12th March 2010: The Gentle Art of ERA Self-Defence

To me, the Polarian Method also provides guidance on how and when to use different types of data (objective universe 'facts'; subjective universe 'framing' and sense-making), and how they differ. I see some similarities with action research models of Donald Schon and Chris Argyris who include a subjective learning loop. It would be interesting to disseminate Edred's framework into the wider research community, to improve the quality of research design and training. Radio Free Runa lecture #26 on the Polarian Method is a good start.

AMLE Journal (Academy of Management Learning & Education, A*) had a paper critical of the US experience.

I have seen the 'research excellence' debate from several viewpoints: on the preparation team for a university-wide audit, and in a research support role. ARC's ERA GM, Leanne Harvey, says that there is a lot of confusion: they did not design ERA to be a pure performance management exercise, nor to prevent people from disseminating work in the field's perspective. In part, it is being driven by US and UK schemes, by international standards bodies like AACSB and EFMD, and by administrators who have had conflicting information, do not understand research cultures, or who have tried to apply private sector models of performance management in an inappropriate way. This can be a variant on GE's Jack Welch, whose '20-70-10' system which fires the 10% lowest performers per year, or in the case of universities, casualises them as sessional staff with no research time or support.

Some counterarguments you might make:

1. As your PhD was granted in 2006, you are still an Early Career Researcher (ECR). Have a 3-to-5 year 'program of research' with multiple projects, articles, collaborations, and grant and funding sources (Category 1 apart from ARC, Category 2 and 3, foundations, and philanthropic organisations). You have used the ECR time to build your reputation in the field, your publications track record (articles and the MUP 2008 book of your thesis), and to develop international collaborations. Biography is C-ranked, Auto/Biography is A-ranked. All this is necessary groundwork for external, competitive grant applications that will be feasible, realistic, and have a higher probability of funding success. You recognise that this preparatory work is necessary in the ECR phase, in order to stand out with your international colleagues, against other competitive research teams.

2. Some administrators may misunderstand some aspects of what the ARC wanted ERA to do. Harvey said that not all subdisciplines have A* or A-level journals: nursing is one applied discipline where most journals are ERA C-ranked. ERA wants people to publish in the most appropriate journals for the field (although, ARC assessors still prioritise A* and A-level publications in competitive grants). She said ERA does not have an equivalent to DEST's book register: this was considered and abandoned because of the 'influential small press' issue you raise. ERA was not designed for performance management; and a 'research active' status should include other factors (e.g. teaching load, Masters and PhD supervision, competitive grants, publications).

3. Harvey said that Field of Research (FoR) codes are just as important as letter rankings. An individual journal article can have up to 3 FoR codes. For you, I'm presuming the relevant FoR codes may include: 1903 (Journalism & Writing), 2005 (Literary Studies), and 2103 (Historical Studies). Keyword/title searches and FoR codes will now allow you to 'screen' the ERA list to hone the appropriate 'target' journals for your research. You may find there are journals outside this, such as in anthropology and sociology, that may accept articles with an auto/biographical methodology in the research design.

4. You are building a international team with a demonstrable track record of collaborations, and with the level of specificity in methodology and research design. This is a talent development and management model.

5. The notion of 'research excellence' or 'innovation' --- as 'quality' rather than 'quantity' --- needs to be contextualised as a strategy, and preferably tailored to each individual research at the School level. Suggest they read Scott Berkun's book The Myths of Innovation (O'Reilly, 2007).

6. Look at a process like David Allen's GTD or Berkun's book Making Things Happen (O'Reilly 2009; first edition published as The Art of Project Management) that allows you to capture this stuff in an efficient manner, and that doesn't create an 'administrative burden'. You might frame it around HERDC annual data collection or the annual performance review, or the 'research active' policy and procedure.

Hope this helps, and good luck --- you have inspired and supported a lot of other people.

PS. Additionally, I see Southern Review is A-ranked and has an FoR code of 1608 (Sociology). Canadian Review of American Studies is B-ranked. So, you could also argue that you are 'targeting' higher ranked ERA journals. Use Scopus and Web of Science for citations/impact factors --- they have gaps in humanities coverage. To my knowledge, ARC assessors do not yet regard Google Scholar as sufficient enough for citations/impact factors in academic publication records.

Rosie and I enjoyed Tarnation very much, nice work on the journal article.