|Peter Hall* Makes the Case for Environment, Diversity and Academic Strength|
About five years ago, when a colleague and I were
stranded by aircraft problems on our way to a meeting, he related a story about
a mutual friend who, more than a decade before, had been denied tenure at the
colleague's university. Let's call it University X; it is among the top few in
any international research ranking of universities. The unfavourable tenure
decision had not been entirely disadvantageous to our friend, who went straight
to a tenured post at a very good university. However, as we were both aware, he
had done very little since he left X. A member of my colleague's department had
raised this matter a few days before, arguing that it showed the correctness of
the decision not to grant tenure. My colleague demurred, and remarked to me that
our friend would have done a lot more, and made very significant contributions
to his field, if he had stayed at X.
This anecdote goes to the heart of issues relating to the quality of research environments. It reflects the challenges that many Australian academics face, when developing their careers on an isolated island much closer to Antarctica than to any of the world's top ten universities. A strong research environment doesn't have a lot to do with the physical state of the offices, or even the laboratories. In fact, there is a standing joke in my field that, in research universities abroad, the correlation between the standards of physical and intellectual environments is negative.
The environment that matters at University X has everything to do with the intellectual climate there, and is connected only indirectly, largely through the researchers attracted by that climate, to the facilities.
In this article I suggest that arguments in favour of concentrating research
resources in a small number of Australian universities typically neglect the
vital intellectual environment, which cannot be assembled nearly as easily as
offices and laboratories. Moreover, funding only a small number of
research-intensive universities involves substantial changes across the
education system, including at the interface between schools and universities,
and these may be detrimental; for example, they can make the university system
The challenges of developing an intellectually strong and dynamic research environment, rather than one where simply the facilities are good, are partly those of scale, in the sense of critical mass. To achieve the necessary scale it is often argued that research funding in Australia should be concentrated relatively narrowly: "Australia's top universities will lose their global position unless research investment is concentrated in the hands of proven performers'' (The Australian, November 19, 2008). Last October the Group of Eight called for "the adoption by the Government of a Higher Education Research Policy which focuses on selectivity and concentration of higher education research,'' and lauded ERA's capacity to "drive selectivity and concentration of Australia's higher education research system.''
There are many arguments, and cautionary tales1, relating to the weakness and vulnerability of research enterprises that are concentrated rather than diverse. Sean Gallagher, Chief Operating Officer of the University of Sydney's US Studies Centre, argued in The Australian on May 25 that:
To achieve the macro outcome of sustaining national research capacity in a value-for-money kind of way, you need healthy research competition among many players and not just concentration on the few. If research funding continues to further concentrate in the Group of Eight there will be less competition and Australia will have a poorer outcome.
Gallagher noted too that J.D. Adams' 2
account of declining public
funding for US universities "highlights unintended adverse consequences from a
nation's best scientific research capability being focused in a small number of
It is straightforward to develop mathematical models that convey, and help explain, these concerns. Indeed, Adams' work can be interpreted as an analysis of data in the context of some of those models. However, a simple physical model is perhaps more persuasive, if only because it shows the real issues to be elementary, and common to other aspects of our lives. If sand, gravel or some other granular material is poured onto a flat surface, it will form a conical pile whose sides make a particular angle to the horizontal. That angle, known as the "angle of repose'' in the mechanics of granular materials, is a constant for the type of particles but can be varied by altering the particles' nature. For example, it is about 35o and 45o for dry and moist sand, respectively. A network of many institutions has similarities to a cone made from small particles; the Go8 are effectively asking for an increase in the angle of repose. Unless there are fundamental changes to the nature of many of the institutions, the limitations of the supporting relationships among them restrict the extent to which one part of the network can be significantly altered without the entire structure being rendered ineffective and even unstable.
Implementation of the Go8's calls for concentrating research resources among a few universities would require changes not just to funding but to many other aspects, for example to the diverse connections between schools and universities and to the places where the academic staff at strong research universities receive their training. Many staff would have to be recruited abroad; they couldn't all be trained in the relatively small number of research-active institutions that would remain, since this would only reinforce the narrowness and vulnerability of the system. Could we keep those highly skilled, highly motivated and highly mobile people in Australia, if all we had for them was excellent facilities? Of course not; they would not stay unless we could provide the necessary rich and dynamic intellectual environment, and do so within the proposed relatively small system, having no more than eight to twelve research-active universities.
The US, whose environment we seem to be trying to emulate, keeps ahead only by drawing very large numbers of talented scientists, and others, from many nations. Adams2 gives a number of measures of the extent to which this has been a prerequisite for maintaining US preeminence. For example, he estimates that "intellectual migration from Europe [has] increased [US] resident Nobel Prize winners by 50%.'' However, Australia often seems to be discouraging, rather than attracting, academic researchers from abroad. For instance, our nation has long been a particularly difficult place for foreign research students to study, owing to funding and visa obstacles; the Australian Academy of Science recently called on the government to remove such barriers. Potential research collaborators have declined invitations to participate in Australian research programs because of the complexity of the Visiting Academic Visa (subclass 419) process. (Under this visa program it's easier for Australians to undertake research in the US, and be reimbursed for expenses, than for American researchers to work here.) Moreover, Australian Research Council rules on funding for foreign researchers typically require specific proposals to be submitted up to four years in advance. These are just some of the challenges we face in creating in Australia the seeds for a rich, dynamic and diverse intellectual research environment of international calibre; other obstacles are even more systemic.
For all these reasons, ensuring that research in Australia's universities is competitive with that abroad is not nearly as simple as concentrating research funding in relatively few institutions. It requires substantial reform at a number of levels, and a sharp focus on creating the intellectual environment in the world class institutions to which we aspire. More mundanely, it's very much like changing the nature of sand so that, when poured onto the ground, it has a different angle of repose.
*Peter Hall, FAA, FRS is Professor of Statistics, The University of Melbourne.
1. Humphrey, A. (2010). Concentration of research funding: a cautionary tale. http://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers/156431-283901/Concentration-of-research-funding-a-cautionary-tale.html
2. Adams, J.D. (2009). Is the US losing its preeminence in higher education? Working Paper 15233, National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15233
3. Some US state systems have ``flagship campuses'' that are better funded than others.