Research Performance: Recognising, Reporting, Rewarding

<p>Over the last decade we have seen the global emergence of research performance assessment methodologies. Acronyms abound in naming these systems e.g. RQF, PBRF, ERA, RAE, REF! Definitions and descriptors of research excellence, quality and impact are often at cross purposes and ambiguous, and yet these schemes can inform major national Government funding, not to mention their huge reputational impact for institutions.</p> <p>Universities need to respond to key trends in national and international environments which are characterised by a movement towards concentration of expertise, the importance of collaboration, an emphasis on increasing quality and having definable, measureable impacts.</p> <p>The challenge for Universities is to translate these policies in order to provide clear guidance to individual researchers on performance expectations whilst also ensuring that research management systems are accurately capturing research activities for analysis and reporting, both internally and externally.</p> <p>I propose to discuss and compare these assessment methodologies and outline the research performance incentive scheme developed at my University (ASPIRE – another acronym!), which is a system for measuring and quantifying research performance that rewards researchers for research activity and quality. In essence, it provides incentives towards the ongoing enhancement of the University’s overall level of research excellence.</p> <p>A unique element of the Australian ERA initiative was the introduction of recognising non-traditional outputs, or creative works. I will outline the inclusion of this element within our internal reward scheme and present on the research management system data structures and policy principles for collecting and analysing all research activity, particularly research in the creative arts; the nexus of where research quality and impact often converge.