Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Employment, Education and Training - Senate Standing Committee - Report - Organisation and funding of research in higher education - Report, March 1994


Download PDF Download PDF

- t ~ ...............- λ J£u *+tS & ό ό 4>z**· ****** • y - — · A

~ * - - , .

yiA A * A sXa/ j u * & * * * 4

Ίύβκ«

^ 4 *

Λ *

f h ,

JU

( γ ^ β

A j ^

r y f *

/K , Λ */· O ** islA A * Λ & W 4 4 u *+o J· */. y ^

Report of the inquiry into

The Organisation and Funding of Research in Higher

Education

Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training

<

* * ·* / ,

i * /

;

166 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

Many submissions to the Committee and many witnesses at public hearings

commented on the principles of peer review and/or their practice by the ARC. Some

considered that, although the system of peer review was imperfect, it was the best

yet devised and should be supported. Others considered it so flawed as to require a

total reassessment. The following comments are typical of the range of views

expressed.

The Australian Research Council is both a cost effective and efficient organisation in the deliberative academic process involved in the assessment and allocation of research funding through an international peer review system. Whatever its weaknesses, there is no demonstrably better system available and the research community feels reasonable confidence ... because it is undertaken by a group of competent practising researchers themselves.64

In general I believe the ARC does a very competent job of the difficult task of distributing the available resources,and that its current procedures are extremely good. Ultimately the system depends, as it must, on peer review for evaluation and relative ranking. This is imperfect and as such is also the major weakness of the system. Little can be done about this except try to optimise peer review procedures.65

Any decision based on 'peer' review, the consensus of opinions of independent experts of appropriate experience and status ... is fraught with uncertainty. The selection of 'peers', either deliberately or in ignorance, can bias the outcome, and the expressed lack of enthusiasm of even one member of a panel can be very influential. This is particularly so in a relatively small scientific community, as exists in Australia, if associated with a reluctance to

seek advice from experts abroad ...

Peer review is unlikely to accurately predict either the outcome of investigations yet to be carried out or the future of young people with promise. Also there is the

64 Submission No 116, p 5 (Professor J Clark).

65 Submission No 127, p 6 (Professor JS Mattick).

168 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

The Research Grants Committee ... is well advanced in its consideration of incorporating relevance criteria, in addition to the criterion of excellence, into its selection processes ...

... What has emerged, and what will be used for the 1995 grant year is a selection process based on two broad criteria - excellence and relevance.

... Excellence will remain the primary criterion. There is no point in funding second-rate research. However, explicit questions will be asked about the researcher's track record and potential in research training; international links, and the delivery of socio-economic benefits from the research.67

Concern about the perceived dilution of excellence in assessment procedures has

been widespread and was forcefully voiced to this Committee, both in submissions

and in public hearings. The following excerpts explain the basis for this concern.

The economic benefits flowing from fundamental research are difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate. Applying criteria of economic benefit could shackle fundamental research, and confine it to narrow channels to the detriment of the country's research effort and its research future.68

So if research becomes increasingly linked into the nation's economic output - and I am not arguing that it should not be linked; I am arguing about how much it should be linked - then it will inevitably become some sort of political football; it will result in increased instability, and the one thing that any creative process does not need is instability.69

We would not wish to see the mechanisms by which ARC decisions are being made in the distribution of research grant funds moving away too far - in fact not moving

67 Submission No 155, pp 8-9 (Professor G Brown).

68 Submission No 29, p 4 (Professor F Gale).

69 Evidence, p 51 (Professor DM Stoddart).

170 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

Not everybody agreed with these pleas for anonymity. Professor John McLaren from

Victoria University of Technology, for example, considered it exacerbated rather

than ameliorated the most damaging aspects of peer review in a small research

community. He commented in his submission that "the use of anonymous referees'

reports encourages special pleading and character assassination".74 He went on to

say, at public hearings:

I am totally opposed to anonymous reviews ... I think anyone who is prepared to give a judgment on another person's work ... should be prepared to put their names to it. After all, this is what academic research is supposed to be about, looking at the evidence fearlessly, expressing

it clearly, expressing opinions fearlessly and making them public for debate. One can certainly be fearless if one knows that one's comments, however cruel, are going to remain safely anonymous and I do not see that that in any way guarantees the accuracy.75

On the other hand, if referees are not going to remain anonymous, they might

produce bland assessments of project proposals simply to avoid becoming embroiled

in a dispute with the applicant. A further difficulty arising from the relatively small

size of the Australian research community was that assessors were themselves often

competing for ARC grants with the people whose proposals they were called upon

to evaluate. An unbiased assessment was problematic in these circumstances. There

was a danger that the perception of bias, even when unwarranted, would bring the

ARC peer review system into disrepute.

Sometimes these difficulties could be overcome by relying on overseas researchers

but this was not always possible. Professor Lawler of the Royal College of Nursing,

for example, commented that in a new research discipline like nursing it was

difficult to identify appropriate overseas assessors.

74 Submission No 80, p 2 (Professor JD McLaren).

75 Evidence, pp 426-427 (Professor JD McLaren).

The Australian Research Council 175

many good applications lie at the margin, the peer review system can lose its grip on quality control.86

There was consensus among those providing evidence, irrespective of their discipline,

not only that excellent projects would fail but that there was no guarantee that the

"best" projects would succeed. Very fine distinctions of excellence were often more

apparent than real, and very subjective. The system encouraged "grantsmanship" and

there was a perception that it rewarded proposals with the best presentation rather

than those with the greatest potential.

There is a perception that success in the ARC system requires more than just scientific ability and track record. There appears to be an emphasis on "grantsmanship" which can translate to telling the committee what the applicant thinks it wants to hear.87

The Committee makes the observation that this situation is not unique to the ARC

application process. A success rate of 19 per cent compares quite favourably with the

success rate for applications through some other bodies. The emphasis on

grantsmanship, while regrettable, is evident in applications for jobs and funding

across the board.

Young researchers were especially disadvantaged because of the weight given by

ARC assessors to previous research record.

You can only be shown to be a good researcher if you have already had an opportunity to do research. So the ARC system, necessarily, will only take people who are already in the system or getting up and going. To get the

beginners started is very difficult, if that is the only system you have; and it is almost the only system we

86 Sheehan, Professor Peter W, Fostering and Monitoring University Research Achievement: Quality and the Funding of Research, paper presented in Spring Lecture Series on Higher Education, the University o f Melbourne, November 25, 1992, p 11.

87 Submission No 54, p 8 (Professor CR Phillips).

176 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

have at the moment, because of the shortage of discretionary funds within the institutions.88

Current ARC practices also discriminate against women - in effect if not in intent.

In this they parallel the under representation of women in tenured and upper levels

of academic employment. The reasons for this were said to be: their relative lack of

publications, which is perceived as an inadequate track record; lack of seniority and

the focus of research funding on the pure sciences in which women are

underrepresented.89

Women are also under-represented in the grant-allocation process, comprising only 16% of panel and committee members. On one level, this reflects the gross under­ representation of women in the higher echelons of the academic work-force.90

The ARC is taking steps to address this problem. It has recommended that the next

chair of the Research Grants Committee be a woman and has increased female

representation on this Committee.91

The inherent conservatism of the ARC approach was highlighted by the Higher

Education Council.

The method of reviewing typical project grants, weighted as it inevitably is to the record of the investigators in the particular field, restricts the flexibility of the research community to some extent. Unless special precautions are taken, this process can lock researchers into productive, often fashionable, fields where they are well known. This highlights something that the peer review system needs

88 Evidence, p 18 (Professor PA Hamilton).

89 Evidence, pp 418-20 (Mrs LM Ellem).

90 Submission No 75, p 19 (Ms D Zetlin and Mr G McCulloch).

91 Evidence, p 679 (Professor PW Sheehan).

The Australian Research Council 177

to guard against: the need to be known in a field in order to improve chances of funding can result in a reluctance to change areas significantly. 2

The tendency to fund "safe" science was reiterated in a number of submissions and

by a range of witnesses.

... because panel members are primarily chosen from those who have an extended record of success in gaining ARC grants, the traditional values on which the Large

Grant Scheme operates continue unchanged despite a turnover of personnel.9 2 93

The ARC has no mechanism - it seems to me - for moving into new areas, except through the advice of the people on the panels.94

Among social science and humanities researchers there is a widespread, but not

universal, view that current ARC practices discriminate against them and in favour

of science researchers. This is discussed in Chapter 3.

There was much greater agreement on ARC discrimination - in effect but not in

intent - against those in newly emerging areas of research or in subjects spanning

more than one discipline, such as education. This stems from the structure of the

ARC'S assessment panels, which are discipline specific. Many submissions supported

the view of the witness who said that "Inter-disciplinary research is a continuing

ARC classification problem".95

92 National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Higher Education Council, Higher Education: The Challenges Ahead, December 1990, p 40.

93 Submission No 96, p 9 (Professor P Clark).

94 Evidence, p 274 (Professor AL Carey).

95 Submission No 18, pp 5-6 (Dr JR Minnery).

178 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

In an attempt to overcome some of these problems the ARC in 1993 established a

special panel to consider applications covering more than one discipline or on the

boundaries of existing disciplines. This was too recent an innovation to have elicited

any response during the Committee's inquiry.

Subjects not falling clearly within the mandate of either the ARC or the NHMRC

but on the boundaries of their respective responsibilities were also at a disadvantage.

Nurses and audiologists commented on the difficulties of their position on this

boundary.

We ... have to deal on the one hand with subject matter which is more at home in the sciences and in medicine, and on the other hand we have to deal with subject matter which is more akin to the humanities and the

social sciences. Consequently there is a tendency for us to fall through the cracks. We are, on the one hand, seen as belonging to medicine, but at this time we cannot really compete within the NHMRC system; and on the other hand we are not seen necessarily as belonging to ARC, since we are seen as an appendage of medicine.96

Similar problems were raised by representatives of the performing arts in relation

to boundaries between the ARC and the Australia Council, and the issues of

eligibility which arise when a grant application is examined against the respective

Council's guidelines.

Other concerns relate to unsatisfactory aspects of the ARC's operations and

administration, which are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this Chapter. Of

particular relevance to peer review however is the ARC's decision, in 1993, to omit

visits and interviews from its peer review procedures because of financial

constraints. The importance of visits was stressed as far back as 1989 in the Smith

Report, which noted:

96 Evidence, p 343 (Professor JLawler).

The Australian Research Council 179

The process of site visits provides a means by which the peer review process is accountable to the research community; a means by which the review committee is apprised of the research environment in which funds are used; and a means for dialogue with institutions on the

issue of research infrastructure provisions.97

The omission of visits from the entire process has caused grave disquiet in the

research community, as evidenced in the following extracts from submissions and

public hearings.

... I also believe that the dropping of the interview tour is close to a disaster for institutions such as Perth, Tasmania and Townsville, and Darwin in the wings. The great advantage of the present ARC system is that in general the research community has had trust in the people on those panels.

... No amount of writing paper or phone calls can substitute for that personal knowledge that the present ARC panels have but, I am sad to say, are losing, because next year they are not doing the interviews too. So that

is a problem.98

This disquiet was not shared by representatives of DEBT who considered that other

processes introduced to replace the ARC visits were a satisfactory substitute. These

include an opportunity for shortlisted ARC applicants to respond to assessor reports

and biennial, consultative visits to universities by ARC staff and panel members.

... the replacement of the interview tour with the new arrangement ... does actually close a performance feedback loop which currently is not closed. To that

97 DEET, Report of Committee to Review Higher Education Research Policy, 1989, pp 102, 103.

98 Evidence, pp 662-63 (Professor RM Carter).

180 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

extent the department sees the newer arrangements as improvement on the existing arrangements."

No other evidence presented to the Senate Committee supported the DEBT position

on this. The Committee concludes that site visits play an important role in the peer

review process and should be reinstated.

The Committee recommends that the ARC reinstate site visits as an integral part of its peer review process for the assessment of Large Grants applications, and that a provision of $300,000 be made in the ARC budget for this purpose.

The Committee concludes, from the weight of evidence presented during this

inquiry, and its unanimity on major issues, that certain aspects of the ARC's peer

review system - although not the system itself - require reassessment. It considers

that some of the difficulties stem directly from the inadequate research budget with

which the ARC is obliged to work and that it will be impossible to remedy these

deficiencies without a significant boost to direct research funding. Other difficulties

stem from the ARC's own inadequate administrative budget and can be overcome

with a relatively small injection of funds.

More generally, the Committee supports a restatement of excellence as the major

criterion for ARC funding. The Committee intends to seek further advice on the

feasibility of introducing more streamlined selection processes without threatening

their reliability. It will also be seeking information on the extent to which the newly

formed interdisciplinary panel has addressed concerns about inadequate

consideration of subject proposals in new and interdisciplinary areas. 9 9

99 Evidence, pp 500-501 (Mr MJ Cusack).

The Australian Research Council 181

The effectiveness of the ARC's processes and practices

Having discussed the individual ARC programs and the funding allocation process

in some detail, we turn now to a more general consideration of their effectiveness.

The balance of views provided to the Committee suggested that, while the ARC still

generally retains the support of the research community, there is increasing concern

about a range of factors perceived as threatening the effectiveness - and perhaps

even the viability - of its programs. There was a widely held view that inadequate

funding of research represented the most serious of these threats.

The ARC system is probably as good as any other system around the world. I do not think they have enough support to handle everything and there is not enough money to go around to cover everyone so there are some hard decisions to be made.100

... researchers are becoming increasingly cynical about the ability of the ARC panels to make accurate judgements about the relative merits of applications. With the current degree of competition for grants, small doubts are enough to ensure that projects are not funded. This introduces an unacceptable degree of chance about issues such as choice

of assessors.101

The gravity of the threat to the continued effectiveness of the ARC's operations was

stressed by the Chair of the Research Grants Committee, Professor Sheehan.

This position paper is presented to express concern about the current capacity of the ARC to support fundamental research. It falls progressively with each year's round of competitive granting. International peer review and the

testimony of the expert scholars on the granting panels indicate that this outcome is unacceptable and deeply

100 Evidence, p 527 (Professor BWNinham).

101 Submission No 142, p 12 (Professor P Darvall).

182 The organisation and funding of research

in higher education

worrying in its potential consequences for Australia's research base.102

Most ARC programs include only a very small component to cover infrastructure

costs. Most of these costs must therefore be met by the universities from their

operating grants, or from funds allocated by the ARC through Mechanisms A, B

and C. The deterioration in university infrastructure identified by the Boston Group

consultants and described in Chapter 1 of this report is so significant as to

undermine the effectiveness of many ARC funded research projects. Such a

development was foreshadowed by ASTEC as early as 1987 when it warned of the

consequences of the Government's proposal to transfer resources from general

operating grants to the ARC (a warning which the Government chose not to heed).

We consider that a further reduction in these funds (through transfer to the ARC) would place an intolerable strain on the higher education research system and would eventually retard the effectiveness of the ARC itself.103

The cumulative effect on the universities (where most ARC funded research is

conducted) of inadequate infrastructure funds and the "clawback" arrangements were

described by the AVCC in 1991 as follows:

The rundown of infrastructure resulting from a period of marginal funding has caused considerable financial pressures which has been exacerbated by the redirection of funds from the operating grants of the pre-1987 universities to the ARC. While it is true that a proportion of the money redirected to the ARC eventually returns to the universities, it does so in the form of research grants which presuppose that the total infrastructure and other indirect costs will be provided by the universities.

102 Submission No 30, p 25 (Professor PW Sheehan).

103 Improving the Research Performance of Australia’s Universities and Other Higher Education Institutions, p 71, quoted in FAUSA 1989 submission to the Committee of Review o f Higher Education Research Policy, p 35.

The Australian Research Council 183

Therefore, it is not only the decrease in discretionary funds available for infrastructure purposes within the universities but also, and even more importantly, the huge increase in outside funds being obtained mostly without infrastructure, that is putting great burdens on universities.104

The Committee notes that, conversely, outside funds sometimes have flow on

benefits for the university generally, beyond those individuals and projects for which

the funding was provided. It further notes - a point raised repeatedly in evidence -

that universities are not themselves entirely blameless since they do not necessarily

allocate infrastructure funds to the projects and individuals attracting competitive

grants.

With few exceptions (generally in the Centres program), ARC grants tend to be for

relatively small amounts, awarded for relatively short periods. This is thought by

some to inhibit their effectiveness. Such a view was expressed as early as 1989 in

submissions to the Committee to Review Higher Education Research Policy.

The size of the grants being allocated by the Australian Research Council was also a concern raised in a number of submissions ... submissions argued that the grants awarded by the Australian Research Council needed to be increased in size.

A number of submissions expressed, the view that Australian Research Council grants should have greater continuity. Projects should be funded for a number of years before being reviewed ...105

This view was reiterated in this Committee's public hearings.

104 Foundations for the Clever Country, AVCC Report for the 1992-1994 Triennium, March 1991, p 30.

105 Report o f the Committee to Review Higher Education Policy, DEET, 1989, p 172.

184 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

A problem with the three-year grants we give out now is that not only are they base level but they encourage short-term work for short-term results ... what it does, since one of the criteria for getting one of the three-year project grants is what you have published, is to encourage work which is short term and publishable.106

They [the ARC] could halve the amount of work by putting out grants for six years at a time, and there is no evidence that they would be doing any worse, that they would not be getting the same objectives in the end, by choosing the best people and giving them six-year grants. They could halve the amount of problems that they have.107

The Committee acknowledges the validity of these concerns. There is a risk,

however, that the extension of grants from three to six years, while it would reduce

effort on the application process, might exacerbate the problems associated with

unsatisfactory performance.

A number of contributors to the inquiry expressed concern that the ARC focused too

much attention on the input side of its operations - the application process - and not

enough on the output - the results flowing from the projects it funded. As a result

it ran the risk of perpetuating projects or continuing to support researchers whose

work was less satisfactory than anticipated. This was unacceptable when the

consequence might be failure to fund other excellent projects. Such an approach

therefore had the potential to reduce the effectiveness of the ARC's programs.

... it is appropriate to highlight research outputs as one important area where the ARC and other funding schemes are deficient. In general, such schemes give considerable attention to the selection and grant

106 Evidence, p 285 (Professor RH Symons).

107 Evidence, p 539 (Professor AJ Gibbs).

The Austi’alian Research Council 185

allocation process but are lax in making the results of grant recipients available to other research workers.108

The Committee supports a realignment of ARC administrative resources as between

the assessment of proposals and the evaluation of the projects which are funded.

Several inquiry contributors suggested means by which these concerns might be

addressed. If adopted, they believed they would improve the ARC's effectiveness.

One way in which problems such as these could be tackled would be for the ARC to be more ready to fund established researchers on a program basis, requiring less

detailed ex ante information about specifics of their projects. If this route were followed, it should be combined with much more detailed ex post monitoring of performance. ... With more of the funds allocated on this type of program basis, the ARC would have more time to assess applications from researchers whose records are not so clear. Moreover, researchers funded on the

program basis would have powerful incentives to continue to perform well, if only to escape slipping back to a situation in which detailed project proposals are required

from them.109

It seems to me that ARC has become obsessed with inputs and it is really devoting a large number of its resources to trying to predict whether the research will be good or not, rather than effectively trying to measure outputs.110

The ARC disputed the claim that it focused on inputs at the expense of outputs.

I believe that the ability to get grants has no relevance to any ARC decision on getting grants. ... I believe that the capacity to get grants has never been a formal factor, nor,

108 Submission No 136, p 10 (Dr JA Webster).

109 Submission No 142, pp 12-13 (Professor P Darvall).

110 Evidence, p 385 (Professor PL Rossiter).

186 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

in my experience, has it been influential in decision making. I think the outputs have run much more strongly. In particular, there is a lot of emphasis on track record and publications. Outputs are weighing a lot more heavily than inputs.111

Nevertheless, the ARC is developing a set of performance indicators and an

academic research database which may, when finalised, overcome some of the

difficulties referred to above. The indicators themselves are problematic. Professor

Larkins has commented on the seven preferred indicators identified:

These indicators, with the exception of grant success, are of a bibliometric kind. Some are difficult to appraise since citation indices are not available which provide a comprehensive coverage of journals used by Australian researchers. Furthermore, none of these evaluated the quantity or quality of research training.

At this time it is not clear how the ARC would use the information contained in an academic research database for resource allocation.112

The Committee heard a number of unfavourable comments about the membership

of the ARC panels and their perceived adverse impact upon the effective functioning

of ARC programs, although serving panel members disputed this. In Western

Australia it was claimed, but not demonstrated, that the failure to appoint any

Western Australians to ARC panels reduced the success rates for Western Australian

grant applicants.

... it has become clear that the personnel on these [ARC] committees are resources to their home states and home institutions because of their specialised knowledge of the operation of ARC ... Therefore, we feel it is important

111 Evidence, p 677 (Professor PWSheehan).

112 Larkins, Professor Frank, Research and the dilemma of frustrated expectations, Campus Review. October 7-13, 1993, p 8.

The Australian Research Council 187

that state membership levels are considered as a factor in the overall make-up of ARC committees.113

... I was surprised to find that Western Australia was not represented on the ARC panels, but this could explain the lack of attention to issues emerging from Perth and the lack of response to issues important to Murdoch University.114

Other witnesses argued for more transparent appointment procedures, greater

turnover in ARC membership and a panel structure more representative of the range

of institutions in the UNS.

I believe that there should be a more transparent system for the appointment of selection panels in the Australian Research Council. At this stage, it may be transparent to a lot of people who are already in the game or who are or have been on the panels, but for the newer universities it

is not entirely transparent. I think how people get on to the selection panels should be clearer because, clearly, who gets on them influences the distribution.115

A review of the panel structure is 1993 shows that 40% of the panel members were drawn from four universities, more than 20 universities were unrepresented and less than 15% of the panel members were women.116

The Committee recommends that, in order to address concerns about the representativeness of discipline panels, the ARC seek an independent assessment of its appointment procedures for members of these panels.

113 Evidence, p 179 (Dr JS Bradley).

114 Evidence, pp 162-63 (Mr R Jansen).

115 Evidence, p 650 (DR JG Bailey).

116 Submission No 173, p 3 (Mr RF Davis).

188 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

Other factors considered to undermine the effectiveness of the ARC's programs and

practices have been discussed at length elsewhere in this report and will not be

considered here. They include:

. perceived bias in the ARC against humanities, social sciences and applied

science;

. its perceived bias against the pre-1987 universities;

. its inadequate support for young and for female researchers;

. its focus on 'safe' science at the expense of innovative, new or

interdisciplinary projects; and

. its increasing emphasis on national priorities, with a concomitant move

towards more directed research.

The establishment of the ARC as an advisory council of NBEET was intended to

provide the ARC with greater independence than would be possible were it required

to report directly to DEBT, and thence to the Minister (although in fact it does

provide advice directly to the Minister on the allocation of funds). Some inquiry

participants have argued however that the present arrangements, whereby the ARC

is dependent for administrative support on both NBEET and DEBT, are

cumbersome, confusing and restrictive.

The problem that arises from that lack of resources is exacerbated by the rather peculiar arrangements through which administrative support is provided to the Research Council. It is provided from two sources: firstly, the national board's secretariat; and secondly, from the department from the higher education division - in particular, from the research branch. That split of

The Australian Research Council 189

responsibilities has led to some considerable difficulties in the provision of support to the Research Council.117

The respective roles of DEBT and ARC have at times been confused. For example, when making enquiries concerning ARC, we speak with DEBT staff. With

absolutely no intention of impugning the quality of DEBT staff, we believe that the roles of DEBT and ARC should be clarified, and that perhaps ARC should have its own secretariat, providing that this is not at the expense of research funds.118

Other witnesses considered that the location of the ARC within NBEET narrowed

its focus to research in higher education, rather than encompassing the full range

of research undertaken nation wide.

... there is a need for independent advice, which takes account of the full interactions of industry, government research organizations and higher education, to be provided to government. The combined input of

NH&MRC and ARC might achieve this but this does not now occur and probably requires structural change.119

... the ARC should take a wider view of its research policy advice role. At the moment the ARC is in a back pocket of the NBEET structure and its advice on research policy is very largely restricted to the higher education area, and very largely restricted to stuff which gets fed in through NBEET.120

The ARC acknowledged the validity of these views. Professor Brennan stated during

public hearings:

117 Evidence, p 479 (Professor MH Brennan).

118 Submission No 33, p 8 (Professor TC Dixon).

119 Submission No 55, p 6 (Professor G Brown).

120 Evidence, p 247 (Professor G Brown).

190 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

The main point we would make is that the location of a research council under the umbrella of a body like the National Board of Employment, Education and Training is to emphasise linkages within the portfolio which are less important than linkages outside.121

Most concern about the relationship of the ARC with government and with the

higher education sector focused on the ARC's perceived lack of independence. The

following extracts are typical of concerns raised with the Senate Committee on this

issue and suggested remedies.

Currently, the Chair of the ARC, Professor Max Brennan, reports to the Minister through a number of

intermediaries, including NBEET. A more effective system, in my view, would provide for the ARC and its Chair to report directly to the Minister, and that its administrative staff be appointed to the ARC as a separate element within DEBT.122

What we certainly would like to see is a structure with more independence, that has more esprit de corps, and that worked not simply as a poor Cinderella of a Public

Service department.123 1 2 4

... one cannot ignore the present plight of the offspring of a formerly respected institution (the original ARGC). By all accounts, the ARC is currently hamstrung by bureaucratic incompetence within its "keeper" department, has been overwhelmed by the increase of research grant applications since UNS, and because it has no independent policy backbone, it is subject to direct bureaucratic and political interference. This is a parlous situation, against the national interest. Nothing short of a complete overhaul of ARC structure, policy and procedures will retrieve the situation.1 4

121 Evidence, p 481 (Professor MH Brennan).

122 Submission No 17, p 4 (Professor PS Holmes).

123 Evidence, p 566 (Professor JR Green).

124 Submission No 65, p 15 (Professor CB Osmond).

The Australian Research Council 191

The potential for political domination was thought to be exacerbated by the highly

centralised nature of current arrangements.

In our view, the ARC should represent the needs of the research communities to the Minister to the same extent that it represents the Minister's policies to the research communities.125

There are a number of other problems related to funding management by the ARC ... However, the fundamental problem is that centralized Research Councils are open to direct political intervention.126

To overcome the difficulties generally acknowledged to exist with current

arrangements, many inquiry participants including, for example, the Australian

Academy of Science127 and Professor CB Osmond128, advocated that the ARC

be reconstituted as an independent statutory body. The benefits of such an

arrangement are summarised in the following quotation.

The ARC established in this fashion would have the responsibility for providing advice to the Minister on a wide range of matters related to national research priorities and the coordination of research policy, and would be better able to achieve coordination between its various programs. At the same time, it would occupy, and be seen to occupy, a position somewhat more distant from

Government than that allowed by the current arrangement of reporting through the National Board of Employment Education and Training. At the same time, its accountability would be in no way diminished.129

125 Maximising Potential: Research in Australian Higher Education, FAUSA submission to the Committee o f Review o f Higher Education Research Policy, February 1989, p 44.

126 Submission No 48, p 8 (Professor DR Curtis).

127 Submission No 128.

128 Submission No 65.

129 Submission No 151, p 2 (Professor D Siddle).

192 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

ARC representatives appearing before the Committee also supported the

reconstitution of the Council as an independent statutory authority, acknowledging

the problems with existing arrangements referred to by other witnesses.

The ARC, reconstituted in this way, would be required to develop and review strategic plans, report to Parliament, consult widely with interested bodies and the community and generally be subjected to a high level of

accountability as exists in the present system. Instead of reporting through the National Board to the Minister, the Council would provide information and advice directly to the Minister on matters related to national research priorities, on a wide range of research funding schemes, and on the coordination of research policy.

Such reporting procedures, together with a single line appropriation, would provide the desirable flexibility in terms of both the allocation and administration of funds. This would enable the Council to channel funds according to emerging needs. It would overcome possible fragmentation of ARC functions ... and could achieve appropriate complementarity between the different types of support.130

The Committee observes that arm's length decision making, where a body is not

directly responsible to a Minister, has advantages as well as disadvantages. It also

notes that separating the ARC from NBEET (which links it to policy making in

employment, TAPE and other areas of the DEBT portfolio) would not necessarily

broaden its focus, as suggested in the evidence supporting such a move. Nor would

it necessarily increase the resources at its disposal.

Other commentators have opposed such a development although their views were

not prominent among those presented to the Senate Committee. The National

Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), for example, according to reports of its

submission to the current NBEET review, opposes the establishment of the ARC as

130 Submission No 148, pp 1-2 (Professor PW Sheehan).

The Australian Research Council 193

an independent statutory authority because this would result in separate

consideration of research and teaching issues in the higher education sector.

Any moves to allow the Australian Research Council (ARC) to become a statutory authority separate from the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) could facilitate the introduction of a new binary divide between teaching-only and research-only

institutions.

That is the view of the National Tertiary Education Union contained in its submission to the current NBEET review.

The NTEU strongly opposes any such move saying it would reduce the role of the Higher Education Council to that of a body concerned with teaching alone and would reduce overall co-ordination of the higher education sector.

It argues that one of the most distinctive features of the higher education sector is the teaching and research nexus. And should the ARC become a statutory authority there would be no mechanism for achieving policy

coordination which reflected this link.

"The very complexity of the higher education sector demands an integrated approach, which is currently provided by the relationship between the ARC, the HEC and the board overall".131

The NTEU acknowledged in its NBEET submission that the ARC faced a number

of administrative problems. It did not consider however that these would be resolved

through establishment of the ARC as an independent body.

It [the NTEU] also acknowledges that the ARC experiences particular administrative problems through its responsibility for research grant recommendations.

131 Illing, Dorothy, 'NTEU takes stand against statutory ARC', Campus Review. Vol 4 No 3, January 271994, p 6.

194 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

But it says these problems are part of the wider problems of the NBEET concerning its level of resources and its relationship to the department. It believes these problems are unlikely to be solved by making the ARC a statutory authority.132

The National Board of Employment, Education and Training is also reported as

opposing the establishment of the ARC as an independent authority, as does the

AVCC.

Certainly the AVCC ... is likely to support the

continuation of NBEET and an ARC integrated in NBEET. I do not believe the AVCC would support an ARC that is independent of either the education portfolio or the NBEET structure. So we will be wanting to continue that push for interaction there.133

A small number of submissions to the Senate Committee favoured greater

independence for the ARC but opposed its total independence as a statutory body.

A joint submission from most of the big eight universities adopted this position.

The ARC should remain linked to DEBT with responsibility for its own program delivery. A close relationship with the Higher Education Council or its successor must be maintained.134

The Committee concluded that concerns in the research community about the

potential for government domination of the ARC were not sufficiently well founded

as to warrant a reassessment of its establishment as a council of NBEET.

132 Ibid, p 6.

133 Evidence, p 452 (Mr J Mullarvey).

134 Submission No 157, p 5 (Professor CJD Fell).

The Australian Research Council 195

The efficiency of the ARC's processes and practices

It is evident from the views expressed during this inquiry that there is widespread

concern in the research community about the perceived inefficiency of the ARC's

operations and its declining ability to meet increased demands upon the programs

for which it is responsible. Criticisms were rarely directed at individual ARC

members, discipline panels or committees but rather pointed to the impossibility of

their task given their inadequate financial and administrative support and their

increasing responsibilities. The following excerpts are typical of the views provided

to the Senate Committee on this issue, on which there appeared to be unanimity

among inquiry participants.

There are two particular problems with the ARC system. First, the total funds available to the system are too low to support any rational basis for the distribution of funds.

Second, the administrative support for the ARC is so low that the system cannot function properly.w r>

... it appears that funds available to service program delivery by ARC are precariously low. In particular, the current Large Grant Round has almost broken down and has caused exceptional disruption and cost to the

University. This contrasts markedly with the smooth operation of (the better resourced) NH&MRC. It must be emphasized that this is a severe criticism of the administrative support of ARC and not of ARC itself.1 3 5 136

These views were shared by ARC members.

From my recent experiences as an ARC panel member, I can attest that the level of administrative support to the

135 Submission No 27, p 9 (Professor PA Hamilton and Ms A Had field).

136 Submission No 55, p 6 (Professor G Brown).

196 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

grant-review process is grossly inadequate and requires very significant upgrading.137

While inquiry participants were keen to ensure that funds for research were not

squandered on administration, there was general (but not unanimous) agreement

that the ARC had moved too far in the other direction and that the research effort

itself was now being undermined by poor administration, which they saw as one

consequence of the ARC'S inadequate administrative budget. A number of witnesses

commented that the proportion of funds allocated to administration was significantly

lower in Australia than in other comparable countries. One suggested that it was 1.4

per cent here, compared with 4-9 per cent overseas138 and another that it was

about one-third of the level available to comparable agencies overseas.139

The administrative budget, as a proportion of the total ARC funds, is amongst the lowest of any similar granting agency in the world. This is no cause for satisfaction if the essential task of assessing and administering grants

is placed at risk.140

A minority of Senate Committee witnesses considered that ARC administrative

processes were expensive and cumbersome. They inferred that, in these

circumstances, an increase in funds for administration could not be justified. The

following excerpts illustrate this point of view.

My biggest criticism of ARC is that it is clumsy; it takes so long to go from application to the end of the research ... I do not know how much it costs to organise but I have

137 Submission No 14, p 1 (Professor RH Crozier).

138 Evidence, p 91 (Professor JM Howell).

139 Evidence, p 479 (Professor MHBrennan).

140 Submission No 98, p 6 (Dr ES Dennis).

The Australian Research Council 197

wondered if some of the money might not be better spent on research rather than ARC meetings.141

With a one in five chance of receiving a grant the universities invest ... 160 hours for each successful grant.142

Inadequate backup from DEBT was frequently referred to and widely condemned.

It was seen as a major contributor to the ARC's inefficient performance of its

functions. Witnesses described the relevant DEBT area, the Research Branch, as

being "woefully under-resourced",143 1 4 4 resulting in "very poor performance, in a large

number of errors being made, and in the whole procedural side of the ARC really

crumbling ...1,144

Others referred to the low priority afforded to the Research Branch both in terms

of the allocation of experienced staff145 and in the allocation of resources and

facilities, with the result that:

International best management practices are not being followed and when the deficiencies are combined with low success rates for project grants and fellowships there is an unease in the academic community and a ready tendency to blame the peer review system rather than its

implementation.146

A number of inquiry participants suggested that, as many of the ARC's

administrative problems stemmed from its reliance upon DEBT for funding and

141 Submission No 81, p 9 (Mr D Boyd).

142 Submission No 63, p 12 (Professor B Luther-Davies).

143 Submission No 64, p 1 (Professor BES Gunning).

144 Evidence, pp 5-6 (Professor PA Hamilton).

145 Submission No 17, p 4 (Professor RS Holmes).

146 Submission No 98, p 6 (Dr ES Dennis).

198 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

other support, its efficiency would be improved if it were established as an

independent body in control of its own funding and support. At the very least the

current unsatisfactory situation in which the ARC is dependent upon support

provided from two separate sources - the NBEET Secretariat and the Research

Branch of DEBT - should be changed. The benefits resulting from the ARC's

separation from DEBT would complement the increase in political independence

consequent upon such a separation, which was discussed earlier in this Chapter.

The [ARC] secretariat supplied by DEBT and the Chairman of the ARC has no role in the disbursement of DEETs budget for this supporting activity.

This dichotomy of responsibility needs to be redressed so the ARC has control over the funding of the support staff and the associated office infrastructure.147

... The executive should be able to manage its own administration ... Then the dichotomy that I have mentioned in my submission would be done away with. The two parts would become one, and that would make for greater efficiency and effectiveness.148

The ARC itself favoured such an approach.

We have argued in our submission to you ... that the Research Council should be a freestanding agency, complete with its full secretariat support. If that does not occur, and the Research Council stays within a structure like the national board, then we would argue very strongly that we should have sufficient administrative resources provided through the secretariat so that we can go about our day-to-day business of selection processes and evaluation with a single source of administration rather than two.149

147 Submission No 113, p 2 (Professor BA Stone).

148 Evidence, pp 406-07 (Professor BA Stone).

149 Evidence, p 479 (Professor MH Brennan).

The Australian Research Council 199

Failure to increase administrative funds or support in line with the growth in

demand for ARC programs has increased the workload of ARC assessors. Evidence

to the Committee suggested that pressure on individual ARC assessors was now so

great as to jeopardise the effective operation of the peer review process. This issue

was discussed earlier in this Chapter.

The following extracts are limited to consideration of the additional burden imposed

on assessors through inadequate financial and administrative support.

This government strongly advocates the user-pays system for all services. This certainly does not operate with respect to the ARC panels that run mainly on the free (and substantial) time donation of members. They are paid travel expenses and sitting fees when actually in

session, but the unpaid time would commonly exceed six weeks per year.1 0

There is not sufficient secretarial assistance, and that makes for errors and makes the job of the academics quite onerous. It is quite an onerous job when you are running other things back in your university. We do need that. That is a minimum sort of support. It has not been

forthcoming, and there does not seem to be a culture in the present department to do that; ,..1 5 0 151

One of the problems at the moment is that, first of all, the workload on the person or persons on the ARC subject committees is really enormous.

The infrastructure support there, incidentally, is just appalling. ... It follows, therefore, that because of those workloads and for other reasons there can be rather little communication, or at least not as much communication between panels as there ought to be.152

150 Submission No 43, p 1 (Professor S Y O’Reilly).

151 Evidence, p 407 (Professor BA Stone).

152 Evidence, p 278 (Professor 01 Gaudry).

200 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

One consequence of the increased pressure upon the ARC and its reduced capacity

to respond was its decision, in 1993, to abandon the interview component of the

application process. The deleterious consequences of this decision were discussed

earlier in this Chapter.

The Committee accepts the view of the research community that financial and

administrative support for the ARC is now so inadequate as to undermine the

efficiency of its operations. It further accepts that the current anomalous position

of the ARC - dependent for support upon the NBEET Secretariat and upon DEBT

- has worked to the Council's disadvantage.

The Committee recommends that:

(a) the ARC remain within the NBEET framework, but that it control its own administrative budget;

(b) the administrative resources and personnel currently supporting the ARC, but located within DEBT and NBEET, be brought together as a dedicated secretariat under the ARC's direct control; and

(c) at times of peak grant-processing activity, the ARC be able to call upon additional support from DEBT as needed.

C h a p t e r 5

Links between industry and universities

Background to existing initiatives

Since well before the introduction of the UNS, it has been an aim of government to

achieve more productive links between universities and industry. Successive

governments have introduced a range of policy initiatives to encourage closer

research ties which would serve the needs of industry while stimulating and

supporting university research activity. The 1988 Policy Statement on Higher

Education explicitly sought a more influential role in that sector for industry.1

In the area of research, the Government reiterates its view that greater collaboration should occur between industry and higher education. ...

The links between basic research and the application of research findings to new technologies are becoming closer, thus diminishing the perception that the research activity carried out in higher education institutions is too remote from practical applications to be of interest to industry ...

This is not to suggest that industry has a narrow utilitarian view of higher education and its role in teaching and research. Whatever their field of study, all graduates can contribute to the process of improving industry performance, and this is now much more widely recognised.2

Closer links between researchers and users of research have been stressed in

subsequent Science and Technology Statements, and in the commitment to the

1 The Hon JS Dawkins MP, Higher Education: A Policy Statement, 1988.

2 Ibid, 1988 AGPS Canberra, p 67.

202 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

"Clever Country". Specific initiatives in these Statements cut across many portfolio

areas - industry, primary industry, health, defence and higher education. Significant

amongst these formal, structured mechanisms are:

. the Grants for Industry Research and Development (GIRD)

. the 150% research and development tax concession

. energy research through the National Energy Research

Development and Demonstration Council

. Rural Industry Research Funds

. the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) program based on

matching resources from government and participants

. a 30% external funding target for agencies such as CSIRO,

Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the Australian

Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)

. Special Research Centres

. Key Centres for Teaching and Research

In the higher education arena, other specific policy initiatives to support industry

collaboration on research (administered through the ARC) are:

. Collaborative Research Grants

Links between industry and universities 203

. the Australian Postgraduate Research Awards (Industry)

. the Australian Research Fellowships (Industry)

These programs are designed to encourage the concentration of dedicated research

funds - both industry's and government's - in university departments which have

elected to build up expertise in specific areas. This has occurred in the context of a

broader research funding environment which is itself increasingly competitive, with

a relatively greater proportion of Commonwealth grants flowing to specific research

projects than to generic research infrastructure support.

The Committee received several submissions which commented upon the operation

and adequacy of government policies aimed at improving links between universities

and industry. The Committee has also drawn upon the reports of a number of past

inquiries dealing with university-industry links, notably those produced under the

auspices of ASTEC and NBEET. Currently, the Industry Commission is conducting

an inquiry into Australia's industrial research and development, and will report in

March 1995. The terms of reference are much broader than those of the Senate

Inquiry and cover the effect of research activities on innovation, economic growth,

industry competitiveness, and the efficiency and effectiveness of programs

influencing research development and innovation. (See Appendix 3)

The pattern of links between industiy and universities

Universities, as autonomous institutions, develop their own special relationships

with industry at regional, national and international levels. These connections

operate in a variety of ways, including fee-for-service consultancies, partnerships

with industry in sponsored research projects and joint supervision of postgraduate

students. Industry-university research links are confined almost exclusively to

science and engineering departments. The social sciences and humanities have, with

204 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

a few notable exceptions, lacked any strong research connections with business and

industry. With the rapid expansion of the service industries, both within Australia

and for export, much stronger research links may be forged.

An interesting feature of the pattern of university-industry links is the way in which

former college sector institutions have consolidated earlier relationships with

business and industry and developed new ones within the UNS. Because the

Commonwealth did not allocate research grants to the CAEs and Institutes of

Technology before the UNS, they tended to participate in practical research projects

with industry. For example, in 1988, private enterprise funded 16% of CAE/Institute

of Technology research - which represented over 30% of all such contributions to

higher education research. This compares with 3% private sector funding for higher

education institutions as a whole.3 The research objectives of the former college

sector were more commercially oriented, with the smaller institutions tending to

focus on regional matters. This orientation appears to have followed the CAEs and

Institutes of Technology into the UNS.

Another small but notable feature of the pattern of industry-university relationships

involves universities and rural research and development corporations (RDCs).

These are commercially-oriented statutory organisations which have management

and strategic planning functions for research in their particular industry sector.

They control large research budgets and support research, across the basic - applied

spectrum, through a mixed program of commissioned research, postgraduate

scholarships and joint venturing.4 The Committee received a number of

submissions from these corporations discussing not only the type of the research

supported by them, and commenting on the nature of their relationships with

universities - a matter taken up in more detail later in this chapter.

3 DEET, National Report on Australia's Higher Education Sector, AGPS, 1992, p 267.

4 See for example Submissions 163-166.

Links between industry and universities 205

All governments have tended to encourage industry involvement in university

research, and their policies have usually proven to be a useful catalyst for initiatives

which might not otherwise have occurred:

[Ajround the main groups ... of industry-university links, a series of shadow groups were emerging ... and there were relationships between individuals that would not otherwise have come into the industry area except for a major project or a large-scale program that had been

either funded by industry or jointly with government and industry.5

At the Commonwealth level, such policies have influenced major players in the

research funding game, including the Australian Research Council. Professor Max

Brennan, Chairman of the ARC, outlined the ARC's contribution to enhancing the

industry-university nexus:

We [the ARC] have also over the past three to four years given increasing emphasis, although it is still a minor component of the total activity, to encouraging linkages

between universities and industry and other users of research and employers.

We have done that because we see the need to strengthen the vehicle for the deliveiy of the benefits that we have identified, through stronger individual linkages between research as an institution in universities and industry ...6

While formal mechanisms for industry-university interaction and a supportive

funding environment are both necessary preconditions for success, they are not, in

themselves, sufficient:

5 Evidence, p 699 (Professor TR Turpin).

6 Evidence, p 475 (Professor M H Brennan).

206 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

Industry-university links tend to be formed and maintained as a complex web of relationships rather than as a sequential chain of contacts.7

Commercial arms or institutional representatives of universities are of greatest use to university-industry links when their role supports rather than drives them.8

One of the most important factors in successful relationships is having a key

researcher to act as mediator at the industry-university interface.9 For this reason:

... individual universities seeking to develop a stronger industrial research base should identify key researchers within their institutions, who have worked successfully with industry, and explore ways to support them in the capacity of industry research 'mentors' across a range of appropriate research areas.10

Given the constraints on public funds available to researchers, and in particular the

pressure on research infrastructure, it is hardly surprising that industry-linked

projects should emerge as a complementary resource. However, the competition

thereby engendered between universities has bemused some of their potential

partners:

[Ijndustrial people ... became rather confused because they found universities competing with each other rather than forming strategic consortia which at times they could easily have done.11

7 NBEET, Crossing Innovation Boundaries: The formation and maintenance of research links between industry and universities in Australia, Vol 1, 1993, pxvi.

8 Ibid, pxxii.

9 Ibid, pxxi.

10 Ibid, p xxiii.

11 Evidence, p 703 (Professor TR Turpin).

Links between industry and universities 207

One researcher argued that the competitiveness of industry schemes, such as the

CRCs and GIRD, resulted in a culture of competitiveness between institutions which

fragmented the national research effort. Such schemes should provide incentives for

people to network more effectively rather than compete unproductively.12 1 3

Another commented that while universities are recognising the benefits of

cooperating with industry, cooperation with each other has been neglected:

The universities do tend to operate as single institutions and the links, even within regions, do tend to operate in isolation. We would like to see more sharing of facilities, more sharing of expertise, more joint research programs, more joint supervisions, and so forth.18

Some universities have developed and maintained links with industry which are

productive and which meet industry's needs without compromising the ability of

universities to carry out their main function of teaching and producing quality

graduates.

For postgraduate students with an interest in applied research, the advantages of such industry involvement include exposure to on-site problems of individual companies, interaction with highly-qualified personnel, and an appreciation of the varying demands of universities and industry and access to industry-funded support.14

The graduates create a natural link between higher education and industry as they

move from their home institutions to take up positions in private enterprise. It was

suggested by the Postgraduate Students Association University of Western Australia

that links with industry could be improved if part-time postgraduate awards were

12 Evidence, p 384 (Professor PL Rossiter).

13 Evidence, p 114 (Professor J Ross).

14 Submission No 141, p 4 (Professor JFG Wallace).

208 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

introduced. Part-time students often have the advantage of already being in the

workforce, and knowing their own industry. 15

The Committee acknowledges that, at its best, university-industry cooperation

enriches the intellectual environment and enhances the professional outcomes of all

concerned. It is important, however, that a balance be maintained between the

universities' own work and it's involvement in industry-related projects. This issue

is discussed in more detail latter in this chapter.

Attitudes of the major parties to joint industry-university research

The attitudes o f the universities

It appears that many of the research arrangements between universities and

industry are most satisfactory. The general attitude of the higher education sector

is reflected in the AVCC support for the establishment and maintenance of links

with industry - albeit with an important reservation:

The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee is committed to enhancing links between university researchers and industry. It is looking at numbers of ways of doing that and of increasing the emphasis on applied research, looking for a kind of conjoint approach to the appointments of researchers in universities, to ensure that there is ready movement back and forth between universities and industry. It supports industry-linked research projects and industry-linked research scholarships, and it is looking for ways to make the research infrastructure of the Australian higher education system more readily available to, and amenable to, the needs of industry.

15 Evidence pp 164-165 (Mr. A. Sudnkis).

Links between industry and universities 209

Nevertheless, it is important to understand that a direct service to industry is not the raison d'etre of research in universities. It is not the single litmus test of their research effectiveness.16

Universities see themselves as constituting the primary training ground for those

who undertake research and development in the private sector. Indeed, the recent

NBEET report on the formation and maintenance of links between industry and

universities concluded:

The most important role of universities within the national innovation system is in providing broad support for the national knowledge base and developing skilled personnel attuned to innovation needs.17

The primacy of the training role of universities in producing high quality

researchers has been emphasised in higher education policy and was reiterated in

evidence to the Committee:

Not the only function, but the key thing that universities can do — that no other research institutions in Australia can do to anything like the same extent — is to mediate very high level, high quality, research training, to ensure

future generations of Australian researchers...

It...cannot be undertaken outside higher education, and it is absolutely critical that Australia is afforded a continuing supply of international calibre researchers.18

(Notwithstanding the universities' key training role, other organisations - such as

the CSIRO and some private companies - also contribute to research training.)

16 Evidence, p 446 (Professor AD Gilbert).

17 NBEET, Crossing Innovation Boundaries: The formation and maintenance of research links between industry and universities in Australia, Vol 1, 1993, AGPS, pxix.

18 Evidence, pp 446-447 (Professor AD Gilbert).

210 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

The Committee heard numerous positive reports from individual universities about

the beneficial nature of partnerships with industry both to them and to the UNS as

a whole. Swinburne, for example, favoured greater ARC funding for collaborative

research and for scholarships with industry contributions. Swinburne also suggested

that DITARD schemes should encompass smaller-scale initiatives, and afford greater

recognition to emerging areas.19

RMIT highlighted the value of cooperative activities and of including external

industry members on research committees.20

Some universities, such as the University of South Australia, have developed explicit

external activities policies which are written into research management plans and

other strategic planning documents.21

Doubt was expressed by some university participants about whether universities

were adequately equipped to be effective partners in industry joint ventures. Both

the universities' research infrastructure and their management style can be

problematic. Industry partnerships may be tempting, but for university research

managers other considerations arise:

People in the commercial sector do want staff of the university to work with them and collaborate with them on an individual basis and also in the development of CRCs, mechanism C projects and so on, but it impinges on space; it impinges on staff time; ... we will do our best to support another CRC in the university but it impinges on resources and they are not considerations that you take lightly. My belief is that if there were a better

19 Submission No 141, p 4 (Professor JG Wallace).

20 Evidence, p 379 (Professor D Pugh).

21 Evidence, pp 201-202 (Professor D Bradley).

Links between industry and universities 211

infrastructure we would be in a position to take on more contracts and grants from industry.22

Notwithstanding universities' general support for involvement with industry, the

Committee received some specific complaints from academics about industry’s

shortcomings. For example, it was claimed that sometimes companies did not want

to pay for product research to be carried out by the university, believing it could be

done as a research project for nothing.23 On the other hand, industry reluctance to

invest in joint research may reflect doubts about getting value for money:

I think the fundamental problem is in getting industry to have confidence in the [university] researchers giving them a product that is worth paying for. That is really the bottom line.24

Occasionally the Committee detected amongst academics a note of cynicism about

the alleged advantages of university industry links:

Industry does not contribute its share to funding research and development and will never do so. Pursuit of industry funding via the Government occupies a major part of the time of scientist supposed to be doing research with the result that they are thereby rendered unproductive. Those few who are successful in attracting funding spend more time on technical, management, performance and liaison meetings and the writing of useless reports. 25

It was also argued by academics that many industries did not appreciate the long

time frame often required for research and so became discouraged:

22 Evidence, p 92 (Professor JM Howell, Murdoch).

23 Evidence, p 395 (Professor JR Pilbrow).

24 Evidence, p 48 (Professor RR Large).

25 Submission No. 62, p 13 (Professor B. Ninham).

212 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

... if [industry] is going to do something, it will do it fairly quickly so that it gets a reasonable return. You know that risk capital in Australia is scarce, except on a Saturday afternoon when the horses are running. Industry is looking for a quick return...It does not want to invest in something that is going to give a return in 10 years time. So the lead time is one very important

thing.26

A perceived reluctance by industry to look at the long term, although wide spread,

was by no means universal. The University of South Australia, for example, reported

as follows:

Industry comes to and sees us as being the institution that can help them with their medium-term and long­ term objectives rather than short-term ones.27

It appears, however, that this tendency to focus on the short lead times remains a

problem for Australian university-industry partnerships. This contrasts with the

situation in, say, Japan, where a twenty five year time horizon is not uncommon.28

The attitudes o f industry

The Committee could not discern a common industry perspective on research

relationships with universities. There have been some highly successful links, for

example, through the Cooperative Research Centre program. These will be discussed

later in this chapter. Likewise, some individual companies and industrial R&D

corporations have long standing and substantial research arrangements with specific

universities. The following is representative of the advice given to the Committee by

26 Evidence, p 625 (Professor PH Jones).

27 Evidence, p 216 (Professor D Bradley).

28 Evidence, p 626 (Professor WL Hogarth).

Links between industry and universities 213

industry-based groups, and reflects the range of industry attitudes towards

university involvement:

... the [Grains Research and Development] Corporation experiences no difficulties in establishing links with higher education institutions and, indeed, is pro-active in

expanding those links...29

Usually...university personnel are actively involved in research of a more long term and basic nature. Given that the "big" opportunities for R&D in Australian

industry resides in utilising existing technology and "fine tuning" it to current problems and opportunities, this often excludes university personnel.

... It is suggested that a useful resolution to this problem would be for higher education research funding agencies to define priority programs which align with both medium term and longer term industry priorities...30

The [Fisheries Research and Development Corporation] view is that generally higher education institutes have not been good at identifying R&D priorities, and communicating with potential R&D beneficiaries before,

during and after research.31

Again, antiquated infrastructure is a problem:

The other fairly important thing is where universities are not well equipped to undertake... research using state of the art equipment... I would say that...the poor equipment usually associated with universities...discourage[s]

industries.32

29 Submission No 167, p 5 (Professor J Lovett).

30 Submission No 165, p 2 (Mr PE Donnelly).

31 Submission No 164, p 1 (Mr P Dundas-Smith).

32 Evidence, pp 625-626 (Professor PH Jones).

214 The organisation and funding of research

in higher education

Another factor which is regarded as an inhibitor of interaction with industry is the

allegedly small number of Commonwealth grants allocated through existing schemes.

Often, potential collaborators will put a major effort into developingjoint proposals,

only to find that a relatively small percentage of requests are funded. This is seen,

particularly by industry, as a waste of effort and time.33 It was submitted that the

DITARD approach to funding collaborative ventures was a better model for

university-industry proposals:

Rather than asking people to develop the full-blooded proposal, an expression of interest is the first step; and that expression of interest is limited to just a few pages... That expression of interest is then refereed and, if it is considered worthwhile pursuing, then it is developed into a full application. That has a much higher success rate... you circumvent a lot of the wasted effort.34

The Sugar Research and Development Corporation pointed to a lack of long term

dedicated researchers at universities, resulting in somewhat disjointed research

activity. It also claimed some difficulty in locating particular expertise within the

university system with which links might be established.35 The Corporation,

however, remained keen to foster links with universities because it recognised that

such relationships were valuable in developing adequately trained personnel to meet

the future needs of the sugar industry.36

33 Evidence, p 49 (Professor PR Haddad).

34 Evidence, p 49 (Professor PR Haddad).

35 Submission No 169, p 2 (Mr ES Wallis).

36 Ibid, p 2.

Links between industry and universities 215

Suggestions for improvement

It was put to the Committee that universities ought to devote more energy to

showing companies how they can benefit from the knowledge available in this

country - possibly through an extension service run out of university

departments.37

[Companies] need to be driven by understanding that there is a future that they could exploit, that they could get into and develop, and that the sort of research and development which they need comes from a very wide range, not just from engineering or science, but from the humanities and elsewhere. If they want to understand the overseas markets in which they have to develop, if

they want to understand the cultures that they are to deal with, then universities have a lot to offer in almost every area.38

One suggestion for encouraging an industry orientation amongst academics was to

allow them scheduled time off to pursue industry links. This may require

universities to re-organise teaching schedules to release blocks of time for

researchers to pursue industry research links.39 The University of South Australia,

for example, acknowledges the need for academics to have time to make contacts

with industry and has an explicit policy which allows academics one day per week

free on full pay to undertake consultancy activities with industry.40 Moreover

promotional criteria now recognise the contribution the academic has made to

external collaborations and community interactions.41

37 Evidence, pp 396-397 (Professor PL Rossiter).

38 Evidence, pp 434-435 (Professor DG Penington).

39 Submission No 163, p 3 (Dr P Price).

40 Evidence, p 217 (Dr M Hochman).

Evidence, p 217 (Dr M Hochman). 41

216 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

A similar procedure was advocated by NBEET. It recommended that:

Universities should pay attention to freeing up impediments to university-industry personnel flows such as those caused by time-table rigidities, offering career incentives for industrial experience and institutional support for mobility (Recommendation 5)42

The ARC should consider introducing as one of the funding criteria for collaborative grants, the amount of time previously spent and proposed to be spent by university applicants working in an industrial environment (Recommendation 6).43

Performance indicators taken into account in the allocation of government infrastructure funding should reflect the importance of regular interaction between university and industry sectors (Recommendation 7).44

Researchers could be encouraged to cooperate with industry if academic promotion

were influenced by "technological success and contribution to industry".45 One

submission claimed that there really was no incentive for academics to spend

sabbaticals in an industry environment:

[Universities give [sabbatical leave] to you to go and do something productive for yourself and the university. So you had better be productive. If you came back and said to me...'Well, I went and worked for ICI for a year but I

cannot tell you what we did; it is patent number such and such and it is all confidential', I guess I would have

42 NBEET, Crossing Innovation Boundaries: The formation and maintenance of links between industry and universities in Australia, Vol 1, AGPS, 1993, pxxiv.

43 Ibid, pxxiv.

44 Ibid, p xxiv.

45 Submission No 150, p 2 (Mr M Chaikin).

Links between industry and universities 217

to trust you, but I would like to see something. That is my point about reward structures.46

The Committee accepts the view that, if industry liaison is to be successful, it

requires a commitment of time and energy which may be legitimately provided for

in the duties and work schedules of academics. However, such a provision should

target those academics who have a proven interest in, and capacity for, developing

industry relationships - people who can be identified as those "key researchers/

mentors" described earlier.

The commercialisation of research

The need to improve Australia's disappointing performance in the commercialisation

of university research was noted by the Smith Committee (1989)47 and by ASTEC

(1991).48 ASTEC suggested the establishment of a dedicated technology transfer

organisation for the purpose and provided options for three possible organisational

structures through which it might be achieved.49

While the 150% tax concession for industrial research and development seems to

have been useful - at least to some small to medium sized businesses - it appears

that many of the other schemes for nurturing industry-based research support fail

to meet the particular requirements of small business. Again, the Smith Committee

observed that small-medium businesses did not understand how research could assist

them to diversify or improve their products and processes. As a consequence, they

46 Evidence, p 715 (Professor R J Arculus).

47 Committee to Review Higher Education Research Policy 1989, p 157.

48 ASTEC, Research and Technology: Future Directions, AGPS, Canberra, 1991.

Ibid, p 51. 49

218 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

were unaware of the possible benefits they could derive from interaction with

university researchers.

Even where the research relations with universities were satisfactory, industry's

expectations concerning the next stage of the process may prove problematic. For

example, the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation

claimed that a significant barrier to effective university-industry links was the

failure by university researchers to recognise that:

... R&D is only one component, albeit an important one, in the innovation process. Recent experience in Australia should have made it abundantly clear that undertaking research out of context with the other components of

innovation, or focusing only on research and not the others, means that little or nothing is produced except research publications. ... This is perhaps the key stumbling block to the relationship between industry and other research users, and academic organisations.50

A report by the OECD also concluded that small-medium businesses needed special

assistance with all stages of the innovation process.51 These views were reiterated

in some submissions and in evidence to the Committee. It was claimed that smaller

companies were reluctant to get involved in picking up new products even though

they might benefit from innovation. It was usually the larger companies who were

prepared to make the investment in research.52 5 3 On the other hand, the McKinsey

study5,1 of 1992 found that the majority of the 700 emerging exporters in Australia

were small companies and that many were headed by graduates with science and

50 Submission No 163, p 4 (Dr P Price).

51 DEET, Committee to Review Higher Education Research Policy 1989, p 156.

52 Evidence, p 396 (Professor JR Pilbrow).

53 MacKinsey & Company, The Challenge of Leadership - Australia's Emerging High Value- Added Manufacturing Exporters, 1992.

Links between industry and universities 219

engineering backgrounds. It was suggested by one witness that it was the large

companies which are the most reluctant to invest, preferring to do all their research

in-house.54

On balance, it seems that no particular sector has a monopoly on innovation and

research:

... Some large companies are highly successful, some small companies are highly successful and there are a lot on either side that really have a lot to learn and need to see the opportunities, need to understand the opportunities better...55

The Committee is not in a position properly to assess the relationships between

universities and small businesses, nor to give advice on appropriate policy to support

innovation. The Committee again notes that the Industry Commission is presently

conducting a major inquiry on research and development which may be able to give

detailed advice to government on this issue. But clearly, a major objective of

government initiatives in fostering industry-university links is the commercialisation

of the research outcomes.

Despite recent improvements in the research efforts of Australian industry, the

relatively small investment of Australian industry in research and development has

long been lamented. A recent comparison found that Australia ranks sixteenth out

of nineteen OECD countries in terms of R&D as a percentage of Gross Domestic

product. Despite an above average growth rate in business R&D expenditure, due

in part to the 150% R&D tax concession, this increased expenditure represents

simply the maintenance of Australia's relative level of funding and does not change

Australia's ranking because other countries have simultaneously increased their

funding.

54 Evidence, p 434 (Professor DG Penington).

55 Evidence, p 434 (Professor DG Penington).

220 The organisation and funding of research

in higher education

However, there may be reason for greater optimism than these figures suggest. The

NBEET report on the formation and maintenance of links between industry and

universities found that the level of business involvement with universities may be

up to five times higher than previously estimated:

. the recent CRCs have injected at least $100 million per year of new

user money (although a portion of this may replace previous

research commitments);

. previous data do not take into account levies paid by industry to the

rural research industry corporations;

. government business enterprises, such as Telecom, electricity boards

and water authorities also contribute research funding;

. university companies receive funding from industry.

The authors of the study conclude that industry contributes a great deal to higher

education research, estimating that 10%-15% of total higher education research

involves links with industry/’1 ’

Several universities have established specialist in-house or contract agencies to

manage commercialisation issues on their behalf. But even where universities have

been proactive in pursuing commercialisation opportunities it seems that industry

is still often reluctant to risk capital: 5 6

56 NBEET, Crossing Innovation Boundaries: The formation and maintenance of research links between industry and universities in Australia, Vol 1, Executive summary, AGPS, 1993, p xviii.

Links between industry and universities 221

... the overwhelming environment is one where promising research developments wither before commercialisation from a lack of funding and because of the unwillingness of Australian industry to take investment risks.57

There has been a lot of inquiry into this, and the headlines these days are 'innovate, innovate'. Again in our experience, one might as well just go along to the door of small-medium business and shout 'levitate,

levitate': they would think it is a good idea, they probably think they can make a buck out of it, but they simply do not know how to do it. And here we have a number of

schemes set up to assist them, but the schemes are not proving effective.58

NBEET stated as recently as 1992 that universities do not have the resources to

develop an idea to the point of attracting product-oriented partners, and gave

qualified support to the notion that the Government should provide development

grants to bridge the gap between basic research findings and the assessment of their

commercial feasibility.59 Earlier advice by the Australian Research Council to

NBEET referred to the limited capacity of academics to exploit the fruits of their

research and argued that the responsibility for such exploitation lay with private

enterprise and government authorities:

Very few academics are good at...product development, and pushing them in that direction risks misuse of resources. Attempts to do so will not resolve the lack of exploitation of research results which must be the responsibility of manufacturing and service industries,

government authorities, policy makers and those involved in community and cultural development...

57 Submission No 97, p 2 (Professor CJD Fell).

58 Evidence, p 385 (Professor PL Rossiter).

59 Report o f the Working Party on Commercial Development from Medical Research (Rec 1), from Commercialisation of Research, Advice o f the NBEET and its ARC 1992, p 3.

222 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

The whole research funding system [must] be assessed to see if there are gaps that hinder the movement of research results from basic research through to exploitation...The Council...needs to tackle this problem, by working toward a national research strategy for the higher education sector.60

The Committee is aware of the recent Twomey Report, Creating Economic Growth

through Enterprise Generation and Industry Research Partnerships61 and notes the

main thrust of its findings. The proposal to establish Enterprise and Research

Partnership Centres - linked to universities, with a seed capital fund of $1.5m each -

has merit and should be given serious consideration by Government in any overall

reassessment of how it might best encourage and support commercialisation of the

products of university research.

Various other solutions were suggested to the Committee for protecting Australian

intellectual capital and commercialising the products of its research. One academic

told the Committee that in his view government policy should be adjusted to remove

the 'start-up barriers' to investment in R&D:

... I have just recently been reading a paper on venture capital. This paper makes the point that the government policy at the moment is driving funds into things like superannuation areas and franked dividend areas - into all of those areas away from capital gains - and that it might be through capital gains where the benefits from R&D could be envisaged. I think that is a whole area which is a key part of this problem as well.62

60 On the Public Funding of Research: A Report by the Australian Research Council through the National Board o f Employment Education and Training 1989, p 15.

61 Twomey PD, Creating Economic Growth through Enterprise Generation and Industry Research partnerships: The Role of the Post-Secondary Education Sector, AGPS, 1993.

62 Evidence, p 397 (Professor PL Rossiter).

Links between industry and universities 223

Another proposal involved the establishment of an Australian Technology Bank

funded by a very small levy (say 0.01%) on all monetary transactions, thus raising

a billion dollars per year,63 to be used to underwrite the protection of Australian

universities' intellectual property and its subsequent commercial development.

Research levies on industry, similar to primary industry research levies, were also

discussed briefly during the inquiry. One academic noted that there is resistance by

industry to funding basic university research, and that any such levy would probably

require a firm undertaking by the universities to do applied as well as basic

research.64 The Smith Committee (1989) concluded that levies would be

inappropriate for manufacturing industries. In any event, if the industry levies were

similar to the primary industry levy, they would not produce a massive surge in

university-industry interaction. Less than 20% of rural research funds went to

supporting research in higher education.65

One of the problems which is not addressed by current policies is how universities

develop an industry connection for research in areas for which no corresponding

industry partner exists because, as things stand, government programs tend to

require an identifiable industry partner before providing an appropriate grant.

Many innovative university research projects with commercial potential have no

sources of funding.66 There is no government funding scheme which can support

the commercialisation of a promising discovery for which no relevant enterprise

partner exists.

63 Evidence p 543 and p 547 (Professor B Rolfe).

64 Evidence, p 57 (Professor RR Large).

65 DEET, Committee to Review Higher Education Research Policy, AGPS, 1989, pp 151-152.

Submission No 140, p 3 (Dr JR Sabine). 66

224 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

The Committee recommends that the Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development examine the feasibility of establishing a national "innovation incubator" program to provide support and advice for university research projects with commercial potential but for which no identifiable Australian industry partner exists.

Intellectual property

The Committee could discover no concise, generally accepted definition of

intellectual property. However, the following description, prepared by DITARD,

provides a satisfactory account for present purposes:

Broadly speaking ... intellectual property may be defined as the legal rights over the outcomes of certain intellectual activity which gives the owner of those outcomes certain exclusive rights, recognised by law, to control what is done with them.67

[It] includes the rights relating to inventions in all fields of human endeavour - scientific discoveries; industrial designs; circuit layouts and semi-conductor chip products; registered and unregistered trademarks, service marks and commercial names and designations; literary, artistic and scientific works; plant varieties; confidential information (including trade secrets and know-how); performances of performing artists, phonograms and broadcasts; protection against unfair competition; and all

67 DITARD, Guidelines for Protecting Intellectual Property in International R & D Projects, AG PS, 1993, p 2.

Links between industry and universities 225

other rights resulting from intellectual activity in industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields ,..68

Many comments were received by the Committee relating to commercial and

intellectual property generated through industry-university collaboration. There was

unanimous agreement among Pro Vice-Chancellors (Research), academics and

postgraduates that the current commercial and intellectual property arrangements

were not adequate. The Committee notes that there is a pressing need for some

assistance in the setting of guidelines for the management of intellectual property.

I think we have had an insufficient understanding of how intellectual property should be handled where it is generated within a university. Many industries just want to take control of the whole thing and control the way research students publish and so on...In a way, it is up to us to try and turn industry around.69

[There is a need for] Commonwealth assistance in simplifying the legal and intellectual property aspects of the relationships with research and development

corporations ...70

In the meantime Australia risks losing equity in its own intellectual resources as

researchers are compelled to look elsewhere for commercial backers.

[T]his country has no ... body of venture capital...So we are going to have to negotiate, and we are already negotiating, with people overseas. So we lose some of the equity, we lose some of the controls and the value of that.71

68 Ibid, p 40.

69 Evidence, p 433 (Professor DG Penington).

70 Submission No 157, p 4 (Professor CJD Fell/8 universities).

71 Evidence, pp 542-543 (Professor B Rolfe).

226 The organisation and funding of research

in higher education

There were suggestions that some universities had jumped the gun in selling off

their intellectual property and licenses too early. The reason given was constraints

on university funding.

Why in the hell do you think they do it? They are underfunded, they are strapped, they have got to have some funds. If you have not got the money, you cannot do the work: that is why they do it.72

However a note of caution regarding the loss of control of research results was

sounded by the ANU in its submission.

While the increase of funds from industry to support university research is both welcome and essential to maintaining the diversity of funding, it should be noted that this funding has highlighted the need for

universities to protect intellectual property and ownership of copyright. In a highly competitive, technological and knowledge-based world the stakes can be high. It would be most unfortunate if universities in desperate need of funds were to compromise their share of recognition and dividends from industrial research.73

From the perspective of university researchers there is a serious downside to

constraints on reporting to their peers about their work - a situation which may

often arise where commercial considerations apply. It may happen, for example, that

ownership of a piece of intellectual property may result in its exploitation being

stifled because it threatens an existing product or process in which a heavy

investment has already been made. Intellectual property agreements were declared,

by one academic, to be a major impediment to the free flow of information amongst

scientists. He was scathing about the restrictions which cooperative industrial

research placed upon researchers.

72 Evidence, p 545 (Professor B Rolfe).

73 Submission No 67, p 3 (Professor JH Carver).

Links between industry and universities 227

If you ask for advice from a University or CSIRO scientist, you learn about his Co-operative Research Centre, his strategic plans, his industry connections, and the importance of his particular national priority, and the size of his grant. He will also tell you that his signature on a secrecy document, his intellectual property rights and the patent law prohibit him from talking with

74

you.

Scientists are very like aboriginals in one sense. The indigenous people had no concept of ownership, and the land belonged to all. Scientists, whose territory is the land of the mind, had no concept of intellectual property, which belongs to the world. They have had to be re­ educated to accommodate this concept of ownership and other concepts fundamental to business. Such indoctrination utterly destroys creativity.7 4 75

Intellectual property agreements, and the carrot of 'market' loadings and other incentives on research that will never be commercialized mean that scientists are unable to communicate with their fellows.76

The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations submitted that the interests

of postgraduates are often overlooked in negotiations on intellectual property

between universities and industry.77 The Tasmanian University Postgraduate

Association identified three principles which should be observed:

. the creators of intellectual property should be the "principal

recipients" of benefits flowing from the property;

. universities should adopt a uniform national policy on intellectual

property;

74 Submission No 62, p 8 (Professor BW Ninham).

75 Ibid, p 9.

76 Ibid, p 13.

77 Submission No 132, p 7 (Dr K White).

228 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

the prerogatives of industry funding should be "qualified by the

requisites of academic freedom". 78

Industry advised the Committee that companies were frequently dissatisfied with the

present controls on intellectual property, and criticised academics for their lack of

sensitivity about commercial situations:

Generally [university researchers] do not relate well to commercial situations and personnel. In particular, they are frequently reluctant to agree to constraints on publishing and other approaches to managing commercial sensitivities. In this respect the [Dairy Research and Development] Corporation has had instances of results being published prior to proper commercial assessments

as laid down in the mutually signed R&D agreements.79

The NBEET report on industry-university links concluded that the problems of

intellectual property arise from the attitudes of the institutions. It stated:

Intellectual property is not an intractable problem in university-industry relations; the problem lies in being unclear about expectations.

The ARC should take initiatives to establish a series of discussions on the ownership of intellectual property to clarify expectations between representatives of important peak bodies. These should include at least, the AVCC, the Pro Vice-Chancellors' (Research) Committee, the Australian Industrial Research Group and FAUSA.80

(Recommendation 8)

78 Evidence, pp 59-60 (Mr CD Meet).

79 Submission No 165, p 2 (Mr PE Donnelly).

80 NBEET, Crossing Innovation Boundaries: The formation and maintenance of research links between industry and universities in Australia, Vol 1, AGPS, 1993, p xxiv.

Links between industry and universities 229

The Committee is of the view that issues of intellectual property, its ownership and

exploitation, are vital matters demanding immediate attention from industry,

universities and government. The Committee notes that in September 1993, the

Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development (DITARD) produced

a set of Guidelines for Protecting Intellectual Property in International R&D

Projects81. In November 1993 the AVCC issued a paper on intellectual property

which appears to have been received favourably by universities. While the paper

does not prescribe guidelines, it raises the issues which universities ought to address

when considering intellectual property issues.

The adequacy of Government programs in fostering university-industry

lin k s

Interaction between universities and industry is actively encouraged by Government

through a number of programs. As well as the generic programs aimed at

encouraging increased research activity in industry (GIRD, 150% R&D tax

concession), there are five main targeted programs which seek to foster links

between universities and industry. These are:

. Australian Postgraduate Research Awards (Industry) (APRA(I))

. Australian Research Fellowships (Industry) (ARF(I))

. the Collaborative Research Grants Scheme, announced in October

1991, which is aimed at encouraging cooperation between industry

and universities in research which has the potential for national

economic and social benefit.

81 DITARD, Guidelines for Protecting Intellectual Property in International R&D Projects, AGPS, 1993.

230 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

. the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program, announced in

May 1990 which provides long term funding for up to 7 years. The

program is operated on advice from a special Committee linked to

the Office of the Chief Scientist. It is aimed at supporting research

projects involving universities, industry and other government

research organisations.82

. the National Teaching Company Scheme established in 1985, and

run by DITARD. It ensures placement of graduates for 3 years in an

industry83

. Special Research Centres, introduced in 1982.

This chapter will not attempt a comprehensive evaluation of each of the above

programs, but will endeavour to outline the general views received by the Committee

on the nature and success of the programs.

Australian Postgraduate Research Awards (Industry) and

Australian Research Fellowships (Industry)

These awards are discussed in Chapter 4. The general consensus is that they have

been particularly useful in promoting interaction between universities and industry.

Nevertheless, there remains a lack of awareness of such schemes within industry,

with most proposals being initiated by academics.84

82 DEET, National Report on Australia's Higher Education Sector, AGPS, Canberra, 1993, p 263.

83 Ibid, p 242.

84 NBEET, Productive Interaction, AGPS, 1992, p vii.

Links between industry and universities 231

Collaborative Research Grants

Collaborative Research Grants administered by the ARC are also discussed in detail

in Chapter 4 - but the following comment reflects the broad consensus about their

effectiveness:

... I think I should praise the government for the fact that the ARC collaborative research grants are starting to grow ... The ARC collaborative grant method is an absolutely wonderful method by which industry has an incentive, the university has an incentive and the weighting and the rating of that research have a clear goal, in that they are of benefit to Australia immediately, otherwise the industry would not be involved.85

Cooperative Research Centres

Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) were established in 1990 to support "high

quality applications-oriented cooperative research ventures with a focus in the

natural sciences and engineering".86 The Government's intention was to "harness

its considerable investment in public sector research", and to boost export earnings

in the process87. Centres were intended to foster links between universities and

other government research organisations, and the users of research in industry and

other sectors of the economy.88 At least one university has to be involved in each

Centre. A special CRC Committee advises the Prime Minister on the operation of

the program and makes decisions on applications for new Centres.

85 Evidence, p 96 (Professor RR Horsley).

86 DEET, National Report on Australia's Higher Education Sector, AGPS, 1993, p 262.

87 The Hon Ross Free MP, Speech o f 15 February 1993.

88 The Hon Simon Crean MP, Speech o f 27 March 1991.

232 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

The then Minister for Science and Technology noted in 1991 that an important

outcome of the initial stages of the program was that there seemed to be a more

structured cooperative approach to development by would-be partners to CRC

funding proposals. Some State Governments had established structures to support

proposals from their State resulting in a higher level of cooperation between

government agencies and research organisations.89

As at April 1993 there were 52 CRCs operating across a diverse range of areas as

follows:

. 8 in manufacturing

. 8 in information and communications technology

. 7 in mining and energy

. 9 in environmental technologies

. 13 in agriculture and rural-based manufacturing, and

. 7 in medical science and technology.

Fourth round awards for 10 more centres are being made in 1994. Total CRC

funding will be $130 million per year by 1996/97 when all CRCs will be up and

running. For every dollar funded by the Government, two dollars were contributed

by the cooperative partners, with business contributing approximately one-quarter

of this.90

Evidence received by the Committee indicated a fair divergence of views on the value

of the CRC program. On the positive side, it was claimed by industry that links with

89 Ibid.

90 Senator the Hon Chris Schacht, media release, 15 April 1993.

Links between industry and universities 233

university researchers tend to be more stable in the CRC arrangement91 and that

they have been useful in overcoming institutional rivalries.92

I think the cooperative research centres program is a very important catalyst to teaching industry and CSIRO and universities to work together strategically over the long term, and I would emphasise that we want p artnerships and cooperation ra th e r than

integration.. .Universities have other things to do than a private industry research enterprise, or the CSIRO, but a capacity to cooperate and operate in partnerships is very important.93

The ... CRC program has provided an important stimulus for greater co-operation between universities, Government research laboratories and industry. Research programs have been developed and research students are engaged in projects of industrial relevance.94

We strongly commend the CRC program which has enabled hitherto unavailable linkages with industry for the higher education sector...95

By design, CRCs have brought together researchers with common interests in

science and technology. However, it was suggested to the Committee that there is

scope for CRCs to operate in other discipline areas and to embrace a more cross-

disciplinary approach:

The CRCs have allowed significant concentrations of research in the science and technology areas; whereas we feel that, perhaps in areas such as management and

91 Submission No 169, p 2 (Mr ES Wallis).

92 Evidence, p 108 (Professor JF Chambers).

93 Evidence, p 451 (Professor AD Gilbert).

94 Submission No 119, p 5 (Professor DG Penington).

95 Submission No 157, p 4 (Professor CJD Fell/8 universities).

234 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

economics and a range of other fields, the same concept could be used...96

Generally support for ... CRC-type development has been restricted ... to the technology ... areas. Even though there are some similar programs available within the medical and non-medical health sciences, one might want to see the opportunity for a CRC-type structure targeted specifically at the non-medical health sciences. At the moment there is no such vehicle available in that domain.97

The Committee noted criticisms of the CRC program. For example, Dr Michael Back

(Institution of Engineers Australia):

... believes the input from industry has been rather disappointing ... To a certain extent [Dr Back] thinks it has proved to be a successful ploy on the part of academics and the CSIRO to gain funding via an alternative path. ...

He believes too much publicly funded research is still being carried out in esoteric areas with limited direct industrial application.98

On the other hand, private companies involved in CRCs have expressed high praise

for the program:

Bioclone's managing director, Dr Claire Baxter, said a company the size of Bioclone would never have been able to become involved in such a project without the help of larger partners in a CRC ...

96 Evidence, p 98 (Professor PJ Dawkins).

97 Evidence, p 102 (Professor DJ Glencross).

98 Cover Story Engineers Australia, June 1993 p 29.

Links between industry and universities 235

Dr Baxter said funding for the project ...would not have been possible without assistance in the form of generic industrial research and development grants."

The NBEET report on industry-university links summarised some of the main

difficulties encountered by industry when participating in CRCs :

Problems industry identified included their ability to influence research objectives, the focus and time-scales of these objectives, on-going difficulties in dealing with the central administrations of several institutions at once, inter-institutional rivalries, intellectual property confusions, and cumbersome committee management arrangements. Two companies interviewed [in the study] had already withdrawn their participation in the centres and others were seriously re-considering their future involvement.9 9 100

The report also recommended that:

Cooperative Research Centre funding levels should be maintained to allow their consolidation. Attention should now be paid to complementing the initiative with one-to- one project support such as GIRD and ARC Collaborative Grants programs to enhance network development

around the CRC areas of concentration.101

(Recommendation 2)

One of the main criticisms of CRCs made to the Committee by universities was the

hidden costs associated with them. Notwithstanding that CRCs bring benefits such

as increased opportunities for postgraduate students and research staff, they require

a substantial commitment of infrastructural and other resources from

99 Sue Mitchell, Bioclone cures diagnostic delay, in The Australian Financial Review. 1 February 1994, p 20.

100 NBEET, Crossing Innovation Boundaries: The formation and maintenance of research links between industry and universities in Australia, Vol 1, AGPS, Canberra 1993 p xx.

101 Ibid, p xxi.

236 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

universities.102 This can erode a university's funding base, with a CRC drawing

more funds away from a university than it attracts to it.103 One university

reported to the Committee that although it had been enthusiastic initially, it became

more cautious when it learned how much of a funding commitment CRCs

involved.104 Several witnesses commented that the time scale in which CRCs are

expected to operate is unrealistically short.105 Another claimed that they have so

many stakeholders as to be administratively and politically unworkable.106

Despite such criticisms, the Committee is not prepared to dismiss the concept of

CRCs. They provide a focus and framework for significant industry links, and enable

universities to consolidate and expand particular research strengths. It is arguable,

however, whether there has been a demonstrable net benefit to universities from

their involvement.107

The Committee recognises the degree of strain that has been placed on university

research infrastructure as a result of CRCs, and suggests that there is a need for a

thorough assessment and evaluation of the CRC program to be made in the context

of higher education research funding generally. Such a review should clarify the

actual contribution of industry to the infrastructure aspects of existing CRCs and

determine whether an explicit level of provision for university infrastructure should

be included in the formal agreement with the industry partner.

102 Evidence, p 125 (Professor J Ross).

103 Evidence, pp 401-402 (Professor JR Pilbrow).

104 Evidence, p 246 (Professor G Brown).

105 Submission No 110, p 5 (Professor JR Pilbrow), Submission No 27, p 6 (Professor PA Hamilton).

106 Submission No 131, p 2 (Professor RA Hamilton).

107 Evidence, p 246 (Professor G Brown).

Links between industry and universities 237

The Committee acknowledges that the CRC program is in its relatively early stages,

and that the Prime Minister's Science Council is monitoring developments - largely

through annual visits by the Chief Scientist to newly established Centres. However,

given the substantial level of funds flowing to CRCs, the Committee considers it

essential that adequate formative108 evaluation of the program be undertaken at

this stage.

The Committee recommends that the Prime Minister's Science Council commission an independent, formative evaluation of the CRC program to date in order to:

(a) determine the relative contributions of industry and universities to the program thus far; and

(b) assess the impact upon, and benefits to, the university and industry partners in those CRCs which have been operating for two years.

The report of this formative evaluation should be presented at the end of 1994.

Tax incentives for industry to undertake R&D

The Committee received a number of comments on the 150% research and

development tax concession. The tax concession was introduced in 1985 as part of

the Government's policy to encourage research and development by industry. In

August 1992 the Government announced that the tax concession would remain at

108 The term 'formative' is used in the technical sense o f evaluation which is carried out while the CRC program is still being implemented, as distinct from 'summative' evaluation which would take place at the end o f the life of the program.

238 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

the 150% rate indefinitely.109 The concession is jointly administered by the

Australian Tax Office (which is responsible for determining which expenditures are

eligible for the concession), and the Industry Research and Development Board of

the Department of Industry Technology and Regional Development (DITARD).110

The ANAO notes that the scheme operates at a cost to revenue of about $300

million per year.111

A recent report by the Auditor-General on the administration of the 150% tax

concession found a number of shortcomings in its operations, including

incompatibility, impeded information flows between ATO and DITARD, and

insufficient monitoring of the concession.112 The concession was also evaluated by

the Bureau of Industry Economics, which recommended its retention despite its very

limited take-up rate by eligible businesses. The firms who took advantage of the

concession were "generally either profitable, small or medium size, fast growing

and/or Australian owned". Those least responsive to the concession were firms which

were "generally either large, with a mixed profit/loss record, poorer R&D growth,

and/or foreign owned".113

Evidence to the Senate Committee about the concession highlighted some

shortcomings in its operation:

109 Auditor-General Audit Report No 12 1993-94 Efficiency Audit, Administration of the 150% taxation incentive for industry, research and development, p x.

110 Ibid, p 5.

111 Ibid, p x.

112 Ibid, ppx-xi.

113 Bureau o f Industry Economics, R&D, Innovation and Competitiveness: An evaluation of the research and development tax concession. AGPS Canberra 1993, pxi.

Links between industry and universities 239

. it is useful only to companies with a cash flow.114

. its uncertainty limits its appeal.115

. eligibility for the concession often cannot be determined in advance, and so

companies do not know if joint ventures are liable to income tax until

assessments have been lodged.116

The Committee understands that, with respect to the 150% tax concession,

amendments to the syndication rules for R&D ventures have eliminated tax exempt

bodies such as public universities from participation in structured financing

arrangements forming part of syndicates, and structured arrangements where the

financial risk is essentially absent from the project. Such amendments no doubt have

implications for the operations of commercial arms of universities, but the

Committee has been unable to determine the exact nature of their impact. The

matter is drawn to the attention of the Government for further consideration.

The Committee is unable to make any firm recommendations about the tax

concession. It notes, however, that the issue has been raised in the current inquiry

by the Industry Commission in the broader context of R&D incentives to industry.

On the evidence before it, the Committee considers that there has been a substantial

improvement in the extent and success of interaction between universities and

industry. Special incentives and Government-funded support programs have

contributed much in this regard. The Committee, however, sounds a word of caution

about the burgeoning of industry-related and collaborative research in the higher

education sector. It is important that universities achieve the right mix of

114 Submission No 82, p 5 (Dr D May).

115 Submission No 149, p 2 (Hon R Groom MP, Premier of Tasmania).

116 Evidence, p 45 (Dr R Watkins).

240 The organisation and funding o f research

in higher education

commercially-oriented research activity and other core activities of basic research

and teaching. In this context, the Committee notes the recently reported comments

of the ARC Chairman, Professor Brennan. He pointed out that universities'

expansion into contract and collaborative research with industry "raised thorny

questions about who owned the resulting intellectual property and how such

research was impinging on academic work".117

Professor Brennan also made reference to cases "where commercial activities have

run away with the whole department"118, at the expense of the basic work needed

to underpin the research effort of Australia generally. The Committee acknowledges

the danger inherent in too zealous a pursuit by universities of commercial research

and development opportunities, and draws Professor Brennan's remarks on the

matter to the attention of both the AVCC and the Government.

117 Article by Kate Marshall, Financial Review, 22 February 1994, p. 42.

118 Ibid.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

F u n d in g D is trib u tio n , b y R e s e a rc h F ie ld

Field o f Research $m

M a th e m a tic a l S c ie n c e s

Pure M a th e m a tic s 6 .6

A p p lie d M a th e m a tic s 1 0.7

S ta tis tic s 5 .9

O th e r M a th e m a tic a l S c ie n c e s 2 .5

T o ta l 2 5 .7

Field o f Research $m

P h y s ic a l S c ie n c e s

A s tro n o m ic a l S c ie n c e s 11

T h e o re tic a l & C o n d e n s e d M a tte r P h y s ic s 15.8 A to m ic , M o le c u la r, N u c le a r, P a rticle

a n d P la s m a P h y s ic s 12.2

A c o u s tic a n d O p tic a l P h y s ic s 3 .6

O th e r 5 .6

T o ta l 4 8 .3

Field o f Research $m

C h e m ic a l S c ie n c e s

P h y s ic a l C h e m is try (in c. T h e o re tic a l a n d

S tru c tu ra l) 19.4

In o rg a n ic C h e m is try 1 0.4

O rg a n ic C h e m is try 17.7

A n a ly tic a l C h e m is try 3 .4

O th e r 3 .8

T o ta l 5 4 .7

E a rth S c ie n c e s

G e o lo g y 16.4

G e o p h y s ic s 4 .5

G e o c h e m is try 4.1

O c e a n o g ra p h y 3 .3

H y d ro lo g y 3 .5

A tm o s p h e ric S c ie n c e s 4

O th e r 6 .5

T o ta l 4 1 .6

In fo rm a tio n , C o m p u te r a n d C o m m u n ic a tio n

T e c h n o lo g ie s

In fo rm a tio n S y s te m s & T e c h n o lo g ie s 21.1

C o m p u te r H a rd w a re 0.7

C o m p u te r S o ftw a re 8

C o m m u n ic a tio n T e c h n o lo g ie s 6.8

O th e r 4 .9

T o ta l 4 1 .6

A p p lie d S c ie n c e s a n d T e c h n o lo g ie s

A e ro s p a c e T e c h n o lo g ie s & E n g in e e rin g 14.3

M a n u fa c tu rin g & P ro c e s s T e c h n o lo g ie s

a n d E n g in e e rin g 4 .2

In d u s tria l B io te c h n o lo g y & F o o d S c ie n c e s 4 .4

M a te ria l S c ie n c e s & T e c h n o lo g ie s 16.7

O th e r 10.8

T o ta l 3 8 .8

G e n e ra l E n g in e e rin g

M e c h a n ic a l & In d u s tria l E n g in e e rin g 14.3

C h e m ic a l E n g in e e rin g 9.8

M in in g & M in e ra l P ro c e s s in g 10.9

C ivil E n g in e e rin g 15.9

E le c tric a l & E le c tro n ic E n g in e e rin g 17

O th e r 6.4

T o ta l 7 4.3

Field o f Research $m

B io lo g ic a l S c ie n c e s

B io c h e m is try 15.7

G e n e tic s , M o le c u la r B io lo g y &

B io te c h n o lo g y 3 7 .9

M ic ro b io lo g y 7.6

B o ta n y 11.6

Z o o lo g y 11

E c o lo g y 18.6

O th e r 10.3

T o ta l 11 2 .6

Includes an estimate by the universities o f the portion o f their funds for research provided through general operating grants under the Higher Education Funding Act.

243

Rural Sciences Humanities

S o il a n d W a te r S c ie n c e s 9 .4

C ro p a n d P a s tu re P ro d u c tio n 15.3

H o rtic u ltu re 2 .8

A n im a l P ro d u c tio n 11.7

V e te rin a ry S c ie n c e s 9.8

F o re s try S c ie n c e s 3 .7

F is h e rie s S c ie n c e s 2 .7

O th e r 9 .6

T o ta l 64 .9

M e d ic a l a n d H e a lth S c ie n c e s

Im m u n o lo g y 12.5

M e d ic a l B io c h e m is try a n d C lin ic a l C h e m is tfy 9

M e d ic a l M ic ro b io lo g y 6

P h a rm a c o lo g y 12.3

P h y s io lo g y 17.1

N e u ro s c ie n c e s 2 2 .7

C lin ic a l S c ie n c e s 7 4.5

P u b lic H e a lth R e s e a rc h 3 0 .5

H e a lth S e rv ic e s R e s e a rc h 12.7

O th e r 11.6

T o ta l 2 0 4 .8

Field o f Research $m

S o c ia l S c ie n c e s

A c c o u n tin g a n d F in a n c e 10.5

E c o n o m ic s 3 3 .6

B u s in e s s S tu d ie s 17.1

P o litic a l S c ie n c e s a n d P u b lic P o licy 18.6

A rc h ite c tu re a n d U rb a n E n v iro n m e n t 6.3

S o c io lo g y 11.8

A n th ro p o lo g y 5 .8

S o c ia l S tu d ie s 5 .7

H u m a n G e o g ra p h y 6.2

P o p u la tio n S tu d ie s 3 .5

L a w 14.3

P s y c h o lo g y 2 2.4

E d u c a tio n 3 5 .4

M e d ia a n d C o m m u n ic a tio n S tu d ie s 4 .8

O th e r 2 .2

T o ta l 198

L a n g u a g e a n d L ite ra tu re 26 .3

H is to ric a l S tu d ie s 16

A rc h a e o lo g y & C la s s ic a l S tu d ie s 3.6

A rts 11.2

D e sig n S tu d ie s 1.2

P h ilo s o p h y 7.3

R e lig io u s S tu d ie s 0.8

H isto ry a n d P h ilo s o p h y o f S cie n c e

a n d M e d ic in e 1.1

O th e r 1.5

T o ta l 69

U n s p e c ifie d 0 .2

Source: D e p a rtm e n t o f E m p lo y m e n t, E d u c a tio n a n d T ra in in g , H ig h e r E d u c a tio n D ivision, 'R e se a rch E x p e n d itu re b y Field', R e p o rt N o 19, H ig h e r E d u c a tio n S e rie s, S e p te m b e r 1993, p 4,

244

APPENDIX 2

ARC MISSION STATEMENT

March 1992

The Council's mission is to provide advice on research funding and research policy, and to promote the conduct of research and research training of the highest quality for the benefit of the Australian community. The Council has a special responsibility for research in the higher education sector, basic research and research training.

Research in the higher education sector ranges across the full spectrum of pure basic, strategic basic and applied research. The advancement of knowledge is a primary outcome of most of this research, which, produces five major benefits for the community:

. contributions to the quality of our culture . graduates of high quality . direct applications of research results . increased institutional capacity for consulting,

contract research and other service activities, and . international links.

Basic research undertaken outside the higher education sector, in government instrumentalities or private organisations, produces similar outcomes, with the

exception of the supply of graduates.

Research training, at advanced undergraduate, postgraduate and postdoctoral levels, equips graduates with appropriate knowledge, expertise and skills, to

contribute to Australian development through their work in higher education, government and industry.

245

APPENDIX 3

TERMS OF REFERENCE

FOR INDUSTRY COMMISSION INQUIRY INTO R&D

I, GEORGE GEAR, Assistant Treasurer, under section 7 of the Industry Commission Act 1989 hereby:

1. refer research and development undertaken by industry, government agencies and higher education institutions to the Commission for inquiry and report within 18 months of the date of receipt of this reference;

2. specify that the Commission examine and report on:

(a) the effect of research and development activities on innovation in Australia and its impact on economic growth and industry competitiveness; and

(b) the efficiency and effectiveness of policies and programs which influence research and development and innovation in Australia;

3. without limiting the scope of this reference, request that the

Commission report on:

(a) the roles and capacities of industry, government agencies and higher education institutions in identifying and developing research requirements and in supporting, undertaking and influencing research and development

and innovation in Australia;

(b) policies affecting the performance of industry in undertaking research and development;

(c) the efficiency and effectiveness of programs, regulations, or other institutional arrangements that affect the level, type, and focus of research and development and its application including:

247

(i) government science and innovation grants and taxation measures;

(ii) government policies toward major scientific research agencies including funding and cost recovery arrangements; and

(iii) the primary industry and energy research and development corporations;

(d) the appropriateness of the present balance of support between service, manufacturing and rural industries;

(e) the appropriateness of present methods of government financial support, including funding levels and the efficiency of mechanisms used to allocate funds both within and across programs;

(f) evidence concerning the impact of research and development activities on industry competitiveness in selected overseas countries;

(g) any changes which should be made to enhance program delivery or the impact of current measures (including the Discretionary Grants Scheme and the Generic Technology Grants Scheme (GIRD) should the Government wish to extend funding for the program);

(h) the effectiveness of any policies or practices which impinge on the effectiveness or numbers of joint ventures or other contractual arrangements between government research agencies and private companies in relation to research and development;

(i) the incentives and impediments to:

(i) the dissemination, uptake and commercialisation of Australian research outcomes;

(ii) the enhancement of information flows between Australia and other countries in relation to research and development; and

(iii) the creation of linkages between research agencies, higher education institutions and business;

(iv) the impact of Australia's intellectual property law on research and development;

248

4. specify that the Commission take account of the Government's 1992 White Paper, Developing Australian Ideas, and recent substantive studies undertaken elsewhere. The Government has in recent years kept under review a number of major reforms in the higher education system. The Commission should not report under paragraph 3(e) on:

(a) the appropriateness of the overall level of Government funding for the higher education system; or

(b) sources of funding for higher education (except in relation to research functions), including the balance between government funding and income from student contributions; and

5. specify that the Commission have regard to the established economic, social, and environmental objectives of governments, including those of the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development.

GEORGE GEAR 10 September 1993

249

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

APPENDIX 4

LIST OF SUBMISSIONS

Mr J Peter White, Reader, Department of Anthropology, University of Sydney

Mr John D Hughes, Principal Research Officer, on behalf of the Buddhist Discussion Centre (Upwey) Ltd

Dr Gordon Troup, Reader in Physics, Monash University

John Clegg, Department of Prehistory and Historical Archaeology, Sydney University

Emeritus Professor Fred Jevons, Murdoch University

Professor Roger J Bowden, Professor of Finance, Director of the National Centre for Banking and Capital Markets, Faculty of Commerce and Economics, University of New South Wales

Professor Mark Westoby, Chair, Plant and Animal Biology Sub-Panel, ARC, Macquarie University

Professor BV Rangan, Professor and Head of School, School of Civil Engineering, Curtin University

Ms Veronica Arbon, Director, on behalf of the Koori Centre, University of Sydney

Ms Ann Moyal

Associate Professor RA Mailer, Department of Mathematics, University of Western Australia

Professor Noeline Kyle, Head, Cultural and Policy Studies, Queensland University of Technology

Dr DA Hume, Associate Professor in Biochemistry, Principal Research Fellow, Centre for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Queensland

Professor Ross H Crozier, Professor and Chair, Department of Genetics and Human Variation, La Trobe University

Dr Richard Coyne, Senior Lecturer, Associate Dean of Research (Faculty of Architecture), University of Sydney

251

16 Professor SF Bourke, Professor in Education, Department of Education, University of Newcastle

17 Professor Roger S Holmes, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), Griffith University

18 Dr John R Minnery, Senior Lecturer, School of Planning, Landscape Architecture and Surveying, Queensland University of Technology

19 Dr D Herbison-Evans, Basser Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney

20 Patrick Weller, Director, Centre for Australian Public Sector Management, Head, School of Politics and Public Policy, Griffith University

21 Associate Professor Edmund Fung, Dean, and Dr Julie Howell, Deputy Dean (Research), Faculty of Asian and International Studies, Griffith University

22 Dr Z Barnea, School of Physics, University of Melbourne

23 Professor AL Carey & Dr MK Murray, Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Adelaide

24 Professor TJ Mullarvey, Acting Executive Director, on behalf of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee

25 Professor Cheryl E Praeger, Head of Department, Department of Mathematics, University of Western Australia

26 Mr Tom Watson, Chairperson, on behalf of the Riverina Enterprise and Innovation Network

27 Professor PA Hamilton, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) and Ms Alison Hadfield, Director of the Office for Research, on behalf of the University of Tasmania

28 Dr Richard Yeo, Deputy Dean (Research Management), on behalf of the Faculty of Humanities, Griffith University

29 Professor Fay Gayle, Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of the University of Western Australia

30 Professor Peter Sheehan, Chairperson, Research Grants Committee, Australian Research Council

31 Dr SW Serjeantson, Acting Director, on behalf of the John Curtin School of Medical Research

252

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Professor AR Moon, Dean of Science, on behalf of the Faculty of Science, University of Technology, Sydney

Professor TC Dixon, Acting Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of the Queensland University of Technology

Dr Eleanor Hancock, History Department, Monash University, on behalf of the Women's Caucus of the Australasian Association of European Historians

Dr EJ Steele, Associate Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong

Dr Peter Crabb, Senior Lecturer in Geography, University of New South Wales Australian Defence Force Academy

Dr Roland Fletcher, Department of Anthropology, University of Sydney

Associate Professor BD Hoyos, Classics Department, University of Sydney

Professor Ross Fitzgerald, Associate Professor of History and Politics, Griffith University

Dr Barrie Brennan, University of New England

Associate Professor MJ Gallagher, Department of Organic Chemistry, University of New South Wales

Dr CC Macknight, Department of History, Faculty of Arts, Australian National University

Professor Suzanne Y O'Reilly, Chair, on behalf of the Earth Sciences Subpanel of the ARC

Dr Nicholas Peterson, President, on behalf of the Australian Anthropological Society

Dr DJ Faulkner, Acting Director, on behalf of the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories

Professor James Fox, Professor of Anthropology, Australian National University, and Chairman, ARC Humanities Subpanel

Professor GS Halford, Convenor, on behalf of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (Queensland)

Professor David Curtis, John Curtin School of Medical Research

253

49 Professor AJ Underwood, Professor of Experimental Ecology, University of Sydney 50 Professor AR Hyland, Chair, National Committee for Astronomy, Australian Academy of Science

51 BW Oakes, Department of Anatomy, Monash University

52 Professor PL Rossiter, Head, Department of Materials Engineering, Monash University

53 Mr D Volker, AO, Secretary, on behalf of the Department of Employment, Education and Training

54 Professor CR Phillips, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), on behalf of the University of Technology (Sydney)

55 Professor Gavin Brown, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), on behalf of the University of Adelaide

56 Professor Peter Sheehan, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and Postgraduate Studies), on behalf of the University of Queensland

57 Professor Ron McKay, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of the Northern Territory University

58 Professor David W James, Deakin University

59 Peter J Scales, Research Fellow, and Franz Grieser, Reader in Physical Chemistry, University of Melbourne

60 Professor NS Trudinger and Professor DW Robinson, School of Mathematics, Australian National University

61 Professor Bill Hogarth, Dean, on behalf of the Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University

62 Professor Barry W Ninham, Foundation Professor and Head, Department of Applied Mathematics, Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University

63 Professor Barry Luther-Davies, on behalf of the Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University

64 Professor Brian Gunning, Research School of Biological Sciences, Plant Cell Biology Group, Australian National University

65 Professor CB Osmond, Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University

254

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

Professor J McC Howell, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), on behalf of Murdoch University

Professor John Carver, Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of the Australian National University

Professor RH Symons, Department of Plant Science, Waite Institute, University of Adelaide

Professor Ingrid Moses, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic), on behalf of the University of Canberra

Professor DM Schreuder, President, on behalf of the Australian Academy of the Humanities

Mr Barry Clissold, Executive Officer, on behalf of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia

Dr ML Reed, President, on behalf of The Australian Flora Foundation

Dr DJ Maguire, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Science and Technology, Griffith University

Professor Harry Aveling, Head, Asian Languages, et al, on behalf of the Faculty of Humanities, La Trobe University

Ms Di Zetlin, General Secretary, FAUSA and Mr Graham McCulloch, General Secretary, UACA

Professor Peter Brosnan, Deputy Dean (Research and Postgraduate Studies), Griffith University

Dr PG Laird, Department of Mathematics, University of Wollongong

Dr NK Weeks, Head of Section, et al, on behalf of the Ancient History Section, School of Archaeology, Classics and Ancient History, University of Sydney

Professor MC Ricklefs, Director, on behalf of the Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University

Professor John McLaren, Victoria University of Technology

Mr David Boyd

Dr David Moy, Acting Director, Waste Management Research Unit, School of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University

255

83 Professor Richard J Arculus, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of New England

84 Mr James Bridge

85 Ms Isabella Trahn, Development and Planning Librarian, on behalf of the University of New South Wales Libraries

86 Professor Richard Johnstone, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of Charles Sturt University

87 Professor MG A Wilson, Dean, on behalf of the Faculty of Science, University of Wollongong

88 Professor Ingrid Moses, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic), University of Canberra

89 Professor TF Smith, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), on behalf of La Trobe University

90 Ms Victoria Harper, Executive Officer, on behalf of The Medical Foundation, University of Sydney

91 Mr Martin Renilson, Acting Executive Director, on behalf of the Australian Maritime Engineering Cooperative Research Centre

92 Professor David Lee, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), on behalf of the University of South Australia

93 Professor Royce Sadler, Dean, on behalf of the Faculty of Education, Griffith University

94 Colin Steele, University Librarian, Australian National University

95 Macquarie University Staff Association

96 Professor Paul Clark, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), on behalf of the Victoria University of Technology

97 Professor CJD Fell, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of the University of New South Wales

98 Dr ES Dennis, President, on behalf of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

99 Professor Lewis N Mander, Dean, Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University

256

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

Mr Philip Morrisey

Ms Jenny Lappin, Research Grants Administrator, on behalf of James Cook University

Professor Richard Jarrett, President, on behalf of the Australian Mathematical Sciences Council

Professor Roy Lourens, Vice-Chancellor, Edith Cowan University

Mr Ian Cartwright, Director, Fisheries and Marine Environment, on behalf of the Australian Maritime College

Professor Lesley Johnson, Chair, Research Management Working Party, and Mr Gar Jones, Research Co-ordinator, on behalf of the University of Western Sydney, Nepean

Professor John Goldring, Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong, on behalf of the Committee of Australian Law Deans

Professor BH Thom, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), on behalf of the University of Sydney

Ms Kathryn Hird, on behalf of the Australian Association of Speech and Hearing

Associate Professor John F Chambers, Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research and Development, on behalf of Curtin University of Technology

Professor John R Pilbrow, Head of Department, on behalf of the Department of Physics, Monash University

Dr OF Makinson, Department of Dentistry, University of Adelaide

Professor John Skinner, Dean of Research, on behalf of the Flinders University of South Australia

Professor BA Stone, Professor of Biochemistry, La Trobe University

Professor JC Walker, Dean, on behalf of the Faculty of Education, University of Canberra

Professor MH Brennan, on behalf of the Australian Research Council

Professor John Clark, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), on behalf of Macquarie University

257

117 Professor Adrian Gibbs, Research School of Biological Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University

118 Ms Jennefer Nicholson, Acting Executive Director, on behalf of the Australian Library & Information Association

119 Professor David G Penington, Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of the University of Melbourne

120 Mr Andrus Budrikis, President, Postgraduate Students Association, The University of Western Australia

121 Professor Fred Jevons

122 Mr Simon Green, postgraduate representative, and Professor Bruce Elliott, head, Department of Human Movement, The University of Western Australia

123 Western Australian Division of the National Tertiary Education Union

124 Professor Robin N Shaw, Faculty of Business and Hotel Management, Gold Coast University College, Griffith University

125 Professor Peter Sheehan, Chair, Research Grants Committee of the Australian Research Grants Council

126 Sir William Tyree, President, The Ear and Allied Research Foundation

127 Professor John S Mattick, Director, ARC Special Research Centre for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Queensland

128 Mr Peter Vallee, Executive Secretary, on behalf of the Australian Academy of Science

129 Dr JF McMorrow, Director, Policy, Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs, New South Wales

130 M/- S Banerjee, President, on behalf of the Postgraduate & Research Students' Association

131 Professor RA Henderson, Professor of Geology, James Cook University of North Queensland

132 Dr Kate White, Researcher, on behalf of the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations Inc

133 Eric Gidney, Senior Lecturer, College of Fine Arts, University of New South Wales

258

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

Professor Jason Middleton, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of New South Wales

Mr Craig Meer, Researcher/Organiser, on behalf of the Tasmanian University Postgraduate Association

Mr John A Webster, Chief Executive, on behalf of The Institution of Engineers, Australia

Mrs Jean Anderson, Acting Executive Director, on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia

Ray Choate, Barr Smith Library, The University of Adelaide

Professor Stuart Macintyre, Department of History, The University of Melbourne

Dr John R Sabine, Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, The University of Adelaide

Professor David E Mainwaring, Academic Head, Research and Graduate Studies and Professor JG Wallace, Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of Swinburne University of Technology

Professor Peter LeP Darvall, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), on behalf of Monash University

Dr John F Chambers, Division of Research and Development, Curtin University of Technology

Ms Donna Deland, President, and Ms Angela Piscitelli, Steering Committee, on behalf of the Master of Organisational Psychology Students Association (MOPS)

Mr Anthony Roediger, President, on behalf of the Students' Association of the University of Adelaide

Dr W Hall, National Centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd

Professor RH Symons, University of Adelaide

Professor Peter Sheehan, Chair, Research Grants Committee of the Australian Research Grants Council

The Hon Ray Groom, Premier of Tasmania, on behalf of the Tasmanian Government

259

150 Professor Malcolm Chaikin, Chairman, ATS Education for Technological Sciences and Engineering Committee, on behalf of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering

15.1 Professor David Siddle, Chair, on behalf of the National Committee for Psychology

152 Professor RD Guthrie, Convenor, on behalf of UNISON

153 Dr Jeff Bailey, Director, Office of Research, The University of Southern Queensland

154 Mr John McKinlay, University Librarian, on behalf of James Cook University Library

155 Professor Gavin Brown, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), The University of Adelaide

156 Dr Christine Henderson, University Librarian, The University of New South Wales

157 Professor CJD Fell, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and International), The University of New South Wales, on behalf of The University of Adelaide, The Australian National University, The University of Melbourne, The University of New South Wales, Monash University, The University of Queensland, The University of Sydney, The University of Western Australia

158 Professor Ralph Parsons

159 Professor HG Burger, Director, on behalf of Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research

160 Mr Warren Horton, Director, on behalf of the National Library of Australia

161 Professor Ian North, Professor of Visual Arts, University of South Australia, on behalf of the National Council of Heads of Art & Design Schools Executive Committee

162 Μ/- KP Baxter, Secretary, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, on behalf of the Victorian Government

163 Dr Phil Price, Executive Director, on behalf of the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation

164 Mr Peter Dundas-Smith, Executive Director, on behalf of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation

260

165 Μ/- PE Donnelly, Managing Director, on behalf of the Dairy Research and Development Corporation

166 Dr David Evans, Manager, R&D Programs, on behalf of RIRDC (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation)

167 Professor John Lovett, Operations Manager, on behalf of GRDC (Grains Research and Development Corporation)

168 Dr PS Wilkins, Assistant Secretary General, on behalf of the Australian Medical Association

169 Mr ES Wallis, Executive Director, on behalf of the Sugar Research and Development Corporation

170 Mr Colin Steele, University Librarian, Australian National University

171 Mr Leigh W Purnell, Director, Trade and Commercial Services, on behalf of MTIA

172 Dr Don Williams, Chairman, on behalf of the Australian Science and Technology Council

173 Mr RF Davis, Registrar, on behalf of the University of New England

174 Mr Max Wilson, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Security Industry Association Limited

261

APPENDIX 5

LIST OF WITNESSES

Hobart, 3 August 1993

. Albert, Mr Daniel, Assistant Manager, Labour Market Research, Department of Employment, Industrial Relations and Training

. Cartwright, Mr Ian, Director, Faculty of Fisheries and the Marine Environment, Australian Maritime College

. Cini, Mr Leo Gilbert, Manager, Secretariat and Research Branch, Department of Employment, Industrial Relations and Training

. Easthope, Dr Gary, Executive Member, FAUSA, University of Tasmania

. Greenhill, Ms Katherine Jennifer, Graduate Research Officer, Department of Premier and Cabinet

. Haddad, Professor Paul Raymond, Professor of Chemistry, School of Science and Technology, University of Tasmania

. Hadfield, Ms Alison Jane, Director, Office for Research, University of Tasmania

. Hamilton, Professor Phillip Alexander, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research), University of Tasmania

. Kerstan, Mr Tony Andrew, Member, Executive Committee, University of Tasmania Postgraduate Association

. Large, Professor Ross Raymond, Director, CODES National Key Centre for Teaching and Research, University of Tasmania

. Mackenzie, Dr Brian Douglas, Executive Dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

. Meer, Mr Craig Douglas, Researcher-Organiser, Tasmanian University Postgraduate Association

263

Parr, Professor Geoffrey George, Head of Department, Tasmanian School of Art, University of Tasmania

Pauley, Mr John Richard, Acting Director, Policy, Department of Premier and Cabinet

Stoddart, Professor David Michael, Professor of Zoology, University of Tasmania

Vanderaa, Mr Simon, Member, Executive, Tasmanian University Postgraduate Association

Watkins, Dr Richard, Director, Educational Planning, Department of Education and the Arts

Perth, 10 August 1993

. Baldock, Professor Cora, Professor of Sociology, Murdoch University

. Bradley, Dr John Stuart, Interim President, Western Australian Division, National Tertiary Education Union

. Budrikis, Mr Andrus, President, Postgraduate Students Association, University of Western Australia

. Chambers, Associate Professor John Frederick, Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research and Development, Curtin University of Technology

Currie, Dr Janice, Member, FAUSA National Research Committee, Western Australian Division, National Tertiary Education Union

Dawkins, Professor Peter John, School of Economics and Finance, and Director, Institute for Research into International Competitiveness, and Director, Western Australian Labour Market Research Centre, Curtin University of Technology

Dilworth, Professor Michael John, Professor of Biology (Microbiology and Biochemistry), Murdoch University

Duff, Mr Andrew Malcolm, Manager, Technology Transfer, Edith Cowan University

264

Ellis, Mr Arthur, University Librarian, University of Western Australia

Giddings, Associate Professor Geoffrey Julian, Head, School of Curriculum Studies, and Director, Research and Graduate Programs, Division of Arts, Education and Social Sciences, Curtin University of Technology

Glencross, Professor Denis John, Professor and Head, School of Psychology, Division of Health Sciences, Curtin University of Technology

Horsley, Professor Richard Rowley, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Engineering and Science, Curtin University of Technology

Howell, Professor John McCormack, Professor of Pathology and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research), Murdoch University

Jansen, Mr Robert, Research Officer, Murdoch University Postgraduate Students Association

Jevons, Professor Frederic Raphael

Jongeling, Associate Professor Sybe Bauke, Manager, Office of R&D, Edith Cowan University

Lyons, Professor Thomas John, Associate Professor in Atmospheric Science and Deputy Chair of the Board of Research, Murdoch University

Maloney, Mr Ross James, Treasurer, Curtin University Postgraduate Student Association

Ross, Professor John, Chair, Research Committee, University of Western Australia

Tjia, Ms Teresa Natali, Education Research Officer, Postgraduate Students Association, University of Western Australia

Wackett, Mr Murray Saunders, Assistant Registrar (Research), Murdoch University

Adelaide, 22 September 1993

. Agnew, Mr David John, Assistant Registrar, Research, Member of Executive of Board of Research, Flinders University of South Australia

. Andrews, Ms Kirsten, Education Vice-President, Magill Student Association, University of South Australia

265

Baudinette, Associate Professor Russell Victor, School of Biological Sciences, Member of Executive of Board of Research, Flinders University of South Australia

Boumelha, Professor Penny, Jury Professor of English Language and Literature, Member of Research Management Committee, University of Adelaide

Bradley, Professor Denise, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), University of South Australia

Brown, Professor Gavin, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research, Vice Chancellor Designate, University of Adelaide

Carey, Professor Alan Lawrence

Choate, Mr Ray, University Librarian, University of Adelaide

Cox, Ms Helen Margaret, Research Officer, South Australian Aboriginal Education and Training Advisory Committee

Cresswell, Dr Caryl, Head of Mechanical Engineering and Member of Research Management Committee, University of Adelaide

Davey, Dr Ian Elliott, Dean of Graduate Studies, University of Adelaide

Gaudiy, Professor Garth Ian, Immediate Past President, Australian Mathematical Sciences Council

Hall, Dr William, Executive Director, National Centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd

Hochman, Dr Mark, Research Manager, University of South Australia

Luszcz, Dr Mary, Reader in Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Member of Executive of Board of Research, Flinders University of South Australia

Makinson, Dr Owen Francis

McCormack, Ms Joanne Lyn, Project Officer, South Australian Aboriginal Education and Training Advisory Committee

Morrissey, Mr Philip John, South Australian Aboriginal Education and Training Committee

Murray, Dr Michael Kevin

266

Roediger, Mr Anthony, President, Students Association, University of Adelaide

Sabine, Dr John Robert, Managing Director, J. Sabine International

Symons, Professor Robert Henry, Department of Plant Science, Waite Institute, University of Adelaide

Teubner, Dr Peter John Osmond, Reader in Physics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Associate Dean of Research, Flinders University of South Australia

Melbourne, 11 October 1993

. Bamea, Associate Professor Z, School of Physics, University of Melbourne

. Bennett, Dr Margaret, Dean, Faculty of Nursing, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, (representing the Royal College of Nursing, Australia)

. Crozier, Professor RH, Chair, Department of Genetics and Human Variation, La Trobe University

. Darvall, Professor Peter LeP, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), Monash University

. Ellem, Mrs L, Women's Caucus of the Australasian Association of European Historians

. Hancock, Dr Eleanor, Co-convenor, Women's Caucus of the Australasian Association of European Historians

. Hardy, Ms Joan, Vice-President, National Tertiary Education Union (formerly UACA/FAUSA)

. James, Professor David W, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research), Deakin University

. Larkins, Professor Frank P, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research), University of Melbourne

. Lawler, Professor Jocelyn, President, NSW College of Nursing (representing the Royal College of Nursing, Australia)

. Macintyre, Professor S, Department of History, University of Melbourne

267

McLaren, Professor J, Australian and Pacific Studies, Victoria University of Technology

Nicholls, Ms Jane, Research Officer, National Tertiary Education Union (formerly UACA/FAUSA)

Ostenfield, Mr Shane, President, Council of Australian Postgraduate Students

Penington, Professor DG, Vice-Chancellor, University of Melbourne

Pilbrow, Professor JR, Head of Department of Physics, Monash University

Pugh, Professor David, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research), Melbourne Institute of Technology

Rossiter, Professor PL, Head of Department of Materials Engineering, Monash University

Smith, Professor T Fred, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research), La Trobe University, and Chair, AVCC Pro-Vice-Chancellors (Research) Committee

Stone, Professor BA, Department of Biochemistry, La Trobe University

Troup, Dr GJ, Reader in Physics, Monash University

Wells, Ms Julie, Research Officer, National Tertiary Education Union (formerly UACA/FAUSA)

Canberra, 22 October 1993

. Brennan, Professor Maxwell Howard, Chairman, Australian Research Council

. Clunies Ross, Professor Margaret Beryl, Council Member, Australian Academy of the Humanities

Crabb, Dr Peter

Cusack, Mr Michael John, Assistant Secretary, Research Branch, Department of Employment, Education and Training

Fullgrabe, Ms Helen Denise, Assistant Secretary (Research), Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee

268

Gallagher, Mr Michael, First Assistant Secretary, Higher Education Division, Department of Employment, Education and Training

Gibbs, Professor Adrian John

Gilbert, Professor Alan David, Vice-Chancellor, University of Tasmania, and Chair, Standing Committee on Research, Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee

Green, Professor John Richard, Fellow, Australian Academy of the Humanities

Hickey, Mr Paul William, Deputy Secretary, Department of Employment, Education and Training

Linklater, Mr Bill, Vice-President, Australian Library and Information Association

Luther-Davies, Professor Barry, Head, Laser Physics Centre, Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University

McMahon, Dr Ian Joseph, Acting Director, Research Branch, Department of Employment, Education and Training

Moses, Professor Ingrid, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic), University of Canberra

MuRarvey, Mr John, Deputy Secretary, Australian Vice Chancellors Committee

Mulvaney, Professor Derek John, Secretary, Australian Academy of the Humanities

Ninham, Professor Barry William, Professor and Head of Department of Applied Maths, Research School of Physical Sciences, Australian National University

Pearce, Professor Dennis Charles, Member, Committee of Australian Law Deans

Roberts, Ms Helen Pryor, Consultant, Committee of Australian Law Deans

Rolfe, Professor Barry

Steele, Mr Colin, University Librarian, Australian National University

269

APPENDIX 6

LIST OF REFERENCES

1 NBEET, Higher Education Council, 'Higher Education: The Challenges Ahead', December 1990.

2 NBEET, Australian Research Council, Discipline Research Strategies, 'Educational Research in Australia. Report of the Review Panel, Strategic Review of Research in Education', September 1992, AGPS, Canberra.

3 NBEET, Australian Research Council, Discipline Research Strategies, Prepared by a Working party for the Australian Geoscience Council, 'Towards 2005: A prospectus for research and research training in the Australian earth sciences', August 1992, AGPS, Canberra.

4 Australian Science and Technology Council, 'Setting Directions for Australian Research', June 1990, AGPS, Canberra.

5 Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, 'Australian universities in a changing world. Report for the 1993-95 Triennium', May 1992, Canberra.

6 EPAC, paper presented by Professor RO Slatyer, Mr Brian Finn, and Mr Denis Hanley, 'Science, Technology and Industrial Development', Discussion Paper 91/08, September 1991.

7 NBEET, 'Research Performance Indicators Survey', Commissioned Report No 21, January 1993, AGPS, Canberra.

8 OECD, 'Industry and University. New Forms of Co-operation and Communication', Paris, 1984.

9 NBEET, Australian Research Council, Ά Review of the Commonwealth Postgraduate Awards Scheme', April 1989.

10 FAUSA, 'Maximising Potential: Research in Australian Higher Education. A submission to the Committee of Review of Higher Education Research Policy', February 1989.

11 Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, 'Foundations for the "Clever Country", Report for the 1992-94 Triennium', March 1991.

12 DEBT, 'National Report on Australia's Higher Education Sector', AGPS, Canberra.

273