This past June 15-16 what was billed as the Inaugural Knowledge Transfer & Engagement Forum took place at the Crowne Plaza Darling Harbour, Sydney.

The subject for this first forum was "Examining higher education's contribution to the knowledge economy", and among the speakers were:

Professor John Yovich, Vice Chancellor, Murdoch University

Professor Richard Larkins, Vice Chancellor, Monash University

Professor Brian Stoddart, Vice Chancellor, La Trobe University

Professor Helen Garnett, Vice Chancellor, Charles Darwin University

Professor Malcolm Gillies, President, Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences

Dr Rowan Gilmore, CEO, Australian Institute for Commercialisation

Professor Rob Wallis, President, AUCEA (Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance)

David Henderson, Managing Director, UniQuest

The second day of the conference began with a 30 minute speech by the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, who was there to tell the assemblage, who paid up to $1864.50 for the privilege of attending, how it is and how it's gonna be (if in a vague way).

She gave no impression that she was particularly interested in listening. We understand that she did have one or two members of her staff attend the sessions.

Ms Bishop began her keynote address:

Ladies and gentlemen, today I will speak about three key issues for the higher education sector. First, the Research Quality Framework – as a result of which the sector is heavily engaged in a debate on ‘third stream funding’, of which knowledge transfer and community engagement are but two possible examples. Second, I will outline my preliminary views on knowledge transfer – what I mean by knowledge transfer and what type of knowledge transfer may be supported through Australian Government funding. Third, I will discuss briefly the notion of the ‘engaged university’, which underpins some of your deliberations at this Forum. [our emphasis]

Here we discuss the first of the three matters the minister raised.

With regard to the Research Quality Framework (RQF), Ms Bishop referred cursorily to the Expert Advisory Group, chaired by Sir Gareth Roberts, President of Oxford's Wolfson College, and the outline of the "preferred model" which was sent to the minister.

The minister, clearly dissatisfied with the sow's ear that had been presented to her, formed the Research Quality Framework Development Advisory Group (RQFDAG), which she described as "a group of research experts currently working outside the university sector to further develop the RQF."

The 12-member RQFDAG, chaired by Chief Scientist Jim Peacock, is in fact a very varied group which includes members of CSIRO, ANSTO, DEST, the university sector (despite Ms Bishop's statement above) and the Grains Research & Development Corporation (GRDC) Board.

The RQF #2 - $42

Ms Bishop went on to say, "[The RQFDAG] has formed working groups in the areas of: Metrics; Impact; Information Technology; and Modelling. I anticipate that I will receive its formal advice on the precise form and operation of the RQF by October of this year. [And on advice already tendered by the RQFDAG] I propose that the RQF will come into operation in 2008, with the next RQF exercise to be undertaken six years later, that is in 2014. Under this timeframe, data gathering would take place in 2008, with financial consequences to flow from 2009. 2007 will be a year for universities to refine the processes and finalise the detail of the data gathering. I agree that this time is also necessary to do more of the hard work required this year in developing and testing models for an RQF."

Considering that just what should be the specific criteria for awarding points in the "RQF Cup" competition and how they should be proportioned is far from agreed, and with the realisation by the UK after 20 years that its Research Assessment Exercise is a shemozzle, how can one doubt that Ms Bishop's statement will be an overwhelming fillip for Australian researchers and vice-chancellors.

The minister then opines, "I believe that an RQF is vital for Australia," but in no way explains why. She does say, "We need it to lift our overall level of research quality," but neglects the fact that the US has none although it is to research what the Spanish are to clay court tennis. She makes no attempt to analyse why.

Of course she may have a stone tablet in her office in which is deeply carved  An RQF is Vital for Australia.

We then are presented with the bromide, "and to shift our focus towards research which really does have an impact on day to day life."

Five will get you fifty she means designating immediate practical winners. Even IBM doesn't think that way and it mightn't do the minister any harm and might even do Australia a bit of good if she dropped in on Arden Bement at the US National Science Foundation to find out why the US doesn't have an RQF or an RAE.

And there's more as the commercials on cable tell us. "We must use it as a tool for greater diversity in the higher education sector, focussing universities’ attention on their strengths, and moving away from the 'one-size-fits-all' mould of universities into which they were collectively pushed in the 1980s. The Dawkins era is over."

The present Coalition Government has had over ten years to correct the stupidity of the Dawkins' debacle, and has had neither the desire or courage nor the wit to correct it. There is no reason to believe that they have a real interest in doing so now. But what is of great interest to what Robert Manne calls,  "the most ideologically combative government in the nation's history" is the cowing of the universities and the academics who inhabit them. The concept of universities forming the intellectual infrastructure of a nation on which the commonweal is based and that that infrastructure needs nurturing for the benefit of all has no place in John Howard's Australia.

Ms Bishop concluded her assessment of the RQF with, "Yet in developing the RQF, we must be sure to avoid the worst perversions of overseas equivalents. We must ensure that the RQF does not operate in such a way as to take the best researchers out of the realm of teaching, and that the work of research students is both regarded and considered towards RQF outcomes. We must also ensure that we do not take away from the important collaboration between university researchers and industry. I look forward to the Development Advisory Group’s further advice on these points, among others."

Imposing a prescriptive Research Quality Framework carries with it by its very nature the "perversion" of that which it will affect. The United Kingdom has spent twenty years trying to get its equivalent right and failed. Does Ms Bishop think that through the use of her twelve apostles she will have acquired the alchemists touch.

But that's not really what it's about... is it?  John Howard has morphed the Commonwealth Government's domination of university funding into an increasingly malicious monster.

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web