The Ides of March Approaches. (March 3, 2009)

The Ides of March (March 15) is indubitably associated with the date of the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC.

And perhaps it'll be the date that the federal government announces its response(s) to the Bradley Review of Higher education and the Cutler Review of Australian Innovation.

Last week The Australian's Guy Healy  reported that Jessie Borthwick, head of the science and research division in Senator Kim Carr's Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, addressing a university forum said the Rudd government was "very focused" on the two reviews but, "both reviews came with a high price tag and there are pressures on the budget over the long term... [therefore, universities] would need to convince the Government there is a need to do something".

You may be forgiven for thinking that that's just what the reviews had done, but perhaps Ms Borthwick's Australia occupys a parallel Earth in a parallel solar system in a parallel universe.

As Mr Healy reports it, an Allen Consulting Group study estimated the shortfall in university funding was $286 million in 2006. The universities on the other hand came up with a figure of $900 million.

The study did note that the "international benchmark for funding the indirect costs of research projects was 50 per cent of the value of the original grant, a finding picked up by the Bradley review, which supported an increase from 20c to 50c for each competitive grant dollar".

Finally, Australian Academy of Science president Kurt Lambeck, referring to the Carr initiative of Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA), and weighing his words carefully, made the point: "For it to have the confidence of the sector [the ERA] will need the full consultation with the research community. The [extension to a] June submission date appears reasonable because the universities will have had time to prepare their cases."

__________________________________

Meanwhile, on Thursday, March 13 (UK time) the funding bodies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will tell universities and higher education colleges just what proportion of £1.5 billion will be allocated to whom for what based on the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE).

Back on January 20 The Guardian reported that the UK government would shortly announce just how it would use the 2008 RAE findings in dividing the funds. Clearly the government thought better of tipping its hand, thereby delaying a protracted row.

In any case considerable lobbying has been the order of the day over the past six weeks, which has taken up the overtones of a Greek chorus. The Research intensive universities large (the Russell Group) and small (the 1994 group) have decried the literal interpretation of the RAE's terms -- the funding must not, they chant, be spread thinly.

On the other hand a number of the newer universities who have outstanding research groups argue that excellence should be rewarded where it occurs. Furthermore, according to The Guardian's Donald MacCleod: "the number of students studying social sciences and arts subjects has grown, so have the numbers of academics to teach them. Most do research as well. In contrast, numbers in science and engineering have been static. So if the RAE results were followed to the letter, there would be an overall switch in funding from science to arts of an estimated £50m, and potentially a switch away from the old universities, which tend to have the big science departments... This outcome Hefce - on clear government direction - decided to prevent, causing protests and frantic lobbying from social scientists and new universities."

Andrew Wathey, vice-chancellor of Northumbria University (founded as Newcastle Polytechnic in 1969, formed from the merger of Rutherford College of Technology, the College of Art & Industrial Design and the Municipal College of Commerce) voices the view of a number of his New University colleagues: "The serious issue is about the future and government meddling with real results, effectively disregarding them in the long term."

Noting John Denham, the UK's universities secretary's comment last month that the current concentration of research should not be diluted, and adding: "We need institutions that can support the critical mass of leading researchers, and expensive facilities, which in turn can attract the very best among the global research and business community," has presaged a significant manipulation of the 2008 RAE terms.

This might suggest that the Australian government look objectively and critically at it's reincarnation of the Coalition's Research Quality Framework (RQF) into its ERA.

Even the 150,000 tonnes Queen Mary 2 with sufficient effort can change course when appropriate.