10 insights for humanities researchers from #ACHRC 2013

#ACHRC 2013: 2 days, 1 keynote, 6 panels.

Between 8-9 July, researchers converged on the University of Western Australia for the annual meeting of the Australian Consortium of Humanities Research Centres (ACHRC).

Humanists came from range of disciplines and institutions: university research centres, collecting institutions, advocacy groups, media, university administration and funding bodies. The diversity of attendees resulted in a range of perspectives and energetic debate.

All were united by a belief that, in a world facing pressing global challenges, we need the humanities now more than ever. In this context, it seemed appropriate that the keynote was delivered by Alan Liu, a digital humanities innovator and passionate advocate of the humanities.

Here are ten themes that emerged over an inspiring few days:

1. We need to learn how to tell compelling stories about the humanities.

4Humanities.org

We’re not doing enough to communicate the value of what we do. Alan Liu’s keynote stressed the importance of humanities advocacy and outlined the creation of 4Humanities.org - a “conceptual laboratory” that provides a space for humanists to tell their stories. Digital storytelling outcomes include:

• Infographic Friday - visualisations that express the impact of the humanities using statistics
• Humanities Backpack  - mini documentaries that bring the research process to life
• Humanities Showcase - online portal that allows public audiences to browse a gallery of research case studies

For Liu, public engagement starts with an articulation of fundamental principles which should be long-term, structural and local/global. What do the humanities stand for? Frustrated by the strategic plan outlined by your research institution? Liu and his colleagues at the University of California were. So they sat down and outlined their own vision.

To communicate values you need to know what they are. Several key outcomes of the 4Humanities project have been value finding exercises such as What everyone says about the humanities and Humanities plain and simple, which challenges contributors to outline why the humanities matter in plain language. Techniques include focus groups, crowd sourcing, and text mining values statements. For a best practice example, Liu pointed to a recently released report and video published by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “The Heart of the Matter: Commission of the Humanities and Social Sciences.”

2. And communicate these stories to our audiences more effectively.

Deakin University: Research My World

Engaging with public audiences is not about meeting research impact funding obligations; it’s a social responsibility. Andrea Whitcomb encouraged researchers to resist the notion that academic work is outside society and to develop research projects that emerge from problems and issues outside of academic debate.

Alan Liu outlined a framework for public engagement that involved (1) articulating a core message, (2) designing a communications plan (involving the selection of spokespersons - not necessarily the researcher, media channels, and specific media forms and genres) and (3) communicating this message to a specific target audience (such as fellow academics, practitioners or local communities). Researchers should seek to emulate organisations skilled in communicating for social change, such as the Occupy Movement, MoveOn.org and Amnesty International. He suggested researchers may like to read Jennifer Earl and Katrina Kimport’s recent book, Digitally Enabled Social Change, Activism in the Internet Age.

Deb Verhoeven felt it was important that researchers feed data and results back to communities. She described a recent project that engaged communities in the research process from the outset using crowd funding. Not only did the Deakin University Pozzible Campaign, Research My World, raise over $20,000 in research funding, it helped build the online profiles of the early career researchers who participated.

Jane Davidson, from the ARC Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions argued that research impact should include creative outcomes as well as traditional research outputs and outlined recent collaborations with ABC radio, schools and the arts. 

Andrew Jaspan, Editor of The Conversation, outlined his vision to provide a new business model for news media. The Conversation has 1.3 million unique views per month, with 80% of the audience outside of academia. An Australian success story, over 60% of academic contributors are followed up by other mass media outlets and the recent UK launch will be followed by launches in USA and India. Subsequently, Linguist Alan Dench reminded researchers that, while the written word has primacy in academia, spoken language remains a primary form of communication and is innate to human beings. He urged attendees to speak on the radio and encourage students to practice communicating their research verbally by participating in Three Minute Thesis competitions.

3. But often, we don’t really understand who our audience is.

Dev Verhoeven reminded researchers that we are not communicating to a homogenous group of people called “the public”.  Powerful storytelling necessitates a genuine understanding of our audience/s and these insights are the bedrock of any communication. Not only will this information assist researchers in crafting an impactful message, this kind of focus can assist in making decisions as to the most effective communication channels - vital when time and money are in short supply. Know your audience and design communications to resonate with specific concerns.  Then choose the most appropriate communication channel to reach each group.  Provide different touch points that allow people to become involved at various levels. For example, some may watch a video or share information on social media, others might like to make a donation or even examine research data for themselves.

4. It's not enough to start a discussion, we need to change the conversation.

We need to advocate the humanities on our own terms.  Christina Parolin, of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, argued that the term "benefit" captures the intention of research assessment better than "impact". Indeed, Alan Liu prefers the term “discovery” rather than words such as “invention”, and “innovation” as he believes it most aptly expresses the range of human meanings and possibilities associated with technological breakthroughs.
Liu suggested that researchers explore George Lakoff’s strategic frame analysis, a science based communications methodology that draws from linguistics, psychology, anthropology, political science and communications theory. If you're interested in Lakoff's work you can explore his eWorkshop Changing the public conversation on social problems: a beginners guide to strategic frame analysis  or read his article Framing 101: How to Take Back Public Discourse.

5. Continue to question the logic of measurement indicators.

Carmen Lawrence agreed that accountability for publicly funded research projects was important but compelled the audience to keep asking the hard questions. Why are you asking us to measure this? What is the likely benefit to the academy/society? How many dollars does it take to get one dollar on the desk of a researcher? Christina Parolin agreed that data collection was an issue, citing the administrative burden and cost of preparing case studies, the risk of over engineering the effort to measure impact, and the focus on demonstrating and communicating rather than making the research more beneficial.

Lawrence noted the private sector origins of the current obsession with measurement, citing the mantra "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it".  She compared dogmatic approaches to measurement with religious devotion stating "The fact that something is hard to measure does not mean that it is not real or important". Indeed she argued that the more any social indicator is used for social decision making, the more it will corrupt the very policies it aims to manage, quoting Goodheart’s Law which states "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure".

6. Form richer, mutually beneficial collaborations.

We’re stronger together. Humanists may have different goals but we tend to share a similar vision. Richard Neville, outlined how the State Library of NSW wants to "be a place where conversations happen, either on site or online", an objective which echoed several previous discussions. Yet collaboration between different research centres, disciplines and collecting institutions poses challenges.  Neville recognised opportunities to share staff, knowledge and experience based on mutual understanding and frank discussions about expectations, constraints and opportunities. Alec Coles, CEO of the Western Australian Museum, reiterated some of these concerns but was optimistic about ways in which partnerships could add immense value.

7. Think global.

Is the global turn in higher education merely economic opportunism or a genuine desire to train and educate graduates to become global citizens? Masashi Haneda, Vice President (International) of the University of Tokyo, argued that global issues such as climate change, food and water crisis, aging societies, bioethics, security and migrations, necessitated the development of a new global citizen and that the humanities should play a leading role. Krishna Sen, Dean of the UWA Faculty of Arts, was more cautious about the idea of “Global Humanities” arguing the centrality of difference and relativism to the humanities. Yet, the discourse surrounding the Asian century highlights the importance of alternative modes of understanding. According to Krishna, "We are the miners of ideas and we are the real miners of the Asian century".

8. Embrace new technologies.

Marvin eBook reader - iPad app

Alan Liu showcased some extraordinary new digital humanities projects such as Open Journal Systems (OJS), the Journal Author Name Estimator (Jane) and Marvin – an iPad app that automatically generates abstracts from ebooks.  Other innovations included JoVE, a Peer Reviewed Scientific Video Journal and Wikipedia Journal Articles. Liu’s visions for the future included a machine learning approach for identifying thesis and conclusion statements in student essays, and a computer program that could support academics in public outreach by automatically generating draft tweets and blog posts based on "business as usual" teaching and research activities.

According to Lui, Research Centres should act as “Think Tanks” for the Humanities.

• Taking a long term, strategic approach and contributing to public policy
• Becoming hubs for digital humanities by investing in state-of-the-art infrastructure (such as video conferencing), hosting workshops and conferences and offering support with communications and public outreach, websites and databases, and legal/IP issues.
•  Lobbying for institutional acknowledgment for blog posts and public outreach activity, referencing the recently published (and must-read) Young Researchers in Digital Humanities: A Manifesto. Carmen Lawrence also recognised that the immense pressure to publish and lack of reward for outreach activity discourages community engagement, stating "We are giving young researchers the wrong message".
• Supporting early career researchers by recognising that there are not enough academic jobs for graduates and helping to develop alt-ac career paths.  Kate Darian-Smith, of the University of Melbourne, also shared examples of how her team are trying to develop new career opportunities and forms of PhD supervision.

9. But be realistic about potential pitfalls and challenges.

Who is going to pay for it all? Several speakers recognised the logics of current funding systems provided considerable barriers to making such grand visions a reality. An ACHRC survey of 180 Australian Research Centres led by Tully Barnett revealed that many operate with minimal administrative support - yet this is vital for tracking research impact, planning events and public outreach activity.  Training and developing new skills is essential for researchers but this has limits. It it is inefficient to stretch competencies too wide. Research Centres should empower humanists to do what they do best and free their time for research as much as possible.

Toby Burrows, Director of eResearch at UWA, urged attendees to be aware of “The Nasties” when planning websites and databases. Blogs, social media and open source platforms are not “free”. They involve a long term commitment of time and effort, as well as  hard costs involved with backing up data, servers and web hosting. Should you seek open source, commercial or bespoke IT solutions? Burrows outlined pros and cons of working within IT systems or going it alone.

10. And stop complaining. 
Robert Phiddian, Director of ACHRC, didn’t mince words in his closing remarks, stating “It’s our own bloody fault” for taking the brace position rather than getting on the front foot. The meeting ended on an optimistic note, with a challenge to experiment, innovate and think differently about the ways in which we undertake and communicate humanities research.

There is much to be done but also much that can be done


*************

I was awarded a bursary to attend the 2013 meeting of the Australian Consortium of Humanities Research Centres (ACHRC) by the UWA Institute of Advanced Studies.  Huge thanks to the event convenors: ACHRC Director Robert Phiddian, ACHRC Research associate Tully Barnett and UWA innovation cheerleader, Susan Takao.

Socialising Research: How to get your research results noticed and used.

Research impact is a rapidly emerging trend that academics can no longer afford to ignore.

Scholars have always been concerned about the impact of their research within the academy. Reputations and careers are built on the authority that results from a body of influential work.

But things are changing. Today academics are facing increasing pressures from governments and funding bodies to rethink the ways in which they conceptualise research impact.

I recently attended an IAS masterclass on Socialising Research in which Professor Robyn Owens (@robynowens), UWA’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research,  offered  insights into the rapidly evolving Australian research landscape and outlined ways to get research results noticed and used within the academy and beyond. It is no coincidence that this was the second conference on research effectiveness that I have attended within a month at UWA!

The focus on research impact is based on three principles.
•    Universities create knowledge
•    Knowledge has value
•    Research is publicly funded and should be shared

The academy has not always approached knowledge in this way. 
Professor Owens offered the marvellous example of mathematician G. H. Hardy who wrote the 1940 essay ‘A Mathematician's Apology’. For, Hardy, the best kind of intellectual theory had no real life application at all. The ideal of ‘pure knowledge’ was seen to reflect the highest calling of the academy. Hardy died in 1947, so luckily he will never know that the number theory he developed is now a fundamental part of internet banking security systems!

Academics solve problems.
When Professor Owens asked how we saw ourselves as researchers, the answers reflected our disciplines. We were ‘historians’, ‘anthropologists’ and ‘linguists'. She reminded us that a discipline is merely a set of rules that a group of scholars use to solve problems. For example, the problem of obesity is tackled very differently across the disciplines of Law, Politics, Sports Science, Urban Planning and Psychology. I love this structural inversion. Our role as researchers often involves questioning conventional wisdom, yet we often fail to examine the institutional logics we work within.

The political landscape of academia is changing.
Australian funding bodies are increasingly influenced by European impact agendas, including the UK’s “Pathways to Impact” which I wrote about in a previous blog post. In 2010 the Australian Research Council (ARC) launched the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) Initiative which evaluates the quality of research by Australian universities. Fields of research at each university are ‘scored’ as being above or below ‘world standard’ using a combination of metric evaluation and peer review. A contentious process!

The research impact of individual researchers has traditionally been measured by the extent to which their research has influenced the advancement of their discipline. This can be indicated by the quality of the journal in which work is published, reviews and reactions, article downloads and patents – however is generally measured by the number of citations the work receives.

While the number of times fellow academics reference your work provides a helpful indication of impact, the system has many limitations. A high number of citations is not proof of research quality in itself. The statistic is also notoriously difficult to measure. Different platforms can provide wildly different estimates (ie: Google Scholar vs. Web of Knowledge). The processing of ‘getting published’ can take a long time -  months or sometimes even years. For information to be 'sticky' it must be relevant and this time lag can be frustrating. In addition, the pay walls of academic journals often prevent public audiences (including the media) from accessing the original article.

Academics should actively promote their research.
Out of 3,303 research papers published by UWA in 2011, 58% have no citations (yet). This statistic is more notable for its commonality among major universities than its size. Once a work is published there is a window of opportunity during which it tends to be discovered -  around 2-3 years after publication. So how can we promote research during this pivotal time?

Professor Owens outlined several ways in which online platforms can used by academics to boost visibility of new knowledge;

1. Write for media outlets that have been specifically created for academic engagement with public audiences such as The Conversation.
2. Where appropriate, use multimedia to share ideas on social platforms like YouTube.
3. Integrate collaboration into the research project itself. Can you create an online platform that can be used as a resource for other scholars or public audiences? Or perhaps even get the public involved in the creation of research itself? 
4. Start a blog to share your research and build a reputation within your area of expertise.
5. Use social media to engage with communities and contribute to conversations.

Inspired by the possibilities, the reaction of her audience of UWA early career researchers was enthusiastic. Many however, were united by a single question...

Where do I start?
Academics are intellectual entrepreneurs. Much of our knowledge is self-taught and to a certain extent it is the responsibility of each individual researcher engage with new technologies.  This being said -  there is a clear need for support and advice in this area. It is for this reason I will be launching a multi-part series of blog posts written for academics in the humanities that will provide a guide to online reputation building. It's something I have been thinking about for a while.




The project will be a learning process for me too. I have worked for several years as a digital marketing manager in the private sector however am looking forward to your feedback which will help me learn more about the complexities and challenges involved faced by scholars in this space.

Advertising in the academy? Maximising research impact in the humanities

 

image via http://researchimpact.files.wordpress.com

What do advertising executives have in common with academics in the humanities? 
They both work in highly competitive environments. They both sell ideas.

As a former advertising executive (turned history PhD student) I have been thinking about this a lot recently.  How do academics sell their research? For many scholars, the pursuit of knowledge and promotion of that knowledge is mutually exclusive. This can be particularly acute in the humanities where it is often challenging to apply conventional understandings of commercial value and intellectual property to research outcomes.

While I’ve spent around ten years working in advertising and marketing, I’m relatively new to the academic world - and am always interested in opportunities to gain insights into the research landscape.  It’s for this reason that I attended a thought-provoking workshop today hosted by the UWA Institute of Advanced Studies and Graduate Research School -  ‘Research with Impact in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences’. During the session, Jennifer Chubb, Research and Innovation Officer at The University of York, shared learnings from the UK where changes to research council grant funding applications are forcing academics to think differently about how they define and measure research impact.

With return on public investment under ever increasing scrutiny, 'research impact' is a defined as the 'demonstrable' contribution that good research makes to society and the economy.  UK grant applications must include a pathway to impact which not only includes a description of who benefits from research and details of how they will benefit but a specific plans to ensure they have the opportunity to benefit. It’s essentially a communications and outreach programme that prioritises non-academic audiences.

The Australian Research Council have similar requirements but there are subtle differences. Scholars must outline the ‘potential innovative benefits’ of proposed research and provide information regarding strategies to disseminate and promote research outcomes ‘if appropriate’ but grants do not require a formal communications plan (yet).

There is no doubt that the trend towards research accountability and measurement in the humanities is a contentious issue. My objective is not to engage directly in these debates, but rather to offer a few  thoughts as to how academics could apply learnings from the world of advertising to create compelling communications and engage public audiences.

So, what can academics learn from advertising executives?

1.    Define your target audience/s.
It’s not enough to want to communicate with the ‘general public’. Effective communications result when you tailor specific messages to specific audiences. Who will value your research and how can you communicate the benefits in a way that is most relevant for them?

2.    Sell the benefits of your research, not the features. 
Make a case as to why your research is relevant right now. How can insights add value to target audiences?

3.    Think about communication objectives before you think about communication tools.
Do you want to raise awareness, engage a local community, start a debate, collate stories or generate media coverage? Once you know what you want to achieve you can select the specific tools that will work hardest for you. I love your enthusiasm but I don’t care how excited you are about building a website or running a social media campaign if it's not the best use of your limited time and money.

4.    Don’t underestimate costs.
Websites are not cheap but a well designed website is worth every penny. Costs for (good) design, printing and distribution of promotional collateral (posters, brochures and teaching materials), travel and events soon add up. And it’s not just financial costs you need to think about. While blogging platforms and social media, such as Facebook or Twitter, are technically 'free' to set up they are not low cost options. Getting the most out of these kind of platforms requires careful planning and strategy. Once launched they are time consuming and require the commitment of long-term resources.

5.    Be realistic about the time and money required to achieve your objectives.
If you don’t know the answers – ask someone who does. There is little benefit in including a list of exciting things you are going to do, then not having the resources to achieve them.

6.    Avoid retrospectively assessing research impact at all costs.  
Factor in measurement from the very beginning and brief your team so they know what to look out for. This could include mentions in the media, numbers of phone calls to your office, or requests for information. If you have a website make sure it contains tracking so you can include web analytics such as visits, page views and time spent on the site. There are several simple free tools you can use to 'listen' to conversations online. For example, you can set up Google Alerts to track mentions of your project on blogs or monitor conversations on Twitter. Research impact in the humanities is often not linear so be creative and keep an open mind.

7.    Your project is not finished until you have assessed your communications objectives against actual outcomes. 
Success establishes a track record that demonstrates results and can be used as evidence for a spin-off project or even a brand new grant application. In addition, research impact often extends far beyond the initial time period. Keep listening. Keep recording.

8.    Ask for help when you need it. 
No one is expected to be a jack-of-all-trades and assistance can take the form of specialist advice (ie: building websites, social media campaigns) or training. The university press office can help with media releases however, if academics are increasingly required to engage with public audiences, it will become increasingly important for universities to develop support and training in these areas.


Two things occur to me about a shift towards community engagement and communication in the humanities. The first is how exciting it is. I've written before about how technology has changed the way we tell stories about the past and eroded the authority and influence of 'experts'. For these reasons, I believe public engagement should be an important part of academic life.  The second thing that occurs to me is just how much planning and management this kind of activity involves. Academics in the humanities are already under enormous pressures. For a meaningful and sustainable cultural shift to take place in the academy, there needs to be structural changes to institutions so that support is provided to scholars fulfill these new requirements from funding bodies. Otherwise we risk compromising both research and communications.

And so it begins.

In March I’ll be commencing a PhD in History at the University of Western Australia – which means I will be spending the next three years investigating a research question that keeps me up at night. It’s an amazing opportunity made even better by the fact that the university has offered to support me with a scholarship while I am doing it. I like to think of it as a completely wonderful (but extremely underpaid) new job that just so happens to be equally thrilling, terrifying and the most difficult thing I have ever done.

My research project will investigate the influence of consumer culture on the Anzac Legend and Australian national identity - in particular, the ways in which an increased public fascination with the Anzac Legend since the 1980’s has been articulated and commoditised by memory industries including publishing, tourism and entertainment.  I’m a public historian at heart and through my research I hope to better understand non-academic forms of historical engagement  as well as the ongoing - and growing -  fascination Australians have with the past.

During this time I have a feeling that this blog will remain an important creative outlet where I can:

• share untold stories from Australian history
• explore the intersection of history and digital media
• curate and share thought-provoking content from blogs & websites I follow 
• try out different writing styles and develop my own voice as a historian
• experiment with digital storytelling in diverse formats including photography, videos and podcasts
• play with new ideas and get feedback from a community of fellow history nerds
• keep connected with the outside world during the PhD researching and writing process

Historypunk is likely to remain a delightfully eclectic space - hopefully full of interesting bits and pieces to keep you entertained and inspired. There's a long road ahead so perhaps it will also inspire me too and serve as a reminder of why I fell in love with history in the first place.

Here goes nothing!