Distinct domains: a call for nuance in the categorization and evaluation of “Arts and Humanities” disciplines

Research universities and influential ranking systems frequently combine the visual and performing arts with the humanities into a single "Arts and Humanities" category for evaluation. This common aggregation is problematic, creating an inequitable and distorted view of the scholarly contributions from both domains. We advocate a more nuanced approach, highlighting a significant divergence in scholarly output between these fields. Our analysis of publication data reveals distinct rhythms : humanities scholars typically publish more rapidly than arts faculty (although both publish far less than their STEM discipline counterparts). Visual and performing arts faculty who publish histories, criticisms, and analyses exhibit a much slower tempo of article publication over the same periods. This difference stems from fundamental distinctions in disciplinary activities. Evaluating visual and performing arts units using metrics calibrated for “lettered humanities” scholars imposes an inappropriate standard, misrepresenting their productivity and devaluing their core contributions. We urge data providers to disaggregate the "Arts and Humanities" category and university administrators to adopt discipline-sensitive evaluation incorporating qualitative indicators for equitable assessment and sound strategic planning.