Frank Larkins isn’t alone in wondering why STEM research performance improved so much more than HASS in the newest research ranking

To understand what happened in the Australian Research Council’s recent ERA ranking we need to see the methodology (CMM yesterday), says Professor Larkins, from the University of Melbourne’s L H Martin Institute.

Learned readers agree. Although some suggest the answer is already out there, that HASS research fields that rely on peer-review are disadvantaged straight-up, compared to the sciences.

As an LR points out, information and computing science is the two digit FOR which rates worse and it is the only STEM discipline that is peer-reviewed. Similarly, psychology and cognitive science does well among HASS subjects – it’s citation based.

Perhaps HASS should rely more on research citations, although this would not go down well with disciplines where non-traditional research outputs can make up 30 per cent of an Excellence in Research for Australia submission. And it would not deal with the ups and downs, especially the downs, that occur in disciplines where HASS researchers assess their peers.