Abstract The analysis in this paper is based on a concordance of sixty-five research statements supporting visual arts work submitted for peer review to the ERA process in the 2009 trial and the current ERA 2010. All the statements relate to research outputs submitted in the two-digit FoR code 19 Creative Arts and Writing, with the majority in the four-digit FoR code 1905 Visual Arts and Crafts. Needless to say, the statements are not identified and are combined into a single global text, to establish the frequency of particular descriptive terms that might distinguish the differences between research in the studio and work in science-based disciplines. The possibility of a discipline specific vocabulary in creative arts research, and its similarity to established science disciplines, will be tested against concordances of applied science abstracts. Reference will also be made to the concordance of Darwin's Origin of Species (1859). The ERA has presented the first opportunity to survey the language used by artists and curators in academe when they are asked to specifically identify the new knowledge, understanding or insight expressed through their artifactual and exhibition outputs. Even though my survey is limited by its singular focus on data from one institution, as is my overall qualitative analysis, the paper will lay the foundations for larger studies from the mass of ERA data being collected nationally. Most of all it will make another contribution to breaking down that final barrier for artists in academe by presenting evidence that the quality of their research resides in the product not the process. Key words: studio-research, concordance, defining research.