Research Assessment and Practice as Research (PaR)

Christopher Baugh FRSAProfessor of Theatre, University of Hull

Emeritus Professor of Performance & Technology, University of Leeds

For the purposes of an exercise concerned with the assessment of research, it is sensible to think

carefully about definitions of research

Research [...] is to be understood as original investigation in order to gain knowledge and understanding […] the invention

and generation of ideas, images, performances, artefacts including design, where these lead to new or substantially improved insights; and the use of existing knowledge in

experimental development to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products and processes […]

HEFCE/RAE Definition of Research for RAE2008http://www.rae.ac.uk/

For the purposes of the REF, we define research as a process of investigation leading to new insights effectively shared.

Research Excellence Framework: Second consultation on the assessment and funding of research, HEFCE, September 2009/38

Given that we see research as a process of investigation that has led to new insights effectively shared, we would expect all submitted

work to include evidence of the research process, as well as presenting the insights in a form meeting the needs of its potential

audience both within and beyond the academic community.

Research Excellence Framework: Second consultation on the assessment and funding of research, HEFCE, September/38, 2009.

AHRC articulation of research is useful because it is primarily concerned with research process, rather than research outputs.

Arts & Humanities Research Council, http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/ 2009

- It must define its aims and objectives in terms of seeking to enhance knowledge and understanding […]

- It must also define a series of research questions, issues or problems.

- It must specify a research context for the questions […] It must specify why it is important that these particular questions […] should be addressed; what other research is being or has been conducted in this area; and what particular contribution this research will make to the advancement of creativity, insights, knowledge and understanding […]

- It must specify the research methods for addressing and answering the research questions […]

- It should also explain the rationale for its chosen research methods and why they provide the most appropriate means by which to answer the research questions […]

IMPACT Significant additional recognition will be given where researchers have built on excellent research to deliver

demonstrable benefits to the economy, society, public policy, culture or quality of life.

REF Guide to Proposals, October 2009 http://www.rae.ac.uk/research/refhttp://www.ahrc.ac.uk/FundedResearch/impact/Pages/default.aspx

Very full guidance on impact, criteria for assessment and evidence of impact in REF2014 Panel D Criteria, January 2012.

Research Outputs = 65% Impact = 20% Environment = 15%

- O/S Arts & Hums students bring in over £2Bn into UK.

- Every £1 invested in AHRC brings in an immediate return of £10.00, and over 10 years a return of £15 - £20

- Arts & Hums engagement with Galleries, Museums, Libraries,

- Heritage centres, centres of Performance

- Effects upon public policy: ‘Human capital’: ½ million Arts & Humanities undergraduates

- Quality of Life: enrichment of the intellectual life of the country – developing tolerance, creativity and divergent thinking

- Inward investment through tourism: theatre, music, museums, and galleries.

Shearer West (AHRC Director of Research 2008-11)Cambridge Festival of Ideas, 23 October 2009

Results of Hefce REF Impact study and case study examples of impact – November 2010

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/impact/

The sub-panels will neither advantage nor disadvantage any type of research or form of output, whether it is physical or virtual, textual or non-textual, visual or sonic, static or dynamic, digital or analogue. In accepting the widest range and types of research

output, the sub-panels will employ assessment methodologies appropriate to all of these outputs and

judge them entirely on research quality. No output will be privileged or disadvantaged on the basis of the publisher, where it is published or the

medium of its publication.

REF2014 Main Panel D Criteria, January 2012, p. 136-7.

[...] practice was not helped by Plato who offered intellectuals […] a justificatory discourse which, in its

most extreme forms, defines action [or practice] as the ‘inability to contemplate’.”

Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice 1990, 28

Practice as Research (PaR)

Prof. Robin Nelson: Dynamic Model for Practice as Research (Revised 15 Feb 2010

PaR Submission is likely to include

A product (exhibition, film, website, performance, score) with a durable record (DVD, CD, video)

Documentation of process (sketchbook, designs, photographs, DVD)

“Complementary writing” which includes locating practice in a lineage of influences and a conceptual framework for

the research.(after Nelson)

Two common misunderstandings

A misplaced sense that all devised pieces are “original” (in the sense of fresh articulations) but they may not be

original in research insight.

A misplaced assumption that the maker’s investigation is always self-evident in the product.

(after Nelson)

Artistic process is more akin to creative play than linear rational argument BUT play can and must have an

equivalent rigour in respect of:

- imaginative creation of material- selection and composition

- rigorous editing

(after Nelson)

‘ [...] a statement of up to 300 words in cases where the research imperatives and research process of an output (such as an artefact, curation, database, digital format,

installation, composition, performance or event, screening, tape, creative writing, database, textbook, translation or video) might further be made evident by descriptive and

contextualising information. Where the location or medium of the output is essential to a proper understanding of the research being presented this should be explained in the

300 words. The sub-panels will ignore any additional material that includes evaluative commentary on the

perceived quality of a research output.

REF2014 Main Panel D Criteria, January 2012, p. 139.

The‘300 words’

- specify a research inquiry at the outset

- locate your praxis in lineage of similar practices

- relate specific inquiry to broader contemporary debate

- outline and justify choice of practice(s)

- in documenting process, capture moments of insight build moments of critical reflection into timeline

- consider the REF definition of research

Portfolio: In cases where the research output is: ephemeral (for example, time-based, non-material, or no longer available); is one in a series of interconnected works (for example, performances or installations); […] a portfolio in either digital or physical form may be submitted. This material must be sufficiently substantial to constitute evidence which will allow sub-panel members to access the research dimensions of the work. The expectation is that a portfolio is likely to include complementary evidence about the processes and outcomes of the work [...]The material should be presented with the sole purpose of assisting panel members to access fully the research dimensions of the work.

REF2014 Main Panel D Criteria, January 2012, p. 140.

100 % Practice Submission?

If you go for ‘artwork alone’ constituting sufficient evidence of the research - it is unlikely that this can be evident in the

product. Can art articulate its own context?

Read the Subject Overview Reports from RAE2008 at http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2009/ov/

Originality: a creative/intellectual advance that makes an important and innovative contribution to understanding and knowledge. This may include substantive empirical findings, new arguments, interpretations or insights, imaginative scope, assembling of information in an innovative way, development of new theoretical frameworks and conceptual models, innovative methodologies and/or new forms of expression.

Significance: the enhancement or deserved enhancement of knowledge, thinking, understanding and/or practice.

Rigour: intellectual coherence, methodological precision and analytical power; accuracy and depth of scholarship; awareness of and appropriate engagement with other relevant work.

REF2014 Main Panel D Criteria, January 2012, p. 141

In assessing work as being four star (quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour), sub-panels will expect to see evidence of, or potential for, some of the following types of characteristics across and possibly beyond its area/field:

•a primary or essential point of reference

•of profound influence

•instrumental in developing new thinking, practices, paradigms, policies or audiences

•a major expansion of the range and the depth of research and its application

•outstandingly novel, innovative and/or creative

REF2014 Main Panel D Criteria, January 2012, p. 141-2

In assessing work as being three star (quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which falls short of the highest standards of excellence), sub-panels will expect to see evidence of, or potential for, some of the following types of characteristics across and possibly beyond its area/field:

•an important point of reference

•of lasting influence

•a catalyst for, or important contribution to, new thinking, practices, paradigms, policies or audiences

•a significant expansion of the range and the depth of research and its application

•significantly novel or innovative or creative

REF2014 Main Panel D Criteria, January 2012, p. 142

In assessing work as being two star (quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour), sub-panels will expect to see evidence of, or potential for, some of the following types of characteristics across and possibly beyond its area/field:

•a recognised point of reference

•of some influence

•an incremental and cumulative advance on thinking, practices, paradigms, policies or audiences

•a useful contribution to the range or depth of research and its application.

REF2014 Main Panel D Criteria, January 2012, p. 142

In assessing work as being one star (quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour), sub-panels will expect to see evidence of the following characteristics within its area/field:

•based on existing traditions of thinking, methodology and/or creative practice

•a useful contribution of minor influence.

REF2014 Main Panel D Criteria, January 2012, p. 142

A research output will be graded ‘unclassified’ if it is either:

•below the quality threshold for one star; or

•does not meet the definition of research used for the REF

REF2014 Main Panel D Criteria, January 2012, p. 142-3

Baz Kershaw & Helen Nicholson (eds.) (2011) Research Methods in Theatre and Performance, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Ludivine Allegue Fuschini, Simon Jones, Baz Kershaw and Angela Piccini (eds.) (2009) Practice-as-Research In Performance and Screen, Palgrave Macmillan.

Robin Nelson (2006) 'Practice-as-research and the Problem of Knowledge', Performance Research, 11:4, 105 – 116

Angela Piccini, Baz Kershaw, (2003) ‘Practice as Research in Performance: from epistemology to evaluation.’ in, Journal of Media Practice, Volume: 4, Issue: 2, Pps: 113-123

Baz Kershaw, (2002) ‘Performance, Memory, Heritage, History, Spectacle – The Iron Ship’, in, Studies in Theatre and Performance, Volume: 21, Issue: 3, Pps: 132-149

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_research