Double blind : women as creative practice-led researchers

While the productive relationship between praxis and feminist research has been well established, the situation is more complicated for female artist/researchers in the fraught field of creative practice-led research. Firstly, their research is being conducted in the context of ongoing debate, as Andrea Phillips has summarized, over whether practice-led research has been embraced in order to potentially produce emancipatory knowledge, or whether it is simply the rationalization and quantification of creative processes. Secondly, there is a pervasive paradox whereby, rather than feeling empowered by the process of critical and reflective self-analysis, many women are inhibited by enduring insecurities about the value of their work and/or their ownership of it. The reasons for this appear to be twofold: they are disheartened by the ongoing disproportion of successful women artists, and they are intimidated by the fundamentally masculine discourse surrounding research in the university. Many of these anxieties appear to have been exacerbated by the research quality assessment process, the Excellence in Research for Australia Initiative (ERA). This collaborative paper draws on the authors' experiences as both artist-researchers and educators to contextualize this paradox and also discuss what forms of praxis intervention may be useful in the preparation for, and supervision of, creative practice-led research by women.

On the time spent preparing grant proposals : an observational study of Australian researchers

Objective: To estimate the time spent by the researchers for preparing grant proposals, and to examine whether spending more time increase the chances of success. Design: Observational study. Setting: The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. Participants: Researchers who submitted one or more NHMRC Project Grant proposals in March 2012. Main outcome measures: Total researcher time spent preparing proposals; funding success as predicted by the time spent. Results: The NHMRC received 3727 proposals of which 3570 were reviewed and 731 (21%) were funded. Among our 285 participants who submitted 632 proposals, 21% were successful. Preparing a new proposal took an average of 38 working days of researcher time and a resubmitted proposal took 28 working days, an overall average of 34 days per proposal. An estimated 550 working years of researchers' time (95% CI 513 to 589) was spent preparing the 3727 proposals, which translates into annual salary costs of AU$66 million. More time spent preparing a proposal did not increase the chances of success for the lead researcher (prevalence ratio (PR) of success for 10 day increase=0.91, 95% credible interval 0.78 to 1.04) or other researchers (PR=0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17). Conclusions: Considerable time is spent preparing NHMRC Project Grant proposals. As success rates are historically 20–25%, much of this time has no immediate benefit to either the researcher or society, and there are large opportunity costs in lost research output. The application process could be shortened so that only information relevant for peer review, not administration, is collected. This would have little impact on the quality of peer review and the time saved could be reinvested into research.

The life course of Australian researchers : experiences of applying for research funding

The life course of Australian researchers includes regular funding applications, which incur large personal and time costs. We previously estimated that Australian researchers spent 550 years preparing 3,727 proposals for the 2012 NHMRC Project Grant funding round, at an estimated annual salary cost of AU$66 million. Despite the worldwide importance of funding rounds, there is little evidence on what researchers think of the application process. We conducted a web-based survey of Australian researchers (May–July 2013) asking about their experience with NHMRC Project Grants. Almost all researchers (n=224 at 31 May) supported changes to the application (96%) and peer-review (88%) processes; 73% supported the introduction of shorter initial Expressions of Interest; and half (50%) provided extensive comments on the NHMRC processes. Researchers agreed preparing their proposals always took top priority over other work (97%) and personal (87%) commitments. More than half (57%) provided extensive comments on the ongoing personal impact of concurrent grant-writing and holiday seasons on family, children and other relationships. Researchers with experience on Grant Review Panels (34%) or as External Reviewers (78%) reported many sections of the proposals were rarely or never read, which suggests these sections could be cut with no impact on the quality of peer review. Our findings provide evidence on the experience of Australian researchers as applicants. The process of preparing, submitting and reviewing proposals could be streamlined to minimise the burden on applicants and peer reviewers, giving Australian researchers more time to work on actual research and be with their families.

Teachers as researchers : a ‘fair dinkum’ learning legacy

As we encounter a policy landscape where increasingly the education lexicon includes keywords such as data, evidence, quality, standards, it is interesting to revisit Garth Boomer's contribution regarding teachers as researchers. As an early-career classroom teacher in the mid-1970s, I was inspired by Boomer's provocation to engage with research as a practitioner seeking evidence of learning (or not learning). Since that time, convinced of the power of teacher research in enhancing both student and teacher learning, I have devoted a good deal of my academic life to finding ways of supporting teachers to engage in research - from finding funds to facilitate teacher-researcher networks, through designing research projects with teacher-researchers as key collaborators, to embedding practitioner inquiry in university courses wherever possible pre- and in-service.

Training Researchers : Visits and Training Schools

COST IS0801, like all COST Actions, provided many opportunities for training of early career researchers, and initiation of new research projects. Some of these were supported by short-term visits of usually one or two weeks, up to a maximum of three months, by an Action member to another venue, for purposes that supported the overall aims of the Action. The first part of this chapter provides some description of these, illustrated by a number of case studies. The second part of the chapter overviews the organization and outcome of two Training Schools for early career researchers, one in Australia entitled Research to policy and practice: Innovation and sustainability in cyberbullying prevention, and one in Finland, entitled Adolescents and Social Media: Guidelines and Coping Strategies for Cyberbullying. The organization of these Training Schools, the educational approaches used, and their evaluation and impact, will be summarised.

Why Australian and Indian researchers should collaborate to advance wound management innovation

In 2011, 366 million people suffered from diabetes worldwide, resulting in 4.6 million deaths at a cost of US$465 billion in direct healthcare expenditures1. India has the world’s second largest diabetic population at 61.8 million (8.3% of total population)1, while in Australia 8.1% of the population have been diagnosed with diabetes1. Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) affect up to 25% of diabetic patients, precipitating 85% of all diabetic amputations2,3. DFUs have significant social and economic impacts associated with increased hospitalisation rates, cost of care, and the reduced capacity of patients and carers to work. In isolated regions of Australia and India the incidence of DFU and associated infection is substantially increased, resulting in hospitalisation rates up to 4- fold that of major cities...

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships : a qualitative study of Australian researchers

Objective To examine the impact of applying for funding on personal workloads, stress and family relationships. Design Qualitative study of researchers preparing grant proposals. Setting Web-based survey on applying for the annual National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant scheme. Participants Australian researchers (n=215). Results Almost all agreed that preparing their proposals always took top priority over other work (97%) and personal (87%) commitments. Almost all researchers agreed that they became stressed by the workload (93%) and restricted their holidays during the grant writing season (88%). Most researchers agreed that they submitted proposals because chance is involved in being successful (75%), due to performance requirements at their institution (60%) and pressure from their colleagues to submit proposals (53%). Almost all researchers supported changes to the current processes to submit proposals (95%) and peer review (90%). Most researchers (59%) provided extensive comments on the impact of writing proposals on their work life and home life. Six major work life themes were: (1) top priority; (2) career development; (3) stress at work; (4) benefits at work; (5) time spent at work and (6) pressure from colleagues. Six major home life themes were: (1) restricting family holidays; (2) time spent on work at home; (3) impact on children; (4) stress at home; (5) impact on family and friends and (6) impact on partner. Additional impacts on the mental health and well-being of researchers were identified. Conclusions The process of preparing grant proposals for a single annual deadline is stressful, time consuming and conflicts with family responsibilities. The timing of the funding cycle could be shifted to minimise applicant burden, give Australian researchers more time to work on actual research and to be with their families.

Searching and archiving : exploring online search behaviors of researchers

Searching for relevant peer-reviewed material is an integral part of corporate and academic researchers. Researchers collect huge amount of information over the years and sometimes struggle organizing it. Based on a study with 30 academic researchers, we explore, in combination, different searching and archiving activities of document-based information. Based on our results we provide several implications for design.

Where is the software? Building a Metadata Repository for Software and Code Generated by QUT Researchers

QUT Software Finder is a searchable repository of metadata describing software and source code, which has been created as a result of QUT research activities. It was launched in December 2013. https://researchdatafinder.qut.edu.au/scf The registry was designed to aid the discovery and visibility of QUT research outputs and encourage sharing and re-use of code and software throughout the research community, both nationally and internationally. The repository platform used is VIVO (an open source product initially developed at Cornell University). QUT Software Finder records that describe software or code are connected to information about researchers involved, the research groups, related publications and related projects. Links to where the software or code can be accessed from are also provided alongside licencing and re-use information.

A collaborative rapid persona-building workshop : creating design personas with health researchers

In the HealthMap project for People With HIV, (PWHIV) designers employed a collaborative rapid ‘persona-building' workshop with health researchers to develop patient personas that embodied patient-centred design goals and contextual awareness from a variety of qualitative and quantitative data. On reflection, this collaborative rapid workshop was a process for drawing together the divergent user research insights and expertise of stakeholders into focus for a chronic disease self-management design. This paper discusses, (i) an analysis of the transcript of the workshop and, (ii) interviews with five practising senior designers, in order to reflect on how the persona-building process was enacted and its role in the HealthMap design evolution. The collaborative rapid persona-building methodology supported: embedding user research insights, eliciting domain expertise, introducing design thinking, facilitating stakeholder collaboration and defining early design requirements. The contribution of this paper is to model the process of collaborative rapid persona-building and to introduce the collaborative rapid persona-building framework as a method to generate design priorities from domain expertise and user research data.

Can we do better? Researchers' experiences with ethical review boards on projects with later life as a focus

The goal of this study was to describe researchers' experiences in submitting ethical proposals focused on older adult populations, including studies with persons with dementia, to ethical review boards. Ethical approval was granted for an online survey. Researchers were recruited via listservs and snowballing techniques. Participants included 157 persons (73% female) from Australia and the United States, with a mean age of 46 (±13). Six main issues were encountered by researchers who participated in this survey. In descending order, these included questions regarding: informed consent and information requirements (61.1%), participants' vulnerability, particularly for those with cognitive impairments (58.6%), participant burden (44.6%), data access (29.3%), adverse effects of data collection/intervention (26.8%), and study methodology (25.5%). An inductive content analysis of responses revealed a range of encounters with ethical review panels spanning positive, negative, and neutral experiences. Concerns voiced about ethical review boards included committees being overly focused on legal risk, as well as not always hearing the voice of older research participants, both potential and actual. Respondents noted inability to move forward on studies, as well as loss of researchers and participant groups from gerontological and clinical research as a result of negative interactions with ethics committees. Positive interactions with the committees reinforced researchers' need to carefully construct their research approaches with persons with dementia in particular. Suggested guidelines for committees when dealing with ethics applications involving older adults include self-reflecting on potential biases and stereotypes, and seeking further clarification and information from gerontological researchers before arriving at decisions.

Performative digital asset management: To propose a framework and proof of concept model that effectively enables researchers to document, archive and curate their non-traditional research data

This cross disciplinary study was conducted as two research and development projects. The outcome is a multimodal and dynamic chronicle, which incorporates the tracking of spatial, temporal and visual elements of performative practice-led and design-led research journeys. The distilled model provides a strong new approach to demonstrate rigour in non-traditional research outputs including provenance and an 'augmented web of facticity'.

Double blind: Supervising women as creative practice-led researchers

Many women creative practice-led researchers appear inhibited by a number of factors directly connected to their gender. This paper discusses these factors, including the culture of visual arts professional practice, the circumstances surrounding women postgraduate students, and unproductive self-theories about intelligence and creativity. A number of feminist strategies are discussed as potential interventions that may assist women creative practice-led researchers and their supervisors to reap more personal and professional rewards from their postgraduate research.