[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-595494-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-595494-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","australian-universities-review-creative-arts-research-a-long-path-to-acceptance","A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W - Creative Arts Research - A long path to acceptance","","The article examines how Australian universities came to value practice-led creative arts research under evolving national policy and evaluation frameworks. It describes how mandated institutional reforms in the Unified National System era reshaped academic roles, yet research support and recognition for artist-academics remained misaligned with their creative outputs. Using the Excellence in Research in Australia and the Strand Report as reference points, it argues that inequities persist because assessment measures still privilege conventional, text-centered definitions of research.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/australian-universities-review-creative-arts-research-a-long-path-to-acceptance/595494/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/australian-universities-review-creative-arts-research-a-long-path-to-acceptance/595494.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Well Done","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Why did creative arts practice-led disciplines face challenges in Australian university research evaluation?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Artist-academics struggled to adapt to a culture and workload defined differently from their earlier teaching-based employment, and their research was often undervalued within established evaluation frameworks.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What is the Strand Report and what issues did it address?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Funded by the Australian Government after concerns and campaigns, the Strand Report (published in 1998) reviewed recognition, funding, and support for creative arts research and clarified different forms of research related to the arts.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How did the ERA exercise and the broader evaluation framework treat non-text research outputs?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The ERA exercise acknowledged non-text outputs of artist-academics as “research outcomes,” but much of the process remained framed by measures that disadvantage creative arts researchers.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},595494,1792171136,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":115,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},5909892210082,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/56001069da27c9f41e8?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1789614185077863061","A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \nCreative Arts Research: A long path to acceptance  \nJenny Wilson  \nUniversity of Melbourne and Griffith University  \nThe majority of tertiary practice-led creative arts disciplines became part of the Australian university system as a result of the creation of the Unified National System of tertiary education in 1988. Over the past two decades, research has grown as the yardstick by which academic performance in the Australian university sector is recognised and rewarded. Academics in artistic disciplines, who struggled to adapt to a culture and workload expectations different from their previous, predominantly teaching based, employment, continue to see their research under-valued within the established evaluation framework. Despite a late 1990s Australian government funded inquiry, many of the inequities remain. While the Excellence in Research in Australia (ERA) exercise has acknowledged the non-text outputs of artist-academics in its evaluation of ‘research outcomes’, much of the process remains resolutely framed by measures that work against creative arts researchers.  \nIntroduction  \nLate in the 1980s, the Australian university sector assumed responsibility for the majority of tertiary creative arts education through governmental mandated reforms rather than through mechanisms that were premised on considered pedagogical, educational concerns or market-led choices. Over 15 per cent of institutional mergers realised through the creation of the Unified National System (UNS) in 1988 by the then Federal Labour Government (Dawkins 1988) included discipline specific colleges of visual or performing arts (AVCC 2004) . Moreover, many more artist-academics joined the university sector through amalgamations between universities and Colleges of Advanced Education that were also participants in this reform. Yet, having mandated these institutional amalgamations, little in the way of government research policy or its implementation was directed to support these crea-  \ntive arts researchers within the frameworks that both support and reward research, or to acknowledge the significant scope of change,from their former, predominantly teaching based work, that was required to meet their new university employment.  \nWhile individual universities may have sought to give effect to the‘notion that all academics should be treated equally’(Coaldrake & Stedman 1998,p.88),these institutions were mindful that to deviate too far from national performance measures, heavily skewed towards scientific definitions and expectations of research, could have significant financial implications.As one commentator noted, the government had ‘conveniently left the decision of what they [the creative arts] were worth up to the individual university’(Lancaster, 2003, as cited in Roennfeldt 2007 p.9), by arguing that: ‘Universities are autonomous institutions that make their own decisions about research funding priorities between, and within, disciplines.A Government initiated investigation  \n68 Creative Arts Research: A long path to acceptance, Jenny Wilson vol. 53, no. 2, 2011  \nA U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \ninto the possibility of bias against certain disciplines ... would be contrary to Government policy and funding arrangements’(Strand 1998, p.178) .  \nYet, the Australian Government played, and continues to play, a major role in this valuation. It is responsible for a large proportion of the funding programmes that support academic research and it is the government who determines the criteria by which university research activity will be evaluated and financially rewarded institutionally. Moreover, despite reminders from independent government-sanctioned reports and academic literature, emerging frameworks have consistently failed to redress the issues with parity of support for, and recognition of, creative arts research.  \nResearch in the creative arts: The Strand Repor","cbCaigzsg9DbgsXV","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaigzsg9DbgsXV","pdf",162526,"English","# Introduction\n## Research in the creative arts: The Strand Report","[{\"question\":\"Why did creative arts practice-led disciplines face challenges in Australian university research evaluation?\",\"answer\":\"Artist-academics struggled to adapt to a culture and workload defined differently from their earlier teaching-based employment, and their research was often undervalued within established evaluation frameworks.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the Strand Report and what issues did it address?\",\"answer\":\"Funded by the Australian Government after concerns and campaigns, the Strand Report (published in 1998) reviewed recognition, funding, and support for creative arts research and clarified different forms of research related to the arts.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the ERA exercise and the broader evaluation framework treat non-text research outputs?\",\"answer\":\"The ERA exercise acknowledged non-text outputs of artist-academics as “research outcomes,” but much of the process remained framed by measures that disadvantage creative arts researchers.\"}]","A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W - Creative Arts Research - A long path to acceptance | PDF",1792081253,23]