Search

The research assessment framework is an unstable reality in many countries. While few would disagree that there is a need to measure and reward research excellence, there has been little investigation of how assessment mechanisms relate to knowledge itself. With a focus on the arts and humanities and writing from an Australian perspective, this paper draws together discussions of research assessment frameworks and forms of knowledge to consider what can and cannot be measured, and what we might gain from (or lose from not) measuring these things. We argue that the focus on measurable outputs risks a culture that favours effective packages of knowledge at the same time as ignoring the immeasurable, or hidden elements of research and scholarship--elements that Aristotle considered to underpin scholarship itself.

Australian institutions are developing and using performance indicators (number of publications, research grants, and of Ph.D. graduates) to distribute resources. Some of these are disadvantaging the Humanities. This paper addresses differences in chemistry, engineering, English, and law as they are described by other researchers. (Author/MLW)

This paper aims to contribute to reflection on how rural research can better serve rural communities. Using the results of literature searches across the disciplines, it explores some major 21st Century debates about improving the usefulness of research for policy and practice. The paper begins with an examination of different debates in biomedical and health research, moving on to other debates in the social sciences and humanities, particularly in sociology, political science, and history. Powerful critiques of the relevance of research are provided by case-based analysis, which raises the question of whether we need new forms of research evidence that reflect the configurational, synergistic complexity of policy and practice. The paper concludes with directions for what these debates collectively suggest for making rural research more useful to policy and practice. It also suggests how research methodology may be a political battlefield for democratic accountability in the 21st Century. [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]

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]

Millions of people cross political borders yearly without having the proper documents. This has led to increased detention and deportation practices in destination countries for reasons related to security and sovereignty. The objective of the current study was to analyze and visualize research publications on the detention and deportation of migrants to identify current research hotspots, research gaps, and potential future research in the field. Relevant research articles were obtained from the Scopus database for the study period from 1900 to December 31, 2022. The analysis included presentations of key contributors to the field and visualization of topics, themes, and international collaboration. In total, 906 articles were found. The earliest was in 1982. The majority of articles were published in journals within the subject areas of social sciences and humanities. The number of publications showed a steep rise from 2011 to 2022. The Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies was the most prolific, but publications in the Citizenship Studies journal received the highest number of citations per article. Researchers from the United States contributed the most. Mexico ranked fifth in the number of publications. Oxford University was the most prolific institution, followed by three universities in Australia. The majority of articles were single-authored, indicative of limited author-author collaboration. Research hotspots in the field were "human rights" and "mental health". The detention and deportation of Mexican and other Latino migrants in the United States constituted a distinct research theme in the field. International research collaboration was limited by geographical proximity (e.g., the United States and Mexico) or common language (e.g., the United Kingdom and Australia). Future research topics should focus on alternatives to detention, family separation, and healthcare services for detained migrants. Research activity on detention and deportation is required from all world regions, including the source countries of migrants. Future research should promote alternatives to traditional detentions. The contribution of countries in Africa, the Middle East, and South-Eastern Asian regions needs to be encouraged. Future research on the detention and deportation of non-Latino migrants is highly required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on the first large-scale quantitative investigation into collaboration, demonstrated in co-authorship, by Australian humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS) researchers. Web of Science data were extracted for Australian HASS publications, with a focus on the softer social sciences, over the period 2004 - 2013. The findings show that collaboration has increased over the last ten years, with strong intra-region collaboration concentrated on the east coast of Australia. International collaboration occurred most frequently with English speaking countries at vast distances from Australia. On average, fields in the social sciences collaborated at higher rates and attracted higher citations than humanities fields, but co-authorship of any kind was likely to increase citation rates. The results provide a snapshot of collaboration by Australian HASS authors in this time period and can be used as a benchmark to explore collaboration patterns in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]