News & Views item - July 2007

 

 

A Strong Voice Remains Unheeded. (July 3, 2007)

    In Canberra last month the Group of Eight Research Quality Assessment Forum took place. The Go8 describes the forum:

Nobel Laureate, Professor Peter Doherty with Go8
Chair, Professor Glyn Davis at the Go8 research quality
assessment forum in Canberra on 8 June 2007

Background and purpose

The Group of Eight's research quality assessment forum brought together fifty leading researchers, research managers, policy-makers and business and industry representatives for a high-level discussion about research assessment.

Key speakers included:

* Professor Glyn Davis, Vice-Chancellor, The University of Melbourne, Chair the Group of Eight.
* Professor Michael Worton, Vice-Provost (Academic and International), University College London
* Professor Peter Doherty, Laureate Professor, The University of Melbourne
* Senator Kim Carr, Shadow Minister for Industry, Science, Research and Innovation
* Dr Robin Batterham, President, Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering
* Professor Warwick Anderson, CEO, National Health and Medical Research Council

Australia's Research Quality Framework (RQF) is scheduled to start in early 2008 and will change the face of research and research management in Australia's universities. The Go8 timed this forum to coincide with the pre-implementation trials of the RQF because, though a broad framework for the RQF has been selected, much of the detail remains to be worked through.

The forum provided an opportunity for stakeholders to raise and discuss issues in a constructive way. A number of conclusions were drawn at the end of the forum and these will be communicated to the Federal Government as recommendations to help ensure that the final RQF model delivers an assessment and funding framework that is as useful, workable and as credible as possible.

TFW has already reprinted the contribution of FASTS president, Tom Spurling and below we reprint Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty's summary of his contribution. As most readers will recall Professor Doherty has spent many years working in the United States. Much, but not all, of what seems to have taken place at the forum was an attempt to suggest mechanisms to transform a sow's ear into an artificial silk purse.

 

The Group of Eight has made available some of the presentations and "at the conclusion of the forum Professor Lawrence Cram, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, The Australian National University, was given the challenging task of reflecting on the day’s discussion, and providing a summary of the key themes that had emerged."

 

But here, as Professor Doherty sees it:

 

SUMMARY


At basis, the research funding mechanisms (both public and private) in the USA rely on peer reviewed evaluation, often by Committees (eg NIH Study Sections) that turn over after one or two 3-4 year appointments. This avoids reification, and keeps the evaluation at the “active investigator” level.

 

The institutions are, apart from any status considerations, eager to attract top researchers because they bring in substantial indirect costs. This means that faculty salary levels are to some extent “market driven” as there is intense competition for “top end” talent.

One unfortunate feature of the system is that creative/intellectual talent and the capacity to bring in massive grant funding are not necessarily synonymous
 

Given the integrity of the peer review mechanism, there is no need for a separate RAE or RQF assessment process.
 

The “Level” of state universities is determined locally at the state level, then the research oriented institutions find their own level in the federal system.

 

A measure of specialization is essential, and institutions focus on their strengths.

Peer review processes, both applied to grant funding and publication, also tend to determine decisions about level of appointment, tenure etc. I haven’t personally seen much use of the “metrics” approaches that are so beloved here, but everyone knows what the top journals are.


Most Research Institutes have some form of “Rolling Tenure”, with critical evaluation every 5 years or so.


“Tenure” at a Research University may mean that the individual has some relatively low, guaranteed level of salary or eg, that the salary of an unfunded academic who doesn’t take on some major support role (Dean of Students?) decreases 10% per annum.
 


BOTTOM LINE


Federal support of the US Research Universities and “open” (not defence) Research Institutes depends essentially on peer reviewed grants given to individuals or to groups (Program Grants, Contracts) of PIs.


Infrastructure support comes from Indirect Costs attached to competitively reviewed grants, and to separate, peer-reviewed mechanisms.


The levels of available resources have, at least in past, tended to benefit greatly from the Separation of Powers between the Executive and Legislative branches.

The Australian Federal situation We have effective peer-review mechanisms in both the NHMRC and ARC systems. It would be highly desirable to bring “research” dollars dispersed by other Federal agencies under the ARC-type mechanism.


An Indirect Cost-driven mechanism for infrastructure support would certainly stratify the Research Universities, but might be too harsh in the absence of direct State involvement.


There is a great need for a separate, “academic” layer eg “Board of Regents” placed between the Research Universities and the relevant federal departments.