Don't Bother With Facts, His Mind is Made Up

    Long before Labor won the 2007 federal election on December 3, the then shadow minister for science, Senator Kim Carr, was pointing out some of the deficiencies of the Howard Coalition government's proposed Research Quality Framework.

But the premise that a Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) or an RQF, or any system based on conglomerate assessment of research, no matter how awkwardly named, will improve its efficacy remains to be demonstrated. Nonetheless, that was not, and is not, an issue for the good senator.

There is no indication that the Labor government under Kevin Rudd has any intention of testing the assumption. To quote the President of the Australian Academy of Science, Kurt Lambeck: "He [Senator Carr] recognizes that science and technology are important, and he's certainly seeking input from the community. But it's too soon to tell if he's listening."

Perhaps unsurprisingly, while Kevin Rudd doesn't share the antagonism for academe held by his predecessor, he appears no less interested in micromanaging the universities and their inhabitants.

In addition university administrations, as distinct from their faculties, are interested in abetting the drive for any system that delivers funding to the institutions' administrations rather than directly to their research staffs.

It's quite understandable. The reliance of our universities on the federal funding which has been forcefully diminished over the past dozen years has encouraged their administrations to divert funds wherever possible into areas that will derive maximum dividends such as full fee paying overseas students, or private sector funded applied research.

So, for example, while the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) award research grants to university researchers, the oncosts are far below what's needed to sustain the research for which the grant is given.

It is left to the universities to try to make up the difference from administrative funding. Some of that comes from the Institutional Grants  and Research Training Schemes, i.e. block grants, some from the "profit" derived from overseas student fees, but the fact is that research is significantly under resourced and in a number of surreptitious and demoralising ways -- the high student to staff ratios being one of the most insidious, another derives from catering to immediate consumer demand, e.g. the majority of full fee paying students are not interested in those disciplines which are most required for the commonweal.

What we see developing is a supine acceptance by academic administrations of yet another incarnation of superfluous assessment entailing the misuse of funding and human resources.

And all the while what is required is ignored. The peer review systems of the ARC and NHMRC require thorough updating and yet with all the governmental motion on reviews they are receiving at best meagre consideration.

A critical examination of the resources needed to bring Australia to the top 20% of OECD nations in research capability is wanting. And included in that analysis must be an assessment of how to compete with the US and the EU in attracting "the best and brightest".

Of course the problem is that telling a committee to run off and develop an Excellence in Research For Australia based on literature citations and a little bit over is the easy option, never mind it being useless. Developing an effective and powerful peer review system for the ARC and NHMRC and providing adequate resources for public sector research as well as good incentives for research in the private sector takes hard work and nuance.

And all the while the prattle of hubs and spokes and clusters goes on ad nauseam.

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web