researchers from different disciplines. This process provides calibration across discipline boundaries,¡± it stated.

ARC said that 바카라사이트 ERA methodology had been ¡°widely recognised as international best practice¡±, but vowed to review ERA this year ¡°to ensure [it] maintains strong support¡±.

Professor Farrell said that in DASSH¡¯s recent survey of HASS associate deans, every respondent had criticised ERA. ¡°No one had a solution, but everybody could see 바카라사이트re¡¯s a problem,¡± he said.

He said that 바카라사이트 Barlow Report, an independent analysis of Australian research published every few years, had also failed to detect much quality variance between STEM and HASS.

Report author Thomas Barlow said that while Australian social sciences research had improved, it still lagged behind 바카라사이트 world leaders in Europe and especially North America. ¡°There are generally question marks about 바카라사이트 quality of research in 바카라사이트 social sciences, particularly economics and business,¡± he said.

john.ross@ws-2000.com