Editorial-29 March 2007

 
 
 

 

 


 

 

Without a Clue

 

 
 
 

 

 

At one point in the film Without a Clue Michael Caine as Sherlock Holmes while staring up into the tall trees asks Dr Watson (Ben Kingsley), "What is it we're looking for, Watson?" Watson replies in exasperation, "Footprints."

 

Over the past week comments from various points seem to have about as much merit as Holmes looking for footprints in the tops of the Lake District's tall timber.

 

Referring to the proposed Research Quality Framework (RQF) to be used to eventually distribute research funding of $600 million annually to Australia's universities the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop continues the mantra that the RQF will ensure taxpayers' money will be invested in research of the highest quality which will deliver real benefits to the higher education sector, business and the wider community.

 

She's got about as much hard data on which to base her repetitive chant as Holmes had looking for evidence of footfalls in the pine tops, and all indications are the all up cost to you and me for her mindless adventure will be well in excess of $100 million.

 

Meanwhile Stephen Smith, Labor's Education shadow minister while saying the RQF is fundamentally and fatally flawed doesn't say what Labor will do if it gains government.

 

However, Labor's shadow minister for industry, innovation, science and research, Senator Kim Carr, on Thursday, told the annual Science Meets Parliament conference sponsored by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, "[The Labor] Party plans to accord top priority to education – Australia’s 'education revolution'. In so doing [Kevin Rudd] has given special prominence to Mathematics and Science. He has identified the pressing need to encourage young people into careers in Maths and Science, and especially into teaching in these fields. [He] has also committed to making the office of the Chief Scientist full-time, and beefing up its staff numbers. That way Australia will have fully focussed, top-flight scientific advice at a time when we need it most."

 

Just how far reaching that "special prominence to Mathematics and Science" is to be was not detailed.

 

But as regards the RQF, Senator Carr's rhetoric was unequivocal, at least in part. "Labor has announced that, in Government, we will be scrapping the Howard Government’s Research Quality Framework. The RQF process is cumbersome, costly and threatens to become incredibly time-consuming. It is neither an efficient nor a transparent way to allocate valuable research dollars to universities. In its planned 'Impact' measure, the Government’s RQF would skew funds away from quality research and distort outcomes. A scheme that emphasises this measure moves Australia away from current world best practice, and that is something we cannot afford."

 

But the senator was vague on just how it proposes to evaluate Australian scientific research quality but emphasised it would rely on metric based data. "Labor will work hand in hand with researchers, and their institutions, to develop a research quality assurance framework that is world’s best practice. It will be metrics based. It will be transparent. It will take due account of differences between disciplines and discipline groups so that measures are fair, and funding can flow equitably."
 

So far the pronouncements from neither Mr Smith nor Senator Carr breed confidence in Labor's ability to salvage the sinking university sector and effect the resurrection of science and mathematics at primary and secondary teaching levels and tertiary research and teaching.

 

Has either of them, or for that matter has, would-be Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, taken in the trenchant one line assessment by the Executive Officer of the Australian Mathematical Science Institute, Jan Thomas, "If we don't fix the problems in the universities, we don't have the teachers, and that affects every parent in the country." And she estimates to "kick start" the revivification will take $25 million.

 

On the other hand could they really be any worse than the current Coalition government which as Sol Encel points out has Julie Bishop claiming that 'Maoists' have too much say in university affairs while the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, added his voice to these concerns when he told an audience in Sydney last October that "We should not underestimate the degree to which the soft Left still holds sway, especially in Australia's universities."

 

But to return to the RQF. One of the key points, in the Productivity Commission's just released final report Public Support for Science and Innovation states,

The costs of implementing the Research Quality Framework may well exceed the benefits. The benefits from the 2008 RQF round could be improved if its funding scales provide more significant penalties for the poorest research performers than apparently currently envisaged. In the long run, a transition to less costly approaches, such as those that target poor performing areas, should be considered.

Has Ms Bishop cited evidence contradicting the PC's caveat?

 

No, she hasn't, but then it doesn't matter because she tells us, the Government had already taken advice, consulted widely and committed itself to the RQF, and that a reference committee is to release draft specifications for the RQF in July. All of which has left the universities second guessing just what those specifications will be in order to meet Ms Bishop's timetable.

 

However, fear not she promises to consider the PC's 800 page report seriously; perhaps she'll combine it with her bedtime reading of Peter Doherty's The Beginner's Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize.

 

One can feel the almost palpable frustration in the PC's report, "However, while the RQF may bring some benefits, the UK and NZ experiences suggest that these would have to be substantial to offset the significant administrative and compliance costs. But since a decision on its implementation has now been made by government, the relevant policy goal is to achieve the benefits intended at the minimum possible administrative and compliance costs."

 

In sum, don't bother Ms Julie with fact or cogent argument, John Howard has already made up her mind.

 

 

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web