Brooks Atkinson's opening remark in his 1956 New York Times review of Samuel Beckett's 2 act tragicomedy Waiting for Godot.   ... It is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. [E]xpect to be witness to the strange power this drama has to convey the impression of some melancholy truths about the hopeless destiny of the human race.

Vladimir and Estragon are still waiting on their road-side bench and still bickering.

Vladimir: Estragon?

Estragon: What?

Vladimir: What's a Framework?

Estragon: Where would you like me to start, Milton? He didn't seem that wrapped in frameworks. He told Parliament, "What a fine conformity would it starch us all into? doubtless a stanch and solid piece of frame-work, as any January could freeze together."

Vladimer: As in?

Estragon: As in Areopagitica*

Vladimer: Hmmm, clever chap. I can just see Dr Nelson's Expert Advisory Group on the Research Quality Framework coming back with that. But physically speaking what's a framework?

Estragon: How about internal skeleton, something to hang the body on? Or maybe a conceptual scheme, structure, or system : the limits or outlines especially of a particular set of circumstances : a frame of reference. Good dictionary stuff.

Vladimir: Yeah, that'll do very nicely, thanks. So now we have a group of twelve learned men and a woman who have been garnered by the Minister for Education, Science and Training to advise him on how to create a framework that is to be used to "assess the quality and impact of research in Australia." They have now sent forth a 58 page "Issues Paper" seeking submissions from interested parties and to simplify matters they include a selection of 15 multiple choice suggestions and questions.

Estragon: You're joking?

Vladimir: You know it brought to mind Paul Ginsparg, the arXiv guy, worked at Los Alamos.

Estragon: How come?

Vladimir: Just about four years ago he was up for a salary review at LANL and got assessed as "a strictly average performer by overall lab standards; with no particular computer skills contributing to lab programs; easily replaced, and moreover overpaid, according to an external market survey". For some reason he took exception to that and had a look around. Cornell said "Yeah, right, we'll have you anytime, chum". The Chair of the Department of Physics at Cornell,  Peter Lepage, just said, "Evidently their form didn't have a box for: 'completely transformed the nature and reach of scientific information in physics and other fields'."

Estragon: I take it you're not too impressed with the Issues Paper.

Vladimir: Not with the whole exercise as it's being done. Supposedly this expert advisory group is asking guys who have an active interest in the wellbeing of research in its various aspects what they think should be the government's approach to assessing the quality of the nation's research. And they start off with a multiple choice exam, bloody hell - its insulting, it'd be insulting the intelligence of new science or engineering graduates.

    How would you like to play twenty questions?

Estragon: What brought that on?

Vladimir: Well that's the sum of the actual questions asked by the issues paper, inside and outside of the multiple choice boxes.

1. From the executive summary: Firstly, can the publicly funded research agencies be assessed in the same way as a university and secondly, should all universities be assessed in the same way?

2. ...at what level of aggregation should the outcomes of an RQF be reported?

3. Within a multiple choice box so that you are give a set of answers from which to choose: How should an RQF be applied to universities and publicly funded research agencies?

4. Can this principle be adopted for applied research within universities or do the specific missions of institutions preclude a common set of measures?
     Which leads to the multiple choice box with the heading Measuring research quality and impact: Assessment panel members should include the following (the categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive): 

    And you are then given a series of statements which range from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree. There's also a box you can tick for "no comment".

Estragon: Enough I get the picture. You're saying that the mechanism is such to straight jacket the sort of input that is being sought.

Vladimir: This group is not just advising the Minister. Think about it, they are almost certainly constrained by the knowledge of just what sort of advice he's prepared to go along with.

Estragon: Take?

Vladimir: What?

Estragon: Isn't he going to take advice?

Vladimir: What shower did you come down with? If you've been following the effect the US President's science advisor, John Marburger, has had on Bush's policies which ought to have a scientific basis you'll get the picture.

Estragon: So the EAG will tell Nelson what he wants to hear.

Vladimir: Or at most tolerate, yeah. But I think it's much worse then that. The federal government has put increasing constraints on research in Australia by its increasing micromanagement of funding. You might say their guiding star is Instant Gratification Through Applied Research. So if your whole approach is flawed because you're pulling the supporting research infrastructure out from under strategic and applied research by screwing fundamental research and inquiry what the hell is this business of a research quality framework to assess... the hollow shell that's left?

Estragon: So what's your solution?

Vladimir: If you mean a quick fix I haven't got one?

Estragon: And a slow one?

Vladimir: Get the people to care. Really care so that their "elected representatives" get the wind up about what they have to do to be allowed to put their bottoms on those nice green and red leather benches.

Estragon: And who's gonna do that?

Vladimir: Beats me. (looks down the road to the left).

Estragon: What're you looking for?

Vladimir: Whom, whom am I looking for?   Godot.

Estragon: And?

Vladimir: He's not coming.

*Another sort there be who, when they hear that all things shall be ordered, all things regulated and settled, nothing written but what passes through the custom-house of certain publicans that have the tonnaging and poundaging of all free-spoken truth, will straight give themselves up into your hands, make 'em and cut 'em out what religion ye please: there be delights, there be recreations and jolly pastimes that will fetch the day about from sun to sun, and rock the tedious year as in a delightful dream. What need they torture their heads with that which others have taken so strictly and so unalterably into their own purveying? These are the fruits which a dull ease and cessation of our knowledge will bring forth among the people. How goodly and how to be wished were such an obedient unanimity as this, what a fine conformity would it starch us all into! Doubtless a staunch and solid piece of framework, as any January could freeze together.

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web