Australian Research Feels the Ever Tightening Noose of Dr Nelson's Lariat. (November 11, 2005)

    First the Research Quality Framework (RQF) black comedy returned for a command performance before Senate Estimates and then Dr Nelson, in a follow up to his melodramatic histrionics at the University of Sydney has undertaken a repeat engagement at second guessing the Australian Research Council's (ARC) grant awards and quashed some half dozen grant approvals.

The ARC's chief executive, Peter Høj, so far is not prepared to comment, which in itself sends a disturbing message to the research community, and should do so to the public, particularly in light of the observation made by ARC Chairman, Tim Besley, who confirmed Dr Nelson had vetoed a number of research projects but said, "It's the minister's discretion. It's no big deal."

Mr Besley, who has previously served as Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Leighton Holdings and as Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Business and Consumer Affairs as well as Chancellor of Macquarie University from 1994 until 2001, is wrong;  it IS a big deal and the fact that neither he nor Professor Høj will stand up and be counted makes it an even bigger deal. Whether or not the "strong hearts" of Australia's scientific elite will have anything to say remains to be seen.

Senator Penny Wong

    MEANWHILE, at Senate Estimates on November 2 South Australian Labor Senator Penny Wong flexed her barristerial powers at the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee and rounding on DEST's Dr Evan Arthur, Acting Group Manager, Strategic Analysis and Evaluation Group, began...

Senator WONG—I have some questions about the research quality framework. As I understand it, this is essentially a ranking mechanism. Is that right?

 

Dr Arthur—The usual product of a research quality exercise in similar cases where such an exercise has actually been carried out is a ranking of research activities in universities to a uniform scale.

 

Senator WONG—How advanced are [the Expert Advisory Group, EAG] in their activities?
 

Dr Arthur—Very advanced. We have published a document we call the preferred model for an RQF. That document was published a month or so ago—in September. That contains the majority of features, which we would need to have agreed to to carry out an RQF exercise. We are now in the process of refining some of the elements prior to the EAG providing definitive advice to the minister.

---

According to Dorothy Illing in her November 9 Snitch column for The Australian "THE imbroglio over the federal Government's research quality framework shows no signs of abating. Snitch hears the big barney is still going on about how much weight to give research quality and how much to research impact. The RQF expert advisory group was supposed to have its final meeting last month. It has now scheduled another meeting for December, by which point it is supposed to have arrived at a model for carving up more than $500 million in federal funds. Comments from insiders about the state of affairs range from 'there's still a long way to go' to the less-sanguine 'it's absolute chaos'".

---

Sir Humphrey Appleby (left) with a bemused Jim Hacker

In what follows it may cross your mind that Dr Arthur has paid close attention as to the ways and means Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB, MVO, MA (Oxon) exercised his brief and phrased his advice to his minister, Jim Hacker.

Senator WONG—So what is the start date for implementation of funding being allocated utilising the RQF?
 

Dr Arthur—At the moment, there has been no government decision to implement an RQF nor any government decision to link funding to an RQF, if that is introduced. In terms of time frames, the EAG has indicated its view that it would not be feasible to carry out an RQF data collection before 2007. That would mean that, if government were to decide to implement an RQF, it could not have funding consequences, presumably, if that estimate is accurate, before 2008.
 

Senator WONG—I thought you said that there was no government decision the funding would be allocated or that the RQF would impact upon funding allocation. I must have misunderstood. I thought the minister had, in fact, announced that the RQF would be utilised for the purpose of funding allocation of the $500 million.
 

Dr Arthur—The minister certainly has indicated his view that he would expect that, if an RQF were introduced, it would affect those amounts—that is, the minister providing the sector with clarity on what his preferred intentions are. However, it is the case that there has been no formal government decision to implement an RQF nor has there been any formal approach to government at this stage in terms of exactly how an RQF, if implemented, would affect funding.

 

Senator WONG—Have any particular universities been selected for the purposes of the trial [of what will be the chosen RQF model]?
 

Dr Arthur—No.
 

Senator WONG—Is it proposed that it be all universities or just some?
 

Dr Arthur—That very much depends on the detail of what is being trialled. So, at this stage, I do not know the answer.
 

Senator WONG—Who does know the answer? Does the EAG, or is it with government?
 

Dr Arthur—There is no answer at the moment because we do not know what precisely will be trialled and we do not know what the best methodology might be to trial that.

 

---

 

Senator WONG—In the minister’s announcement and the foreword to a recent discussion paper, the minister said: "My Department will conduct a process, with the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council, to develop the way in which the outcomes of the RQF will impact on the funding distributed by the research councils."

 

---

 

Senator WONG—Do I understand that the minister’s announcement indicates that potentially all of that funding could be impacted upon by the RQF?
 

Dr Arthur—The minister’s announcement is that he has requested a process to be put in place to examine those questions. That process has not yet formally started so there are no answers to those questions at the moment.
 

Senator WONG—I am not sure about the word ‘examination’. The process is to develop the way in which the outcomes of the RQF will impact on the funding distributed by the Research Councils. So the policy decision, as I understand it—tell me if I am wrong—is that the NHMRC and the ARC will be impacted by the RQF in terms of the allocation of their funds.
 

Dr Arthur—In terms of the detail of how an impact might occur, that is what the minister has requested a process to examine.
 

Senator WONG—You keep talking in the conditional—‘it might occur’. I do not see that in the minister’s announcement. If your understanding of government policy is different from mine, I would be pleased if you could indicate it to me. Has there been a decision that the RQF will affect the funding distribution of those two research councils or not?
 

Dr Arthur—I can probably answer that most effectively by giving a hypothetical answer to what the process might deliver. The RQF, I anticipate, will produce a large amount of data on the quality of research in Australia. That data will then be available to the ARC. One of the issues that the process will look at is the ways in which that might be of use to the ARC in making its decisions. Whether or not that will lead to changes in the way the ARC decide individual projects, I do not know.
 

Senator WONG—I understand that, but there is no hypothetical, is there, in terms of the RQF actually affecting the funding distribution by the Research Councils? It is a question of how.
 

Dr Arthur—No, Senator. In the example that I just gave, there was no certainty that the RQF information would affect the decisions the ARC makes and therefore no certainty that it would affect the distribution of those funds. It is highly likely in fact that the wealth of information produced by the RQF will be found to be very valuable by a range of bodies dealing with research, including the ARC and the NHMRC, and it may well be the case that it has an effect on the distribution of funds, but I am not in a position to predict that it will.

 

Senator WONG—You are talking about outcomes. I am asking about whether they will be required to have regard to the RQF when allocating funds.
 

Ms Paul, [Lisa Paul, Secretary DEST]—That is the process we are undertaking with them now. Depending on the model that the EAG comes up with, the minister wants us to sit down with the ARC and the NHMRC and work out what impact the model might have on the decision-making processes inside the ARC and NHMRC—on how they make grants. You would expect that it would have an impact and that they would want it to. They would want to take into account, for example, excellence. If the RQF found that a team was particularly excellent, then that might be a factor that would be considered when the ARC panels made recommendations on grants. What we are going into now is the process to work out how the RQF model might impact on the decision-making processes in the ARC and NHMRC.
 

Senator WONG—You keep using the word ‘might’ as well. I do not see might in the minister’s comments. The process is to develop the way in which: the outcomes ... will impact on the funding distributed by the research councils.
 

Ms Paul—Of course they will have an impact. There is no problem with that. All that we are qualifying or making conditional is that we do not yet know the ways in which it will.
 

Senator WONG—I accept that.
 

Mr Cook [Grahame Cook, Deputy Secretary]—Also, the next sentence states: It is expected that any impact on research council funding would not occur until after the first RQF assessment process has been completed.
 

Senator WONG—That is just a timing issue.
 

Ms Paul—All we are saying is that of course there will be some sort of impact, but we just do not know what it will be.

 

---

 

Senator WONG—When were the ARC and the NHMRC specifically advised that the intention was that the RQF would affect them? Were they advised before this announcement on 10 September?
 

Dr Arthur—I know the ARC was advised of the minister’s intention to announce that a process would be put in place.
 

Senator WONG—When?
 

Dr Arthur—Prior to that announcement being made. I understand there were some contacts with the health portfolio on the issue, but I am not aware of the detail of that.
 

Senator WONG—Who would be aware of that?
 

Dr Arthur—I understand that those contacts occurred through the minister’s office.
 

Senator WONG—So you are saying the ARC was advised when?
 

Dr Arthur—Shortly before the foreword to the report was made public. The sequence was that the EAG had prepared a report. The minister was intended to provide a foreword to that report. That foreword was drafted very shortly before the report was to be released. At that time, the ARC was advised of the intention to include that statement in the minister’s foreword.

 

Senator WONG—Has there been any research or analysis of NHMRC or ARC funding which suggested that this type of central control would be required?
 

Ms Paul—This is not central control; this is a process to work out the way in which the RQF findings can impact on the decision-making processes of the ARC and the NHMRC. They would have expected this since the announcements, as Ms Harvey [Leanne Harvey, Branch Manager, Research Systems Branch, Innovation and Research Group] said. So all this is doing is formally saying: ‘And now we’re going to start that process. Now is the point that we’re starting the process.’ The EAG has come quite a long way on the RQF. Now is the moment when we are starting the process of looking at the impact on these two major publicly funded research agencies.
 

Senator WONG—Has there been any concern raised about the way in which funding has been allocated by the ARC or the NHMRC?
 

Ms Paul—No.
 

Senator WONG—Has DEST done any analysis which has given rise to concern or divided advice in relation to the distribution of funds by those two bodies?
 

Ms Paul—No, this is not to do with concern; this is to do with the process of working out how the impact of the RQF will be taken account by those two agencies. It is not based on a particular concern; it is just the point we now find ourselves at in the process of the RQF development.
 

Dr Arthur—The ARC processes at the moment, in assessing applications, have considerable reference to the track record of researchers and research teams. The RQF will provide some rather more systematic information based on wide peer review, which will go to those particular questions.

 

---

On September 11 TFW wrote in a News and Views item: [W]hat grabbed the immediate attention of the media as well as the academic community was this paragraph in Dr Nelson's media release -- which also is part of the Minister's forward:

Once implemented, the RQF will provide the Australian Government with the basis for redistributing research funding to ensure that areas of the highest quality of research are rewarded. This will involve all of the Institutional Grants Scheme (IGS) and at least fifty per cent of the Research Training Scheme (RTS). My Department will conduct a process, with the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council, to develop the way in which the outcomes of the RQF will impact on the funding distributed by the research councils. It is expected that any impact on research council funding would not occur until after the first RQF assessment process has been completed. (our emphasis).

Following on the heels of the sacking of the Australian Research Council Board and the addition for ill defined reasons of  conservative columnist P.P. McGuinness, media personality Ross Symonds and former High Court judge Daryl Dawson to the ARC's Committee -- set up several years ago specifically to advise the board on the quality of the grants process, for example, to look at matters of conflicts of interest among assessors and standards of applications across the board -- the disquiet of researchers is understandable.

Dr Nelson's follow up statement to the Australian Financial Review, "it is my clear intention that we will also be building a model to apply the RQF, or a variation of it, to the ARC competitive funding" was clearly incendiary when he added that while, "That's not going to happen in 2007... [t]he reality is that . . . we have institutions that are being funded to do research which is, in my opinion, of inferior quality." The Minister did not give examples, but the intention to question the competence of the current peer review process was unmistakable.

ARC chief executive officer Peter Høj had earlier this year told a University of Queensland forum that the competitive grants distributed by the council should not be affected by changes which would result from the implementation of the RQF.

This past Friday unnamed members of the Expert Advisory Group expressed their anger to the AFR that "Dr Nelson had not consulted them about applying [the RQF] to the grants councils, which already used peer review," while the chief executive of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, John Mullarvey said, "A change in the funding process of these bodies would be a major concern for the sector."

---

 

Senator WONG—Do I understand from your answer that the ARC would have known that the RQF would apply to it from May this year?
 

Ms Paul—I think we said, ‘May last year’, when the announcement was made.
 

Senator WONG—I am sorry—last year.
 

Ms Paul—I think we said that the RQF was to impact on publicly funded research agencies, of which they are one.
 

Senator WONG—Yes; I understood that the ARC and the NHMRC would generally give grants to individual researchers or research groups. Can you explain to me why they would need to take account of the ranking of universities?
 

Dr Arthur—I can certainly answer that one. The key point of the RQF is that it does not just provide rankings of universities; it provides assessments of the teams within universities working on particular research topics at a far more granular level than we are currently able to. That is one of the particular attractions of it for research policy. So against a common scale the RQF will produce scores of the research quality of groupings within universities. The ARC, as you say, awards grants for individuals. It also creates centres—particularly centres of excellence—and in both those processes, as I have indicated, information on the track records—the quality, if you like—of the researchers and research teams is vital information. The RQF will produce information going directly to that point.
 

Senator WONG—So you are saying that the RQF will rank individual researchers?

 

Dr Arthur—No. The RQF, unlike the New Zealand exercise in this space, will not be ranking individual researchers. At least, it will not be reporting on individual researchers—that is the recommendation of the EAG. However, it will be providing, according to the current model, rankings of groupings of researchers within particular discipline areas.
 

Senator WONG—Discipline areas?
 

Dr Arthur—Indeed.
 

Senator WONG—And you would be expecting that the NHMRC and the ARC would have to take that ranking into account in some form, and that is what the process is looking at?
 

Dr Arthur—We are saying that that will be a large amount of information that, prima facie, we would think would be highly relevant to their processes. Therefore, we want to carry out a process—a very public process, as we have indicated—where we, with the ARC, NHMRC and the sector, can examine the best way in which that can occur.
 

Senator WONG—The ARC chief executive is reported to have stated in various public forums that the council would not be part of the RQF. Are you saying that he misunderstood what the government’s policy was?
 

Dr Arthur—I am not really in a position to comment on the CEO’s comments in that general format. I am not quite sure what you are referring to.
 

Senator WONG—Your assertion is that they would have known since May last year that the RQF would apply to them. I am putting to you that what is on the public record suggests that that is not the case.
 

Dr Arthur—I can only repeat what we have already said in terms of the announcement of government.
 

Senator WONG—Sorry?
 

Dr Arthur—We have already stated what government announced.
 

Senator WONG—Yes, but did people understand that that would apply to the ARC and the NHMRC, which are dealing with individual research grants and have done so independent of government? Did the ARC and NHMRC understand that that announcement meant that they would be subject to this?
 

Dr Arthur—I am afraid I really cannot speak for them.
 

Senator WONG—Did you advise them of that prior to 10 September?
 

Dr Arthur—Government made announcements in terms of the application of the RQF to all Commonwealth publicly funded research.
 

Senator WONG—You are the ones who deal with this. Prior to the discussions that were held immediately prior to the foreword announcement, did anyone from DEST have any discussions with the ARC and the NHMRC communicating the fact that the ARC and the NHMRC would be affected by the RQF?
 

Dr Arthur—I do not recall having discussions on that particular subject. Both the ARC and the NHMRC have been intimately involved in the development of the RQF itself. The CEOs of both organisations are on the expert advisory group. Discussions to date with the ARC and NHMRC have rather concentrated on the issue of how the RQF should operate.
 

Senator WONG—Can you on notice provide any correspondence from DEST to the ARC and the NHMRC, if there is any, in which it is indicated that the RQF is intended also to apply to their processes?
 

Dr Arthur—Certainly.
 

Senator WONG—And vice versa.
 

Ms Paul—Yes. We can certainly give you the documents which show clearly the scope of the RQF and probably give some sense of the EAG discussions that also go to that point.
 

Senator WONG—Has the process described in the foreword commenced?
 

Dr Arthur—No, it has not commenced. One complication has been that the current CEO of the NHMRC has announced the fact that he has resigned and will take up the position of Vice-Chancellor of the University of New England. It is probable that we will not commence the process until there is a new CEO in place or at least there is clarity in terms of the future arrangements.

 

Senator WONG—I think we will have more questions on notice on that, but I am happy to move on.
[8.03 pm]

 

Well, perhaps we'll see just who knew what, when regarding just how the Minister for Education, Science and Training intended/intends to use the final model for the Research Quality Framework and how much of the final crafting will be determined within DEST, but it really makes little difference.   Make no mistake, there is an increasingly Orwellian odour to the behaviour of our governmental ministers.   Dr Nelson and his Department are merely a manifestation of it.