The Proposed Research Quality Framework Garners a Substantial Brickbat From Michael Gallagher, Director of Policy, ANU, and Previously  First Assistant Secretary, Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (October 11, 2006)

    Way back in January 2002 TFW reported the following exchange:

Senator Carr (Labor)-- Professor Chubb [ANU Vice-Chancellor who previously told the committee that the university system was in crisis] says that... when your infrastructure is eroding and when you see all your equipment and your capacity to provide the resources you need for the staff to do the work that they want to be able to do slowly but surely degrading, then that does not make you very happy at all. How do you respond to that proposition? Is it an exaggeration?

 

Mr Gallagher--  ...I do not think it is surprising that a committee set up like this one to review the higher education system will draw disaffected submissions from various parts of the sector, including--

 

Senator Carr-- We are talking here about the vice-chancellors.  At Sydney, there were five vice-chancellors putting this position, representing some of the most prestigious institutions in this country. They are hardly what you would call a disaffected group or disaffected individuals. These are not your normal run-of-the-mill agitators--heaven help us.

 

Mr Gallagher-- They are making up for lost time, by the looks of it.

 

Senator Carr-- But is it not, therefore, a concern to the department that we should have such a widespread collection of opinion coming to us saying that the system is in deep crisis?

 

Mr Gallagher-- I put it back to you again that the people who are advocating that position to you are possibly looking for an easy way out rather than fronting up to their management responsibilities.

            [Monday, 13 August 2001, Canberra. Senate Committee—References EWRSBE 1350-51]

That was in the days when David Kemp was Minister for Education -- remember him?

Since then Mr Gallagher has come to serve ANU and its vice-chancellor, Ian Chubb, and he has had this to say of the latest gyrations of the Research Quality Framework's Development Advisory Group Chaired by Chief Scientist, Jim Peacock.

It is disappointing that the potential of the research quality framework has turned to farce. The Development Advisory Group's September paper on research impact is so flawed that its implementation has the potential to make Australian research management an international joke.

 

The paper states as a principle that "research impact will be based on actual outcomes and their assessable impact" and "prospective impact will not be part of the RQF". However, it categorises the criteria for assessing research impact in terms of engagement (rating D), adoption (C), benefit (B) and extent (A, being the highest rating). Funding is to be allocated to ratings of D and higher. That is, funding will be provided for pre-benefit (pre-impact) activity, notwithstanding the stated principle. A research grouping, therefore, can receive funds for doing research that is not used and has no benefit, so long as the researchers have talked to someone who may have wanted to use it if it had been good enough.

 

According to the paper, "no minimum quality rating will be necessary for impact assessment; however, the research from which the impact is derived must be sound... Research groupings that have an applied focus and may not achieve high ratings for quality will have the opportunity to demonstrate their excellence through the impact assessment."

Mr Gallagher, a past master at interpreting bureaucratic-speak says, "That is, the Government should provide funding to Australian universities to undertake poor quality research if it might be adopted. Surely there are serious risks associated with the application, in any field, of poor quality research... Is it seriously proposed that universities with low-quality research rated higher for impact should be resourced to increase their PhD student numbers?"

The fact of the matter is that the paper released last month by the RQFDAG is so convoluted that it is not next to meaningless; it is meaningless.  It suggests that research groupings be structured primarily for impact assessment unless they make a claim for exclusion from it. Now it's not much of a step to conclude that the recent Nobel Laureates in Physic, Chemistry or Medicine or Physiology might have had a hard time getting funding under such a scheme.

And Mr Gallagher concludes, "At best the process will reward mediocrity... [and m]eanwhile, various universities are trying to second guess the framework and position themselves through staff poaching and creative recruitment tactics, without adding to Australia's capacity. Such a dog-chasing-its-tail approach will not advance Australia. It is time to return to the original objective of the exercise: to identify where quality research is being performed and to allocate resources in ways that build Australia's international research excellence."

Perhaps the only point of interest is that if anyone outside the Federal Cabinet would know just what John Howard's Coalition Government is really after, it ought to be Michael Gallagher, but so far he ain't saying... at least not in public.

Certainly adequate support for high quality research isn't it.