Revisiting the evidence: practice submissions to the REF

For international readers of JMP, some history and context are required. The research excellence framework is an increasingly determining driver for the institutional development of research in the UK. The REF is a system, conducted in six-year periods for ‘assessing the quality’ of research in UK higher education (HE) institutions. The outcomes impact on academics, researchers, practitioners at the level of the individual, research centre sustainability, whole institution research strategy and the future direction of disciplines. The intention of REF is to provide accountability for public investment in research; to produce evidence of the benefits of this investment, described as ‘impact’ in a combination of social, economic or more abstract ‘undecided’ terms; to provide metrics for the future allocation of research funding and ‘benchmarking’ data and to indicate ‘reputational yardsticks’ for use within the HE sector and for public information. The wording for this outline is taken from http://www.ref.ac.uk/about/ in the public domain.

The first formal audit of research across Universities was in 1986, evolving into a ‘selectivity exercise’ three years later and, managed by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE), the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) was used to allocate funding between 1992 and 2014, when the current REF, which we reflect on here, measured and compared clustered outputs (weighted at 65%), impact (20%) and environment (15%).

Impact (societal/economic – the manifestation of ‘value for money’ for academic research) replaced the arguably less commodified ‘esteem’ in 2014. ‘Esteem’ the profile of a group’s research among peers and networks but not necessarily converted into public sphere ‘impact’ is now a part of ‘environment’ which includes PHD students, institutional support for research and other markers of the value of research in a University.

Research outputs are graded 1–4 but an interesting change has taken place in recent years, with the international significance of an article, or other form of dissemination, becoming the norm (at Grade 2). Most challenging, for the practice researchers reflecting on the REF here, is the arrangement of the assessment into discipline boundaries, and the need for Universities to categorise research into groupings that, whilst increasingly conducive to multidisciplinary work, may not so easily accommodate practice research.

In post-REF ‘debriefs’, three themes emerged. First, it was clear that the various ways of analysing the data (outputs, impact, the ‘power’ of impact calculated as an average of the number of researchers ‘returned’) made it possible for institutions to celebrate their achievements using a varied menu of options for data presentation. Second, the hyper-subjectivity of the REF (effectively a peer review of peer review) came to the fore. And third, the over-production and commodification of research in the REF context is set against, depending on one’s political view of research and institutional background, the more inclusive affect – many people working in newer universities are afforded more time and space for research because the REF exists.

For a journal publishing practice research/research into practice, many more things are at stake. This editorial piece combines a review of practice research in the recent REF by John Adams with a series of reflections from other members of the JMP editorial board.

This editorial article reviews elements of the Panel D and UoA sub-panel feedback on REF submissions with reference to comments in the report with particular relevance to media practice research. In the light of this feedback it also provides a reflection on a previous article published in the journal entitled ‘Presenting the evidence: the REF output statement and portfolio’ (Adams 2013).

Introduction

In the run-up to the REF JMP Screenworks published an article that attempted to draw together a loose template for the effective presentation of practice research from the fragmentary advice dispersed across HEFCE documentation relating to REF 2014 (Adams 2012). This was subsequently published in the Journal of Media Practice (Adams 2013). My aim was to suggest ways in which the statement and portfolio could most effectively provide the evidence of the research dimensions of a work submitted as a REF output.

The editors have asked for short re-appraisal of that article in terms of implications for media practice research and the extent to which things have shifted – or not – in the light of the recent REF2014 process and outcomes. What follows is a selection of points from Panel D and the UoA sub-panels’ feedback (HEFCE 2015) where these relate specifically to practice research and connect with the issues in the original article.

Panel D (arts and humanities) feedback

The Panel D overview emphasises that practice is firmly embedded as an accepted mode of research ¹ but identifies issues with ‘how institutions appear to understand practice as research’ (16,§61). Many of the lessons of previous research assessment exercises have not been fully absorbed by research managers, which raise questions of leadership and strategy. It is clearly the responsibility of the HE institution to provide effective training and guidance in the presentation of practice in research contexts.

UoA sub-panel reports

Of the 10 Panel D sub-panels, three are of primary interest to the JMP constituency:

• UoA34 (Art and Design: History, Practice and Theory)

• UoA35 (Music, Drama, Dance and Performing Arts) and, to a lesser extent,

• UoA36 (Communication, Cultural and Media Studies).

Sub-panel 34 is the largest sector for production of research through practice (90,§29). Submissions were notable for the elaboration of media practices, the importance of interdisciplinary work and the interface with industrial producers (85,§8). Photography, digital arts and film display a wide range of methodologies and are producing works of very high quality, with a striking growth in submission based on exhibition and cultural display (85,§10).

Sub-panel 35 notes that theoretical and practice-based research in the sector is in a thriving state and underpins creative industries at all levels (92,§5). Collaboration plays a vital part in enriching the research base: creative partnerships, interdisciplinary projects and cross-institutional collaborations (93,§6). Scenographic research (in set, lighting and sound design) showed interesting developments, although there was sometimes a need to identify the research dimensions, especially with collaborative projects (96–7,§24). There were significant developments in experimental practice, especially in the fields of wearable, locative and cyborg technologies, in gaming and screen-based interactivity (97,§25) and in video art, installations and film-making (99,§33). The sub-panel called for ‘intellectual ambition’, seizing the opportunity for originality and developing disciplinary practice beyond summative or reflective work towards an approach ‘focused on critical enquiry’ (101,§41).

Sub-panel 36 comments that on many occasions submitting institutions had not sufficiently acquainted themselves with the REF guidance defining research and had failed to take advantage of opportunity to clarify the research basis of submitted work – this was ‘a common problem in practice-led research’ (111,§10).

Statement and portfolio

The main Panel D feedback stated that the 300-word statement and portfolio were sometimes used inconsistently and the question of the research imperative was not always well articulated: practice outputs could in some cases have benefited from being better structured and more focused, with a clear ‘route-map’ for assessors to understand the research being presented (16,§61).

Sub-panel 34 noted that a significant number of portfolios were not helpful. In particular there were counter-productive ‘evaluative’ comments and disorganised presentation with, in the worst cases, disparate materials that impeded understanding. The best statements and portfolios provided concise and relevant information, framing the work with clarity, relevance and depth and enabling clear judgement in terms of originality, significance and rigour. These were frequently presented on a USB stick, clearly outlining the research question, the methodology employed and providing complementary evidence and contexts for the work itself (86,§13).

Sub-panel 35 noted that weaker work was narrow in methodological focus (96,§23), and some submissions could have made better use of the portfolio ‘to create a coherent research narrative for their practice’ and perhaps a claim for double weighting (96,§20). There were problems with insufficient information on software operational procedures, and some outputs were extremely large (several boxes!) which was ‘excessive and unhelpful’ (102,§44). There’s little point in alienating the reviewer.

However, ‘the strongest work […] found ways of rigorously reflecting on personal experience and/or professional practices [my emphasis], and extrapolating wider significance from these’. The best outputs were ‘presented as portfolios [my emphasis] or with supporting information about overriding research questions that clearly located the practice and an individual’s specific contribution within academic contexts’ (99,§33).

It is well-worth noting this clear support for the conflation of the output and the portfolio which will make a good deal of sense in many cases and goes some way beyond the relationship defined by the HEFCE guidelines.

Sub-panel 35 also provided concise and constructive guidance on portfolios (99,§36–37).

The clear message from the sub-panel feedback is that both researchers and research managers still have work to do developing best practice for presenting and documenting work submitted in a research context (90,§30). On the plus side, the sub-panels did their bit to be supportive: as the international observers on main Panel D commented, the assessment of non-text research of creative media submissions was noteworthy for engaging in ‘the difficult task of distinguishing between advanced practice presented as research, and practice-based work that fulfilled the definition of research’ (24,§94).

Impact

Neither impact nor environment was addressed in the earlier article (Adams 2013), which focused exclusively on outputs.

The main Panel D report includes useful examples of types and areas of impact with a note on strong and weaker characteristics (17–18,§68–71). Sub-panel 34 makes an important point about how festivals and exhibitions should be shown to relate to the impact of the underpinning research (89,§22). Sub-panel 35 provides a constructive critique of the presentation of relations between research and public engagement, observing that some submissions, despite evidently strong relations across the relevant cultural industries, did not fully capitalise on the potential of the impact embedded in the research practice culture (104,§57).

A characteristic criticism of the impact statements came from sub-panel 36, who identified the need to show how dissemination led to impact, and the underpinning research led to benefits for identified users. Without apparent irony, it notes that there was some confusion between ‘impact, knowledge transfer and dissemination’ (113,§17). This emphasises the need to take a systematic approach to presentation, with a clear understanding of terminology and categories.

At several points the validity of a local geographic focus is noted. Sub-panel 34 emphasised that localism is not an impediment to international relevance: ‘a significant number of case studies based in specific regions … presented outstanding and very considerable impact’ (89,§23). Sub-panel 36 identified a ‘sensitive and creative range of work on regional and local issues through a variety of media formats’ (112–113,§15).

Environment

A recurrent problem was lack of clarity about ways in which ‘professional’ income/commissions were linked to the research dimensions of such outputs, beyond the benefits for professional or pedagogic practice (107,§71). In the wider perspective, sub-panel 34 articulated the importance of investment in an environment for modes of practice that are, in some respects, akin to engineering and science (89–90,§26). Sub-panel 35 emphasised the value of continuing investment in digital arts research labs (108,§75–76).

Terminology and nomenclature

The reports from the REF2014 sub-panels still use terms indiscriminately. For example ‘research through practice’ (UoA 34, 90,§29), ‘practice as research (PaR)’ (UoA 35, 99,§35) and ‘practice-led research’ (UoA 36,111,§10). The international observers on Panel D point to the necessity of clear distinctions (24.§94) and, for the reasons previously given, there is still need for agreement and consistent use of terms to define different modes across the spectrum of practice research (Adams 2013, 281).

There is also a long overdue proposal to rebrand UoA 35 (Music, Drama, Dance and Performing Arts): the panel received a large number of submissions in film, television and media cultures ‘to the extent that a reappraisal of the UoA’s titling may be necessary in future (the term “drama” being inadequate to account for the full range of screen-oriented outputs)’ (96,§22). What that re-branding might be is another question – many of us have scratched our heads to settle on a generic term to embrace the range of largely digital audiovisual practices that characterise the sector. Somehow the French l’audiovisuel sounds altogether snappier than ‘audiovisual’ with, at least for a certain generation, its evocation of clunky links between Carousel projectors and Revox tape machines. Can the term be revitalised for the twenty-first century?

Looking forward …

Is the game worth the candle? The sub-panels each affirm the positive contribution of arts and humanities research to national and international cultural production. Panel 35, for example, asserts that research in the field:

shapes disciplinary trends, brings a distinctive voice to the creative industries and influences a wide range of areas outside the creative sector. It provides an important space for debates, discussion and dialogues, and an invaluable source of innovative thinking and creative invention that shapes the cultural landscape in the UK and across the world. (108,§77; also see §78 for summary bullet points)

This emphasis on the value of the work is important since, for many, the financial returns will be few and indirect.

Some practitioners complain about the ‘double burden’ of doing the work and then having to contextualise it, leading to the contemptuous and counter-productive approach of submitting an unsorted jumble of documentation. Expanding a little on previous suggestions (Adams 2013, 287), five actions will help enormously to minimise the time and anxiety that often accompanies the preparation of practice outputs:

1. An on-going portfolio of documentation and reflection. This should be framed by a template aligned with the REF definition of research. Even for researchers focused on professional practice, where research is not the prime driver of a given project, the systematic and routine documentation and reflection on process may well reveal valuable research dimensions.

2. A mini impact evaluation that locates and evaluates practice in the contexts of publication, dissemination and/or exhibition.

3. The routine circulation and discussion of work in progress within practice research groups to explore the issues around modes and methods of practice research and documentation through the prism of specific research projects.

4. Regular national seminars and workshops. Research managers should take responsibility for organising these within institutions, and MeCCSA could supplement initiatives such as the day seminar at Kingston University with regular events.

5. In tandem with such groups it would be extremely useful to set up a mentor system.

JMP Screenworks

JMP Screenworks remains a vital initiative enabling the ready publication of peer-reviewed practice research work. There is a substantial body of work available in the volumes published to date, and it is to the great credit of the editors, researchers and reviewers that the reviews are published alongside the work – there is no substitute for models of best practice. However, a number of the authored context statements and peer reviews are structured by whimsical and occasionally irrelevant criteria. This makes comparative evaluation difficult and presents a challenge to editorial standards. The editors are exploring ways to make the statement and reviews better aligned with the REF (and HEFCE) criteria.

This applies equally to the development of protocols for evaluating ‘impact’, and further work on mini-impact statements would help develop confidence in concepts and presentation.

End note

There is little in the substance in the original article (Adams 2013) that I would change: the points are in line with sub-panel feedback and, subject to political imperatives, REF 2020 is unlikely to vary significantly from REF2014. With benefit of hindsight provided by the sub-panel feedback, I would have downgraded references to the statement and foregrounded the portfolio as the main presentation vehicle, and in any event the article makes better sense read in this way. I would also have removed the notional focus on UoA36 (Introduction, 280) since the ideas are equally valid for practice research submissions to the other relevant panels. In summary, I believe it still provides a valid and useful point of reference – at least, until the next set of guidelines for the next round of research evaluations is launched…

Contributor details

John Adams is Professor of Film and Screen Media Practice (emeritus) in the School of Arts (Department of Drama) at the University of Bristol. He has produced and directed over 30 broadcast films and theatre productions and co-founded and chaired the Watershed Media Centre in Bristol and Watershed Television Ltd. He was the founding editor of the Journal of Media Practice and a member of the media and communications practice sub-panel RAE 2001 and Panel 66 RAE 2008. Current research interests include UK film policy, place and space in film and screen acting and performance. He also writes and consults on practice-based approaches to screen media teaching and research.

Along with inviting John Adams to return to his original article in the aftermath of REF 2014, we gave the rest of the journal’s editorial board the opportunity to share experiences of REF or to provide reflections or observations from a media practice perspective. Some of the responses are personal and named, others anonymous, based on author preference.

Catalin Brylla: The reviewer’s comments on our institution’s submission revealed a rigid infrastructure of blind cross-disciplinary reviewing by academics who judged based on prescribed impact pointers and journal rankings, largely dismissing the value of scholarship in a specific field (e.g., originality and academic impact). This quantitative approach was also used for practice-based outputs (e.g., films being exhibited in film festivals), demanding from the authors, in part, abstruse information, such as the estimate of film viewers per festival viewing. This is not to say that the academic and sociocultural value was not part of the assessment. However, the insistence of quantities draws a rather bleak prognosis about the next REF, and the current research climate at my university indicates that submissions will be largely assessed by external income generation.

Joanna Callaghan: MeCCSA Practice network organised an event on practice-based research and the REF in the run up to the REF, at Kingston in 2012. We had six panel members present, from 34 and 36 and Head of Panel D, Bruce Brown. It was very interesting day and I think quite an empowering one for all those involved – we were overrun with over 80 people attending. My goal was not only to assuage fears, bring out debate but also to some extent influence the panel members by profiling and discussing some of the problems within the criteria and the system overall.

Here are the presentations from the event: http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/activities/item.php?updatenum=2204 and John Adams’ review: http://www.meccsa.org.uk/news/three-d-issue-19-practice-based-research-and-the-ref2014/

Charlotte Crofts: My research was submitted as an impact case study, comprising both traditional publication and practice-based outputs – lessons learned are that impact is a change or benefit not just public engagement or dissemination – practice-research needs think about potential stakeholders and beneficiaries and how to evaluate and capture evidence of impact in planning for Post-2014 REF.

In terms of outputs – I always do belt and braces – both in RAE 2008 and REF 2014 my practice outputs were submitted as a portfolio of work including publications, websites, documentation as well as the actual artefact – probably overkill, but … I sometimes think that it is the submitting institutions and how open they are to including practice which is equally a barrier. Often REF is more open to practice outputs – properly framed as research – than the actual submitting institutions.

Readers might also refer to the 2005 JMP Symposium we did in the lead up to RAE 2008: http://eyefullproductions.co.uk/practice/

The main emphasis is on articulating practice as research and providing a route map of the research process. The old Originality, Significance and Rigour assessment criteria are useful in framing one’s practice as research. This is also a good opportunity to draw attention to Screenworks’ research statement and the peer-review process which is one way that a practice output can gather the patina of research: http://www.jmpscreenworks.com/page/submissions.

Carol Houtman: John Adams’ very helpful document about REF 2014 was unfortunately of no help to myself or many of my practice colleagues in our institution. This was mainly because the pre-selection for submission to the REF (a pre-panel was constituted from our organisation and sister organisations) and this panel was ignorant of many of the interesting and informative points discussed in the article and instituted a very political process of vetting and choosing for the REF. Very few members of the film-making team were chosen to be submitted. The vetting was undertaken mostly by people outside the film area and apart from institutional in-fighting – the need for various institutions to select their members above members from other institutions – there was little consultation or support for the staff. I had a portfolio submission consisting of one practice as research output and three associated peer reviewed international articles, but the selection took no notice of the varied criteria outlined by Adams’ article, and so ignored the formal, aesthetic and historically innovative aspects of the research and concentrated on impact in the most narrow and instrumental way. My work had not been placed in a major gallery or won a major film festival award and was therefore rejected, despite having clear research objectives, clear technological and aesthetic outputs and clear originality and context. Those people submitted through to the REF were practice-through-research projects as defined by Adams, and their outputs were primarily sociological rather than aesthetic in nature. The submitted projects were headed by people with already known reputations and therefore the pre-selection panels were entirely conservative in backing prestige and status rather than the research projects themselves. There are about 14 members of staff in my institution’s film department/animation department and I believe the pre-selection committee backed 2 or 3, and resources and help were heaped on these very few applications. The overwhelming preference for documentary material rather than drama or experimental is a continuing problem for fiction film researchers, as is the research context where only practice-through-research projects are seen as having any ‘impact’ and legitimate communities have to be defined outside the world of art or film practice, or purely as significant in conventional film industry terms, thus making funding almost impossible. In addition, the selection seemed to be like an ‘exam’, choosing correct the presentation of correct rubric over content – this may have been through lack of confidence in understanding the criteria. A major problem of pre-selection by institution means that the REF is hardly likely to change and become more diverse and institutions such as the one I work in are themselves self-censoring. In addition, the funding and ideological bias against the Arts in all areas of public funding mean that a piece of artistic research is not sufficient and has to be tied to a different educational or social output. The sheer difficulty in funding films, which are extremely expensive and time consuming, from within the academy or between partners means that outputs are rare anyway, and it is highly unlikely that, without finding some way of making film research sustainable, we will be able to do any better next time.

Duncan Petrie: The REF submission included some research by practice elements, including both of our impact case studies (one built around three TV current affairs documentaries on contemporary forms of slavery and one on a reworking of an early modern play). Providing suitable and appropriate contextualisation of the research element proved difficult, particularly in relation to the TV programmes (theatre having a longer tradition of linking scholarship to practice). While preparatory research was part of the process, the major research element was pitched in terms of a process akin to participant-observation in anthropological or sociological research. It appears from the feedback we received that this was not as convincing to the panel as we had hoped which was disappointing given the level of effort put into the submission in line with guidance received.

A more general issue we have in the department is that much of our film and TV production practice is relatively mainstream in formal terms and so the opportunities to contextualise it in relation to formal experimentation or innovation is limited. This is having an important knock on effect in terms of the kinds of production projects that colleagues are developing with some preferring to pursue non practice-related opportunities.

Lizzie Thynne: The main areas for concern lay in the internal institutional decisions about how the practice-led works were to be presented were not taken until late in the run up to the REF. This is reflection of the institution had not fully grasped that not all out puts would not be standard academic publications such as books or articles which seemed surprising given the fact that practice work had been submitted in at least the previous REF. Finally a decision was made within the School that all portfolios should be presented in a consistent format, i.e., as a PowerPoint on a USB stick outlining research questions, context, methods (with clips/images etc.) and dissemination. Although this did not seem to quite match the definition of a portfolio give in the HEFCE guidelines it had the advantage of providing a very clear framework for the indicating the research dimensions of the work in an easily accessible and coherent form.

The other issue was the feeling no doubt experienced also in other institutions especially those where practice is not the main focus of activity, that the practice work was perceived especially by management as potentially the ‘weak link in the chain’. The fact that there was not practice specialist on our panel also compounded our own fears about this. The relative lateness of the completion of some of the practice outputs given the longer run up needed to produce and prepare the supporting documentation also meant that these were subject to closer scrutiny than some more conventional outputs. In the light of the positive feedback though about the practice work submitted by our school in the ridiculously brief feedback that is given by the REF after all those month of anxious preparation the sense of the risk proposed by ‘practice’ appeared not to be justified and the effort put into the presentation of the portfolios seems to have helped here given the comments about some of the disorganised presentation of portfolios from some other universities. The submission of certain larger practice outputs as double-weighted may also have worked in our favour even thought this was seen as a last resort unlike other university where this was it seems seen more as a positive strategy.

Anonymous contributions

I do not quite feel qualified to comment on the REF2014 because I did not submit, having just completed my Ph.D. before the REF deadline. However, I did see the anguish, exhaustion and resentment it caused among many of my colleagues, and I am already feeling the pressure of REF2020 shaping the course of my career. For these reasons, I would like to use this opportunity to reiterate a few of the key concerns about the REF, in the hope that by the time my turn comes things might have improved. Most of my colleagues, including myself, work ridiculously long hours and suffer physical and emotional stress as a result. The vast majority are committed to the work, both research and teaching, but even in my relatively brief experience so far I have seen many excellent and inspirational scholars take early retirement, too tired to put up with it any longer. As many other commentators have pointed out, the REF adds significantly to workloads and stress levels that are typically already at breaking-point. Moreover, both the REF’s and universities’ own selection criteria damage staff morale and undermine the spirit of collegiality and solidarity that is often the only thing enabling academics to continue working under such conditions.

I understand the desire to assess research quality and the need for a means with which to distribute QR funding, but it seems to me that the REF inhibits the quality of the research it aims to assess – by incentivising research agendas to meet the needs of assessment exercises, rather than the need for knowledge creation – and reproduces an unequal and unfair system for research funding, of which Russell Group and former 1994 group universities get the overwhelming majority. This funding system also reproduces the artificial and damaging divide between teaching and research, as does the REF itself. By refusing to recognise the role of teaching – and teaching staff – to research, teaching continues to be an undervalued part of the job. This is ironic given the importance accorded by the REF to research ‘impact’, much of which often takes place in the classroom. Of course research should be of benefit to ‘society and the economy’, and it can be productive to think how to maximise this benefit when setting out a research project, but not to the extent that it stops academics doing what the discipline needs.

Having prepared scrupulously for prior accountings of my research work using the Practice as Research Portfolio method, I was prepared for Ref 2014. For practitioners this can often be a worrying exercise, but if you really understand the terms ‘Practice as Research’, ‘Research Practice’, ‘Applied Research’ or any of the other flavours, then the REF exercise can be a positive experience. Where I work we are having to be acute in our definitions of these terms that require the artist/practitioner to step back from their practice to re-conceptualise their behaviour in a way that makes comfortable the theorising of their work. Equally, for the theorist, providing they have gone some way towards trying to understand practice, the decades long gap between the two can be closed. Having said all of that, in fact, this is simply a matter of confidence which comes from knowing not only your subject, but your approach to your subject – and it is clear that with the advent of the digital, everything has changed in our field of study – and I would say, for the better.

My experience of the REF 2014 was not great. Sadly, my work fell between two stools – being neither theoretical enough nor resolved enough as practice. This decision was not made by my institution until relatively late on in the process and was a reflection on the shifting sands of REF politics. I had been encouraged to write about work in progress and, as a result, found myself layering more and more theoretical perspectives onto the practice. However, given that the practice was unresolved, the effect of this was to overcomplicate my creative process. Never again will I allow myself to be sucked into one agenda only to discover that it was an agenda that changed over the course of time. It is great that my institution felt able to submit strong practice-led submissions with written documentation, just not great for me in terms of where I was at with my work. Hopefully, it will all come out in the wash and things will feel more resolved in time for 2020.

In this issue, alongside this extended editorial reflection, we publish another broad and international range of research into, and by, media practice. Ulrika Andersson and Ingela Wadbring explore the changing motivations of new journalists in Sweden. Juoko Aaltonen and Jukka Kortti share a practice collaboration between a documentary maker and historian. Teacher–cinematographer Philip Cowan argues, from a reflective analysis of his practice, for a critical gaze to be cast on the ‘aesthetic democracy’ of colour in film. Marcus Leaning reports the outcomes of a mixed methods study of gamification in media education practice. Finally, in the light of the challenges for practice research discussed by the editorial board above, we are pleased to announce a forthcoming themed edition on Disruptive Media Practice, to be guest edited by Jonathan Shaw, who participated in the editorial feature for the previous issue. Contributors will be asked – How is the Journal of Media Practice disruptive of scholarly communication (or not)? Which aspects could/should it explore to be more self-reflexive in this respect? How could it reconfigure (the politics of) its own practice? How can it processually and collaboratively enact, explore and perform these ideas? What should a future ‘journal’ of media practice look like?

John Adams with Julian McDougall and members of the editorial board

Notes

1. The growing influence of practice research is reflected in the increased number of ‘non-text-based’ submissions that, for example, amounted to a third of the outputs in the case of UoA35.