The National Research Priorities Standing Committee and the Research Quality Framework. (March 7, 2005)

    The four National Research Priorities are:

‘An Environmentally Sustainable Australia’;

‘Promoting and Maintaining Good Health’;

‘Frontier Technologies for Building and Transforming Australian Industries’; and

‘Safeguarding Australia’.

According to the Media release from the Department of Education, Science and Training "[t]he National Research Priorities provide a vision of how research can contribute to Australia’s future prosperity and well being. The long term success of the Australian Government’s National Research Priorities depends on how effectively they are implemented," and a standing committee made up of the members listed below will, "... annually assess progress by agencies in implementing the priorities, and report to Government."

What is critical of course is the judiciousness and intelligence the members of the committee will bring to the interpretation of their role as well as the notice the government takes of the advice proffered.

The Committee is to consist of:

Dr Robin Batterham (Chair) is the Chief Scientist of the Commonwealth of Australia and Chief Technologist, Rio Tinto Ltd.

Dr Jim Peacock is President of the Australian Academy of Science. He was Chief of CSIRO Plant Industry 1978-2003.

Professor Henrique d’Assumpcao AO is Emeritus Professor at the University of South Australia. He is currently Chief Scientific Adviser to the Australian Customs Service and serves on the Government's Cooperative Research Centres Committee.

Mr Hugh Morgan AC is Principal of First Charnock; a Director of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia; President of the Business Council of Australia.

Professor Sue Rowley was appointed as Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research) at Sydney’s University of Technology, in 2004.

Mr Terry Enright is Chair-of-Chairs of the rural Research and Development Corporations and Chair of the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC).

Associate Professor Bob Beeton is employed by the University of Queensland where he has held various management appointments.

Professor Suzanne Cory AC is the Director of The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.

Professor Brian Anderson AO is the Chief Scientist of National ICT Australia (appointed May 2003) and Distinguished Professor in the Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University.

Details of the National Research Priorities are available on the website www.dest.gov.au/priorities

Meanwhile the Group of Eight has released a statement with regard to the proposed Research Quality Framework. Last month TFW reported that the government had appointed an Expert Advisory Group of thirteen of which Sir Gareth Roberts, President of Wolfson College, Oxford, and chair of a committee responsible for reporting to the UK's Blair government on  SET for success: The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. The Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, has also promised to hold "wide-ranging consultations, release an issues paper and hold a major stakeholder forum."

Just how the design of the Research Quality Framework and the National Research Priorities established by the government will dovetail ought to be a matter of serious concern and to emphasise the point the Group of Eight have now released a statement of general principles on the Research Quality Framework. So for example it remains to be seen whether Dr Batterham and Professor Roberts will discuss the mutual relevance of the work placed before them and their committees.

The Research Quality Framework (RQF) should reward and promote quality research outcomes and:

1. Have a clear purpose
The purpose of the RQF must be clear from the outset. The aim must be to measure research quality as a means of identifying, strengthening and adequately funding quality research in Australia’s universities and publicly funded research agencies.
 

2. Minimise costs and administrative burdens
Some research quality assessment exercises applied in other countries impose costly administrative and reporting burdens on universities and researchers. In developing an RQF for Australia, consideration must be given to minimising any compliance burden it will impose. Additional administrative requirements can affect research quality.
 

3. Be international in perspective
In the globalised world of the 21st Century the most meaningful research benchmarks are international ones. The RQF should not simply compare the performance of Australia’s universities and publicly funded research agencies against each other, but include regular benchmarking against world’s best practice.
 

4. Encourage diversity
All Australian universities have unique strengths and strategic goals, but current funding and policy settings often encourage homogeneity. The RQF should encourage diversity within the Australian higher education system.
 

5. Recognise differences between disciplines
The methods used to measure the quality of research outcomes can vary between disciplines. The framework should reflect these differences.
 

6. Promote collaboration
The RQF should encourage collaboration so that resources are used more efficiently. There should also be encouragement of meaningful international linkages to help ensure that Australian research enjoys high levels of international visibility and respect.
 

7. Maximise positive side-effects
The introduction of a system to measure research quality will inevitably have side-effects, as researchers and institutions respond to the mechanisms applied. For example, there is evidence that the current reliance on publication rates may be increasing the quantity of output, but reducing overall quality and impact. The RQF needs to be carefully tuned to ensure that any changes in research activity have a positive impact on research quality.
 

8. Be transparent and simple
Any systems the RQF puts in place must be open and accountable, with the decision-making process as independent as possible. Its results must be made readily available, as must the reasons for any funding decisions that are made as a consequence. The RQF must be as simple as possible and its logic and procedures must be able to be understood by the general public.
 

9. Have credibility
The RQF must be viewed as credible by the researchers and institutions it applies to, and by all domestic and international stakeholders who may make judgements on the basis of its findings. For this reason the Group of Eight sees international involvement in the design and ongoing application the RQF as vitally important.