Evaluating Literary Studies [FOR 4705] in Australia: Bad Data, Bad Peer Review

Abstract

In 2022 the new Labor government cancelled the ERA (Excellence in Research, Australia) round and instructed the ARC to find new ways of accounting for research excellence that are more cost effective than the peer-review model that had served in previous iterations of the ERA. To this end the ARC conducted a consultation process that recommended the ERA be discontinued. What is clear in this emerging new order is the imminence of a move from peer-review processes (which have been abandoned because of the cost burden placed on universities) to data-driven approaches ‘relevant to all disciplines.’ In this light of this it is essential that potential pitfalls with current data-driven systems currently operating in relation to and directly affecting research in the humanities be clearly brought into the light, so that errors that might negatively impact disciplines in the humanities might be avoided. This paper (part of which was sent to the ARC review as part of the AUHE submission), sets out to examine some of the flaws with current systems of accounting for the value of literary studies. The failings occur in two main ways. One of these is to do with the collection and propagation of what might objectively be qualified as ‘bad data’ as a way of representing these disciplines. This is seen in the major journal rankings and citation ranking systems that currently operate in the university sector. The other is to do with the collection and propagation of what might objectively be called ‘bad peer review’ as a way of representing humanities disciplines in international university ranking systems. Some suggestions are made concerning potentially less flawed systems of accounting.