Research Quality Framework's Expert Advisory Group to Meet Amidst Controversy. (August 17, 2005)

    This coming Friday, August 19, the Expert Advisory Group (EAG)^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6} chosen by the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, to advise him on the development of a research quality framework (RQF) to codify how Australia should examine the quality of research at its universities and publicly funded research establishments is to meet to attempt to come closer to reaching a consensus on the model to be used for the assessment.

Last week The Australian's Dorothy Illing reported that apparently the EAG are as yet unable to find a compromise on how to determine research "quality and impact" and according to Ms Illing, "One aca of little faith reckons the indicators will end up being anything you want to describe, including the 'impact on the Biloela branch of the CWA'".

Today the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC) released a 24 page proposal commenting that the "Latest AVCC RQF proposal will stimulate constructive discussion".

The president of the AVCC, Di Yerbury, Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie University,  puts it this way:

    The proposal [by the majority of vice-chancellors] responds to the complex challenge of developing an RQF model that will work to the benefit of Australian research, Australia’s universities and their researchers. It has major implications for the funding, reputation and international standing of Australia’s research and our universities.

    As a result there are differences of views about how best to approach the RQF. As the major example, some Vice-Chancellors do not agree with the previously publicised majority view that the use of research groupings provides a satisfactory basis for the unit of assessment. There will be further discussion this month on this issue.

The AVCC's proposal had not been placed online for public access before the Group of Eight (Go8) issued a media releaseconfirming that there are marked difference of opinion regarding "key aspects of the AVCC proposal".

The document published today by the AVCC states:

    The AVCC proposes that the basis for the assessment be groupings of researchers, with the research groupings submitted for RQF assessment determined by the participating universities. This is essential if the RQF is to take into account the diverse ways in which research is managed across different universities. Any forced grouping at a level below that of the Expert Panels carries the risk of cutting across actual research arrangements in and between universities. By identifying the Research Fields, Courses and Disciplines (RFCD) codes that apply to the research grouping it will be possible to compare the ratings of groupings that research similar areas.

    The alternative is to assess the research output of individual researchers. This is advocated by a number of universities which argue that the research output of the university is the only valid basis for assessment. The proposal for research groupings ensures that the overall assessment process is manageable and can reflect the diversity of practice in how research is managed across universities.

    The research groupings will be chosen by universities to reflect the broad areas within the remit of each assessment Panel in which the university has active researchers. Groupings can be both a specific research group which has shared goals and research projects, or a collection of otherwise independent researchers who research in broadly related areas.

The President of the Group of Eight, Ian Chubb, Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University says

    First, it is critically important that the RQF stands up to international scrutiny and provides international benchmarks against which the standing of Australian university research can be assessed. That is what the Minister wants, and that is what we need. Assessment methods, especially ones using internationally recognised peer experts, must be used. International representation on assessment panels must also be strong―indeed in the majority.

    Second, given that the fundamental question is: how good is our research on an international scale, the Group of Eight position on what is assessed is different from the AVCC proposal

    The Group of Eight believes that the assessment must focus on the quality of the research output of researchers. That is, actual performance should be directly exposed to independent, internationally credible peer assessors, with the assessments used to inform discipline-based Panels. The AVCC proposal focuses on ‘submissions’ by universities addressing outputs, peer esteem and the contribution to the research environment―possibly supplemented with quantitative contextual information. The evaluation is indirect - panel members would assess submissions and return ratings to Chairs. The Panels would be able to request further information from the universities if it was ‘felt that it was needed.

    The method would not pass the credibility test―even if it could be made to work as presently proposed.

    The Group of Eight has also argued that the output of all research active academic staff should be assessed (Level B or above).

While the AVCC proposal lists eighteen recommendations, it is the matter of assessment groups that is by far the most contentious, and the reason is simple to define. The Group of Eight universities are the heavy weights with regard to Australian research and obtain the lion's share of public research funds administered by the Australian Research Council and the National Health & Medical Research Council. If assessment of research prowess is to be done on a group basis rather than on the individual research (Level B or above) the apparent research potency of the Go8 universities will tend to be pulled back to the rest of the field. It is not unlikely that by assessing individual researchers the Go8 would be looking to increase their share of university block grants and assuming that the federal government is not about to increase total block grant funding the less research intensive universities would lose out.

Now the Go8 are all metropolitan based institutions while a large proportion of the remaining 31 are regional universities. When push comes to shove, if you think the National Party parliamentarians have been wagging the dog regarding the sale of Telstra and how to redefine voluntary student unionism, just watch.

And Professor Chubb is far too canny not to be well aware of the situation and it's in this context that the opening of the Go8's media release ought to be read.

The Minister for Education, Science and Training Dr Brendan Nelson has announced his intention to focus research funding where there is research excellence.

    The Group of Eight Vice-Chancellors support this position. Australia’s new Research Quality Framework is a key part of the drive towards sustaining research excellence. It is vital that the Framework has international credibility and standing.

    Recently the Minister has commented that, ‘It is time that we faced up to reality that not all our universities are the same.’ He has also said that, ‘we need to define our universities by quality not structure’ and that a small country like ours will find it ‘difficult to be internationally competitive on quality if we are requiring all universities to be all things to all people.’ Further, Dr Nelson has said that, 'the only benchmarks against which Australian higher education is going to be judged are international ones.’

    The Chair of the Group of Eight research-intensive universities, Professor Ian Chubb (ANU), reiterated support for the Minister’s position.

    ‘The Minister has made a tough call, but the right call’, he said. ‘He is correct in his assessment of the ‘all things to all people’ characteristic of Australian higher education. That is what must be changed if Australia is not to become uncompetitive with the rest of the world. Without concentrating resources for research and teaching on the basis of quality, the future is bleak. It is a tough call because there will be some losers―but it is still the right call. Australia needs the Minister to stand firm’, Professor Chubb said.

So who's gonna have more clout with Dr Nelson, Ian Chubb and the Group of Eight or Barnaby Joyce, his National Party colleagues and the Liberal Party regional parliamentarians?