Processing Peer-review 

Guidelines

Peer review is a particular focus in this event and PARIP invites a broad and creative approach to its positive potential. The conference aims to investigate potential methods and criteria for the robust evaluation of performance as research by communities of practitioner-researchers. In addition to established and emergent institutional criteria, PARIP is interested in researcher-led genre-and media-sensitive criteria and in the potential of alternative criteria.

We would like to invite you to think about these particular issues:

*quality* [what does it mean?];

*esteem* [and its self-fulfilling circularity];

*processes* [the appropriateness, effectiveness of the research methods];

*creativity*;

*aesthetic issues*;

*intellectual significance* [contribution to enhancing or developing insights, knowledge or understanding; the extent to which knowledge and understanding are increased by the works];

*demonstrable embodiment of research* [giving rise to a critical appraisal];      

*interrogates itself*;

*contexts* [located within a research context; includes an indication of aims and objectives, methodologies and procedures, concerns and focus of the practice within its disciplinary, institutional or other context];

*interfaces* [how PaR link fields];

*transversality* [transversal thoughts/transversal creations, transversality across cultural and academic contexts; what 'boundaries between disciplines' mean in a PaR context?; transdisciplinarity];

*impacts and influences* [the impact and influence of the works on peers];

*audience* [who does the research address? generate new audiences];

*funding* [the extent to which the outcome represents value for money, and in particular the relationship between the funding achieved];

*dissemination* [the appropriateness of the dissemination methods and the likelihood that the outputs of the project will stimulate further high-quality research];

*industries* [how to link the Research with the industries through new ways of dissemination, including new technologies];

*social significance* [interactivity between research and society, significance of the projected outcome of the research];

*international projection*

Further playful and controversial approaches:

What about ethical considerations?

Evaluating mastery?

Impact on audiences?

Enjoyment (practicer and audience)?

What about clap-o-meters?

Number of column inches generated in local papers and/or relevant publications?

In terms of esteem, can that be conveyed by number of successful arts council grants? The number of shows scheduled in a season?

The number of encores? The number of requests for DVDs?

Getting your documentary on late-night C4? 

Should there be room for evaluating the management and administration of PaR projects rather than its current marginalization as something which serious minds cannot do?

Is there room for responses from performers and crew?

• Go to PARIP 2005 - Welcome