Recent Alterations to the Mechanism of ERA Cast Further Doubt on Its Efficacy. (February 19, 2010)

Vicki Thomson, Executive director, Australia Technology Network, wrote this past Wednesday to The Australian: "The upcoming Excellence in Research for Australia [ERA] initiative has resulted in apprehension and debate in every university across Australia, and understandably so, as few things focus university administrators' minds more than policy that has funding outcomes attached to it," and goes on to say: "The sector agrees that the historical snapshot approach of ERA could well result in focusing Australia's research efforts in the past, rather than where we should be going in the future. Exactly what that future should be is where we tend to diverge, of course."

Ms Thomson argues that the age of a university should be taken into account when determining the allocation of Block Grants because: "What is important to understand is that in their earlier years universities must increase the volume of research they undertake; preceding a more mature phase resulting in work of high quality, which attracts attention from international peers, resulting in the recognition of world-class concentrations... We consider that Australia's research funding strategies and ERA should align to support the development of at least 1000 world-class research centres and to build the next generation of such centres.

"Recent changes to the ERA ratings scale, criticised by some as a move towards mediocrity, are supported by the ATN... However, the issue of ERA ratings is perhaps dealt with best by an independent group to provide considered advice on the calibration of the proposed ratings of research excellence... If we are going to put in place an initiative that will shape the direction of Australia's higher education sector for years (or decades) to come, it is imperative that we ensure we get it right."

Ms Thomson is arguing against the viewpoint expressed by Les Field, vice-chancellor (research) and professor of chemistry at UNSW, who on February 10 wrote in The Australian that changes by the Australian Research Council (ARC) to the "ratings to be used to assess research under the Excellence in Research for Australia scheme [will] water down the criteria for assessing excellence and take us in the direction of research mediocrity... In the five-point ranking scheme, it will now be easier to gain a 5 (the highest rank) and the ranks will slide upwards; a 2 in the ERA trial would become a 3 in the full ERA exercise and so on.  This is taking the ERA in exactly the wrong direction".

Professor Field goes on to say: "The ERA was introduced (in haste) notionally to be a means of monitoring research excellence in Australia... [it] has always suffered from a lack of clear purpose... it has been engineered to be a historical snapshot of achievements. This makes the exercise very backward-looking and not focused on where we should, or could, be going."

And while he contends that the ERA provided an opportunity to: "develop metrics and indicators that would capture our achievements in the humanities and creative arts," he concludes, "Through 2009, we went through a trial of the ERA, looking only at a subset of the university research effort - the humanities and creative arts and also at the physical sciences (physics, chemistry and earth sciences). Results of that trial are not public so it isn't possible to compare and contrast relative performance in the trial. One suspects that a significant number of the 39 universities in the sector may not have made the grade and this may have been politically unpalatable."

Interestingly, neither Ms Thomson nor Professor Field, despite recognising the backward vision inherent in the ERA and the lack of data supporting its value for improving university research, address the utility of providing adequate resources to enhance both peer review of research proposals as well as the research itself together with oncosts.

The irrationality of the ERA is becoming increasingly obvious except as a micro-managerial-administrative tool.