Search

There is increasing pressure for university researchers to secure 'end-user' support for their research projects. Yet the ways in which this imperative affects humanities researchers, operating in a science-centric funding environment, have not yet been fully explored. This paper presents the findings of an empirical study into the experiences of humanities researchers in securing competitive national funding for research involving collaborations with the private and public sector. It also provides quantitative data as to the funding behaviour of one of Australia's peak research funding bodies, the Australian Research Council (ARC). The findings clearly show that humanities researchers struggle to secure support for their research. There is also evidence to suggest that, despite rhetorical support from the ARC that it values research which provides cultural benefit, it too particularly prioritises research that promises economic advantages for both the project's partners and wider community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses one of the weaknesses of many rankings - the exclusion of the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (HASS) from university and discipline cluster ranking systems and examines some ways in which this situation can be corrected. In particular, it traces the development of indicators such as 'target expanded' citation analysis and tiering or ranking of outlets, including books and conferences as well as journals. It draws on experience in Australia, especially with the attempt to construct consensually derived tiered outlets for numerous disciplines including those in HASS in the context of the introduction of a new Research Quality Framework along the lines of similar exercises in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Hong Kong. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]