PARIP 2003

NATIONAL CONFERENCE: 11-14 September

CONTRIBUTORS

PICCINI: ANGELA
department of drama: theatre, film, television
university of bristol
practising the RAE: the performance of research assessment

© Angela Piccini 2003, Department of Drama: Theatre, Film, Television, University of Bristol, a.a.piccini@bristol.ac.uk

INTRODUCTION

In this paper I intend to present some observations on the status of practice as research (PaR) in the creative and performing arts, based on my understandings, as PARIP (Practice as Research in Performance) researcher, of the 2001 RAE in panels 64 (Art and Design), 65 (Communication, Cultural and Media Studies) and 66 (Drama, Dance and Performing Arts). I conducted this research via the public information provided by the HERO website (http://www.hero.ac.uk; accessed from August 2002 through to September 2004). HERO does not present a complete record of all RAE submissions due to the restricted nature of information that is publicly accessible and thus any attempts to analyse the outcomes are hampered by a lack of transparency. Full records of the RAE are confidential and not in the public domain. Also, I make no attempt to analyse individual submissions. As the HERO website states, it is illegitimate to make inferences concerning individuals’ engagement with research from these data except inasmuch as the RAE result may indicate the quality of the environment in which they work (‘Introduction to the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise: publishing of submissions’, http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/submissions/introduction.htm, last accessed 10 February 2004).

My paper is also an attempt at a creative engagement with the partiality of empiricism and the notion of academic networks of trust. The continuing anxieties surrounding the impermanence of (particularly live) performance practices reify the notion of objects as carriers of meaning, that we can somehow ‘access’ research content via the artefacts of that research (Rye, 2003b) in what amounts to a Structuralist de-coding or Marxian unmasking. I would suggest, however, that the artefacts of our practices — from movement-based practice to research assessment — should more properly be seen as active agents (Gell, 1998) in the negotiation of value undertaken by academic communities. In answer to the concerns surrounding our desire to fix performance practices, I would counter that the artefacts arising out of the RAE in fact bear similar relation to the event-ness of the process that performance documentation bears to performance event. The relationship of material traces to lived moment of course extends far beyond the creative and performing arts; it is an archaeological question (Hodder, 1986; Shanks and McGuire, 1996; Shanks and Tilley, 1987a; b; Shanks and Pearson, 2001). As such, it is an interesting exercise to consider numbers, statistics, ‘evidence’ as unfixed and partial. As a researcher I am continually making decisions about what facts I consider valid (Wylie, 1989) — ultimately, what make the best story. So it is in that creative spirit, rather than an unproblematized faith in numbers, that I believe I can make some useful interventions based on the information that is available beyond the individual RAE panel membership.

THE RAE CONTEXT

The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), together with and Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB), are the main loci through which PaR has been contested, funded, validated (for a more detailed historiography of PaR, see Piccini 2003). PaR rose to the national agenda following the first full RAE in 1992. Troubled with the material outcomes orientation of that exercise the Standing Conference on University Drama Departments (SCUDD) organized a working group in 1994 to inform the assessment panel of the 1996 exercise. As the PaR constituencies are broad it is worth restating for the present readership the point that SCUDD represents not only the interests of drama departments in the UK, but also much dance and film and television teaching and research where that falls within drama departments.

SCUDD initiated both the intellectual and operational debates around the formal acceptance of performance media practices in HE.

It is indicative that the annual SCUDD conferences during the latter half of the 1990s so clearly presenced the debates around PaR:

SCUDD CONFERENCES AND PaR

• 1999 Original Insights, included panels on ‘Performance / Research / Innovation’ and ‘Funding Practice-Based Research’
• 1997 Research Assessment Exercise Workshop
• 1996 Identities and Realities: Issues in Research and Practice
• 1995 Theory/Practice: Divided We Fall

In 1996 the RAE defined research very broadly as an:

...original investigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding. It includes work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce and industry … where these lead to new or substantially improved insights …

(RAE, 1996)

Notions of how practice might be submitted to the RAE focused initially on the concept of ‘equivalence’ to publication, which prioritized writing as the medium of production and dissemination. With specific reference to PaR, the published 1996 criteria stated:

• The Panel aims to give equal value to practical research outcomes.
• Those submitting practice as research should be prepared to make available … a succinct statement of the research content of the practice …. The Panel is contractually committed to a quest for parity of evidence as well as evenness of judgement.

(ibid.)

And on the subject of assessing practice:

The Panel accepts that there is a range of media in which practical work may be published, including performance, film, video and audio-tape. The Panel will only be able to decide how to evaluate electronic or other non-literary publications … when it has had the opportunity to view submissions.

(ibid.)

So in attempting to facilitate the assessment of practice, the RAE set up some problematic dynamics which remain subjects of intense debate today: namely, the status of the ‘new’ in institutional knowledge production; the supposition of a research content of practice that can be outlined through recourse to text; and the assertion that practical work can be ‘published’ through the medium of performance. While the notion of publishing might be a useful way of conceptualizing parity between performance practices and traditional academic discourse, the problem arises through the notion that performance can be made ‘available’ to the RAE Panel, which then chooses an ‘opportunity to view submissions’ separate from the specific reception contexts of the performance media in question. While the tensions resulting from such conflation of live performance with its documenting apparatuses have been well rehearsed elsewhere — most notably by Auslander (1999), Phelan (1993) and Rye (2000; 2003a) — they lie at the heart of PARIP’s remit to address documentation issues surrounding both live and mediatized performance forms.

Following the 1996 RAE, in 1998 the second SCUDD working group proposed a number of clarifications of PaR:

• That while it should be acknowledged that high-quality creative work (including professional practice) is undertaken that might qualify as research, there is other work, however, ‘well researched’ that might not;
• That individuals may find it useful to judge whether a project is creative work that has a definite ‘research imperative’ or has a predominantly ‘creative’ or ‘professional’ imperative;
• That practice submitted as research should be seen to be part of an individual’s coherent research programme;
• That any creative practice may qualify as research when the practice can be shown to interrogate itself, it locates itself within its research context, and to give rise to other forms of discourse;

(SCUDD, 1998)

Underlying the concern that practice be made to ‘work’ like established academic discourse and the marked resistance to interrogating what might be meant by the dissemination of practical projects (whether by print or digital video) seems to be an always-already definition of research activities that fails to acknowledge the contingency of research and assessment full stop. How we might identify that which is and that which is not research is left tantalizingly undefined. The final point outlining the criterion of reflexivity is useful to a point but could equally apply to any ‘good’ work in a range of reception contexts.

The prevailing ‘common-sense’ understanding of research resurfaces in the documents generated in the run-up to the 2001 RAE. Here are items 49 and 50 of RAE 1/98, Research Assessment Exercise in 2001: key decisions and issues for further consultation:

There was unanimous support in the consultation for a broad and inclusive definition of research, encompassing all academic research and work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce and industry, public and voluntary sectors. Equally, however, we are urged not to dilute the definition by including essentially non-research activities.

A large majority agreed with the assertion that there should be no additional credit given in the RAE to the utility of research.

And item 2.21 of RAE Circular 5/99 states:

The definition of research output is deliberately broad. In principle any form of publicly available assessable output embodying the outcome of research, as defined for the RAE, may be cited…. In addition to printed academic work, research outputs may include new materials, devices, images, products and buildings; intellectual property, whether in patents or other forms; performances, exhibits or events; and work published in non-print media. The only exception to the requirement that outputs must be publicly available is where they are confidential…

But what are ‘essentially non-research activities’? And if the utility of research is not to be a significant criterion, then what happens to the arguments that PaR must be made available in material form for use by future researchers?

2001 — PRACTISING THE RAE

So what happened in 2001? As we know, the three Units of Assessment to which practice-based performance media submissions were made were: Panel 65, Panel 66 and Panel 64. Although the panel members for each are listed on the HERO website, it is worth noting that Bristol colleagues Baz Kershaw chaired 66 and John Adams was on panel 65.

Panel 65 had a practice-based research sub-panel, while Panel 66 had a film, television and video sub-panel — and a significant number of submissions were cross-referred between panels.

PANEL 65

According to RAE summary data, a total of 425 researchers were submitted to Panel 65. The total number of outputs submitted directly to Panel 65 was 1,409 although the number accessible via HERO was 1,404.

In the area of PaR, the panel 65 sub-panel closely aligned itself with 64 and 66 to ensure consistency in the treatment of practice-based research. According to the concluding panel report, UoA 65 had underlined its interest in receiving PaR submissions (http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview/). Despite this encouragement, relatively little practice output was submitted — just 40 submissions, or 3% of the total. In some cases, a conscious decision appears to have been made by departments or institutions altogether to exclude research-based practice from submissions. And certainly information communicated to me by colleagues at other institutions bears this up.

Does this reflect scepticism about the RAE’s genuine openness to PaR and the fairness of the process, as well as caution by institutions? Yet, where practice outputs were submitted, the panel reported that connections with the rest of the department’s research were usually persuasively demonstrated. Practice was submitted that could give a reflexive account of itself as research (a key element of formal research definitions). The sub-panel’s report stated that it was generally impressed by the high quality of the work it assessed. However, it was surprised that many submissions did not to use the 300-word allowance to enlarge on the research content by explaining the contribution ‘through original investigation’ of the work to ‘knowledge and understanding’.

PANEL 66

Forty departments were assessed in UoA 66 with a total of 1,685 submissions available via HERO. The largest department submitted over forty researchers, the smallest sub-unit just three. While the majority of outputs were print publications, practice as research of various kinds were submitted by circa 200 researchers, the 544 individual submissions amounting to 32% of the total.

Despite the impressive number of PaR submissions, the panel commented that the quality of these projects was very variable and there was a lack of clarity for a significant number of researchers about what constitutes practice as research. The panel concluded that consequently there is an urgent need for continued national debate about practices and criteria.

The Panel also pointed out that while some submissions provided excellent documentation / supporting evidence for practice as research, overall the level of presentation was not strong. As in UoA 65 the 300-word statements were not seen to indicate clearly research content or imperatives in the work, suggesting ‘some lack of awareness that, through appropriate documentation and other discourses, practice as research requires its own versions of scholarly apparatus for self-validation’ (my emphasis; 2002, RAE 2001: UoA66 Drama, Dance and Performing Arts — Overview Report, http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview/). The panel felt that there were signs from some researchers of resistance to developing related discourses and outputs.

What troubles me in this report is the seeming resistance to acknowledging that traditional forms of research are not required to present such process-based information, not to mention an ongoing commonsensical belief in the transparency and common currency of the written word – pace Melrose (2002) — the gold standard of the scriptural economy. As we saw in the RAE’s and SCUDD’s writings through the 1990s, RAE 2001 did not take on board the important differences between these suggested modes of documentation and the practice as research itself. It may be that the artist-scholar will wish to engage in a range of documentation practices; however, to insist that it is only through the document (whether photographic or textual) that the research can be seen, disseminated and institutionally validated undermines the philosophical rationale for much PaR in the first place — although the political imperatives behind this are perhaps understandable.

PROFESSIONAL VERSUS PaR

Some of the anxieties given form by these calls for appropriate documentation were most acute in the area of professional practice v PaR, an issue discussed across the panels. The panels were aware that the distinction is not clear-cut and that there is high quality professional work that may not be able to articulate its purposes in RAE terms but which could contribute to a departmental research culture. Yet, from the material that is available it does appear that those institutions that submitted high-level professional practice, from writing/directing broadcast crime/drama serials to voice training for Hollywood film to acclaimed theatre art forms did not score as well as they might have done.

However, it is difficult to make a strong case for a direct link between the amount of practice submitted and score achieved (either high or low). What does seem to distinguish department submissions is that the institutions that did score 5 or above in both panels 65 and 66 provided clear critical-theoretical translations of their varied practices, always bearing in mind that the information available to the researcher concerning this is not complete. It is not necessarily that the practices that contributed to high overall scores were of a similar kind (as they ranged across traditional theatre practices to avant-garde devised performance; from documentary film to drama), but that they were placed within established academic discourse. This was particularly clear in UoA 66 with the above average percentages of PaR in the top-scoring departments. It is, however, perhaps also noteworthy that the two 5* departments in 66 did return a less than average percentage of PaR. Panel 65 is more difficult to analyse as the only HEI with a siginificant percentage of PaR in UoA 65 was Cardiff, and this was dominated by journalism practices, already within textual form and conducted within a research paradigm.

PANEL 64

So it appears that despite the rise of PaR in the official agendas of academic institutions the high status of critical-theoretical discourses, the need to inscribe, remains. The relationships between the quality of the performing media practices themselves (sic) and their translations into appropriate scholarly text remains unclear.

And then, by chance, my colleague Caroline Rye and I were looking for submissions by those people we knew were research active in the recording media. We couldn’t find them in either 65 or 66. So we took a look in UoA 64 and there they were — in number. Of the 9,143 submissions to UoA 64 371 (or 4%) were those that, according to all available criteria could easily have been submitted to either 65 or 66. According to my figures 216 could have been in 65, 155 in 66. Had those 216 been submitted to 65, PaR outputs would have jumped from 3% to 16% of the total. And if the 155 are added to 66, PaR percentages are raised from 32% to 40% of the total.

Now, there is a whole raft of reasons behind this. To begin with the most obvious, departments must choose a panel to submit to that provides the best home for the majority of submissions. This did prove to be an issue for those performance and screen units within art and design colleges, who had to submit to Panel 64. While that was an issue, this is perhaps mitigated by the voiced belief that 64 is more supportive of mixed-mode practices. The fact that the media practice communities have been seeking to align themselves with art and design in the field of PaR PhD criteria supports this. Also backing this up are the surprising figures from a number of HEIs. All of Sheffield Hallam’s outputs, for example, an HEI well known for its screen media base, were submitted to 64. Panel 65 included traditional outputs only, despite the presence of established practitioners in Sheffield Hallam’s Media and Art and Design schools. Yet the respective units scored 5 in UoA 64 and 3a in 65. And in the field of theatre practices Plymouth’s and Brighton’s outputs went to 64 and not to 66. And while Brunel submitted to both, it scored a 2 in 66 and a 4 in 64, while De Montfort scored a 3a in 66 and 4 in 64. This is an area that certainly calls for further research and is being discussed in the run up to the next RAE.

Perhaps the most significant and interesting background to this panel choosing is the continued blurring of subject fields. Art and design’s openness to cross-art forms may make UoA 64 the most comfortable home for a wide range of practitioners, should departments choose to align themselves in this way.

In fact, Panel 66 pointed to transdisciplinarity in its report with the statement that it saw new digital media as significantly blurring traditional distinctions between live drama, theatre, dance, etc. and the recorded media such as film, television, video, radio, sonic arts, etc. However, from the range of materials submitted to Panel 64, I suggest that it is not so much the specific technologies used to make work, but rather the move to cross-art forms (the mix of live and mediatized forms in temporal-spatial specific performance locales for example, that may rely on only the most basic technologies) that is of interest and that mirrors the growing interdisciplinarity across the arts, humanities and social sciences arising from the post-structural attack on hermetic boundaries, full stop.

To extend this research there needs to be a devoted research project into RAE 2001 that allows researchers better access to the materials submitted. From the information that I have been able to see I suggest that it is perhaps not so much the area of criteria that requires rigorous development (as panels 65 and 66 suggested) but perhaps a much closer look at the ways in which the subject fields and panels themselves continually refine what is or is not worthy research. Does the relative success of Art and Design in this area raise concerns about the ongoing validity of the other areas of the creative and performing arts?

But of course these data will always be partial and any hope of glimpsing ‘what really went on’ is as misguided as our attempts to see the performance research ‘in’ the document. The point is you trust this piece of written work. You trust that I have added up correctly and that correct addition is somehow directly linked with the truth claims set out here. The danger of course is that this piece of writing here becomes more true than the vibrant, contested, performative activities that went on behind closed doors — activities that do not have accompanying, accessible documents, just a few marks and comments stored in a database.

WORKS CITED

Auslander, Philip (1999), Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, London: Routledge.

Gell, Alfred (1998), Art and Agency, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hodder, Ian (1986), Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Melrose, Susan (2002), ‘Entertaining other options: Restaging “theory” in the age of practice as research’, http://www.sfmelrose.u-net.com/inaugural/.

Pearson, Mike and Michael Shanks (2000), Theatre/Archaeology, London & New York: Routledge.

Phelan, Peggy (1993), Unmarked: the Politics of Performance, London: Routledge.

Piccini, Angela (in press), ‘An historiographic perspective on practice as research’, Studies in Theatre and Performance 23 (3).

Rye, Caroline (2000), Living Cameras: A Study of Live Bodies and Mediatized Images in Multi-Media Performance and Installation Art Practice, Unpublished PhD, Edinburgh: Napier University.

Rye, Caroline (2003), ‘Incorporating practice: a multi-viewpoint approach to performance documentation’, Journal of Media Practice, 3 (2), pp. 115-123.

Rye, Caroline (2003), ‘Video Writing: the documentation trap’ Paper presented at PARIP 2003, 11-14 September, Bristol

(1998), Report of the SCUDD RAE Group, http://art.ntu.ac.uk/scudd/SCUDD/rae.htm

Shanks, Michael and McGuire, Randall (1996), ‘The craft of archaeology’, American Antiquity 61, pp. 75-88.

Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher (1987) Re-constructing Archaeology: theory and practice, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher (1987) Social Theory and Archaeology, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Wylie, Alison (1992), ‘On ‘heavily decomposing red herrings’: scientific method in archaeology and the ladening of evidence with theory’, in L. Embree (ed.), Metaarchaeology, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 269-288.

RELEVANT RAE DOCUMENTATION

(1996), Research Assessment Exercise: Criteria for assessment, Panel 66 Drama, Dance and Performing Arts, http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/rae96/66.html

(1998) RAE 1/98, Research Assessment Exercise in 2001: key decisions and issues for further consultation, http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/index.htm

(1999), RAE Briefing Note 4, Research Outputs (RA2), http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/briefing/note4.htm

(1999), RAE Circular 5/99, Assessment Panels’ Criteria and Working Methods, http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/5_99/

(2001), RAE. A Guide to the 2001 RAE, 2001. http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/

(2002), RAE 2001: UoA66 Drama, Dance and Performing Arts — Overview Report http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview/.

Back to main conference page