Hello all,

I wonder if I could ask people on this email list if you have any 
observations on how the provisions made in the RAE sub-group for 
creative writing compare with provisions for other practice-based 
media subjects.

At the Bath Spa meeting on research in June, there was a suggestion 
that comparisons should be made, to see if there were any tricks we 
could pick up, or areas where Creative Writing could equalise 
upwards. And the deadline for consultations submissions is looming -- 
at Roehampton we are being asked to submit them now.

Several people have pointed out that the although RAE itself is 
fairly flexible, universities themselves can be very defensive about 
how they interpret the rules. So it's all the more important to get 
the wording of the RAE document clear enough that the research 
director understands just what is possible.

To get technical for a moment, I'm thinking particularly of a 
comparison between Creative Writing within the English Lang and Lit 
section (UOA 57 in Main panel M) and media practice within the 
Communication, Cultural and Media Studies section (UOA 65 and 66 in 
Main panel O). This covers journalism, screenwriting, film-making and 
performance arts generally.

Panel O and the sub-groups seem to be more detailed and explicit 
about the leeway being given to practice-based research, by treating 
it as a separate type of research, rather than subsuming it in 
"applied". In addition, they give more weighting to "esteem" (10%) 
than the English sub-panel (5%) and this is a factor that can help 
professional writers and practice-based researchers generally.

At a recent meeting of AMPE (Association of media practitioners in 
education) there was agreement to propose amendments which would 
tighten things up even more. These were:

* To recommend that the distinct category of "practice research" be 
added in the main RAE document as a type of research (in addition to 
the existing scholarly, basic, strategic and applied), and that this 
wording be repeated throughout the documentation wherever appropriate.

* To add to the criteria of "esteem" something that explicitly 
includes professional activity

* The add to the criteria of "constraints" (ie the reasons why 
someone might be allowed to submit fewer than four pieces of 
research) the need for staff members to be professionally active.


Is it worth suggesting such changes for the M panel as well? I'd be 
very interested in other people's thoughts on the matter.

Many thanks,
-- 
Susan Greenberg
Lecturer Creative Writing (Nonfiction)
Roehampton University
[log in to unmask]
tel 020 7263 9525