Academy of Social Sciences in Australia
Download this issue of Dialogue [PDF: Filesize
861.46 kB]
President's Report
Leon Mann
In January 2001 the Prime Minister announced in his Backing Australia's Ability statement that public research funding would be increased by $2.9 billion over five years, and that it would be directed primarily toward areas of research for 'competitive advantage'. The main research agencies, ARC, NHMRC and CSIRO, together with academies and other organisations were invited to suggest their 'theme based research priorities' to a working Group of the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council led by the Chief Scientist, Robin Batterham.
There was widespread belief among the research community that the priority setting exercise would lead to about twelve broad research priority areas. In my President's column in Dialogue 3/2001 I speculated that possibly three of the twelve research priority areas would have a substantial social science interest and focus. I was betting on government recognition of the importance of additional research to deal with such pressing national issues as sustainable environment, healthy population, and regional and rural disadvantage. The column concluded 'Watch this space for further developments'.
The further developments have now eventuated.
The research community was disappointed when a list of four high-tech priority areas - to be taken up by the ARC - was announced by government at the end of 2001. The winners were Nano-materials and biomaterials; Genome/Phenome research; Photonics; and Complex/Intelligent systems. Many researchers were dismayed that 'public good' research was missing from the list. Others were alarmed by the prospect of a major shift in ARC funds away from fundamental curiosity-driven research toward 'competitive advantage' research. Many, especially social scientists and humanities researchers, were alarmed that ARC, the elite agency which supports fundamental research of excellence across all disciplines, had been targeted to implement the brave new world of priority setting. The scientists especially were unhappy with the inadequate time available to redirect their 2002 research proposals toward the designated priority areas and become reborn as nanotechnologists and complex/intelligent researchers. Everyone was unhappy about the lack of consultation and transparency in determining the list of four priorities.
Research priorities are very much on the agenda in 2002. They are now an integral part of a 'whole of government' approach to meeting national needs and aspirations.
In May 2002 the Minister for Science, Peter McGauran released an Issues paper Developing National Research Priorities, which set out a framework for determining national research priorities. This was followed in June with the establishment of a Consultative Panel chaired by the Chief Scientist to conduct a nationwide public consultation on the elements of the framework and to invite nominations for national research priorities. I was invited to become a member of the Consultative Panel, which was made up principally of representatives from sciences, technology and engineering and the business sector. The Panel held public meetings in all capital cities as well as Albury/Wodonga, Kalgoorlie, Armidale, Darwin and Townsville, attended by over 800 people.
The Consultative Panel's report to the Minister is now public. Some of the key points in the report include: wide acceptance of the policy of setting and implementing national research priorities; the concept that priority areas are broad in scope and create national 'wealth' by addressing issues of public good as well as economic development and environmental sustainability; the principle that priority areas are based on research excellence and are supported by a strong foundation of basic research; the necessity for an Expert Advisory Committee drawn from a wide range of expertise to recommend priority areas to the Minister and Cabinet; the leading role of the research agencies and funding bodies (rather than government) in advising how to implement priorities; and, an understanding that the priority areas must produce measurable outcomes and involve ongoing monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Finally, there was widespread acceptance that research priority areas will necessarily require a multidisciplinary approach involving input from both science, engineering and technology and from social sciences and humanities. It is gratifying to note that in every public meeting concern was expressed by representatives of all sectors that social sciences and humanities had been artificially separated from the national research priorities initiative until 2003/2004. The Panel report states: 'The Panel and participants agree that the most worthwhile national research opportunities and problems, by their nature, involve multidisciplinary perspectives. Solutions will include contributions from social sciences and humanities. Social sciences and humanities will be included in the second, 2003/2004 round and this assurance was well received by participants'.
The risk is that the push toward priority setting will be dominated by a sciencetechnology- industry lobby intent on 'picking winners', oblivious to the essential contribution of fundamental research in all disciplines as the foundation of new ideas, creativity and excellence in research.
The government's bold initiative into the area of national research priority setting heralds a new era in which government - and intentionally the community at large - will take a closer interest in the kind of research conducted in Australia and how it contributes to national competitiveness and other socioeconomic outcomes. The initiative is an indication of how the national research and innovation system and, in time, the higher education and industry R&D systems, will be pushed into working together in a more planned and directed way. This will make Australia more economically competitive through its science and technology, but also provide solutions to pressing problems of health, ageing, population, community, environment, the tyranny of distance, and so on. The risk is that the push toward priority setting will be dominated by a science-technology-industry lobby intent on 'picking winners', oblivious to the essential contribution of fundamental research in all disciplines as the foundation of new ideas, creativity and excellence in research. National research priorities must be considered within the framework of four principal objectives of public funded research undertaken in Australia:
- Research to enhance the quality of social, family and work life of the Australian and wider community; Research to protect and rehabilitate the natural and social environment and the world we inhabit;
- Research to increase economic competitiveness through new ideas, products, processes, and inventions; and,
- Research to enlarge fundamental knowledge and understanding of who we are, and our place in the universe.
All four objectives are advanced by research in science, engineering, technology, social sciences, arts and the humanities.
In 2001, the Academy of the Social Sciences recommended a list of eight priority areas to the PMSEIC working party. They were Children's well-being; Effectiveness of governance; Quality of life; Indigenous Australian culture and well-being; Australian population; Australia in the Asia-Pacific region; Impact of technological/economic changes on society; and Human response to environmental change. In 2002, the list remains highly relevant to the national agenda. But the government's intention, controversially, is to set a limited number of national research priorities in the areas of science, engineering and technology for the 2002/2003 round, and in the areas of social sciences and humanities for the 2003/2004 round. It is therefore necessary to revisit the list of eight and work together with other Academies and interest groups to prepare strong, well-argued submissions for a special set of research programs where a sustained, multidisciplinary, collaborative research effort over a period of, say, five to ten years is likely to have a significant impact on national outcomes.
As part of the public meetings held by the Consultative Panel across Australia, participants were invited to suggest their preferred national research priorities, which together with written submissions, will be sent to the Expert Advisory Committee to help in determining a short-list to submit to Cabinet. The suggestions fell into eight broad categories: Sustainable environment, Effective utilisation of natural resources, Healthy society, Population and regional development, Developing human talent, Industry, innovation and economic growth, Communicating Australia, and Safe Australia. The list is, of course, not exhaustive and by the time final written submissions are due on 9 August there will be many more ideas under consideration.
I speculated in 2001 that the government would announce around 12 research priority areas of which two or three would have a substantial social science component. I was quite wrong, but so was just about everyone else. What of 2002 - in which broad thematic priorities are on the agenda - and for that matter 2003, when social sciences and humanities will be centre stage? Here are my predictions. This year look out for sustainable environment, in particular the issues of salinity and land degradation. Look out for new technologies to support clean energy and renewable energy sources. Also look out for ageing and maintaining a healthy population. In most of these areas social scientists will find plenty of scope and opportunity to make a significant contribution. Despite the arbitrary separation this year between science, engineering and technology and social sciences and humanities, a strong social science contribution will be welcomed.
National priority setting in research presents many opportunities and challenges:
- An opportunity to examine and clarify national goals, and what we as researchers do, what we achieve, and the difference it makes.
- The challenge of a 'social experiment' based on the assumption that designated priority areas will produce significant benefits over and above 'the usual'. It follows that it will be crucial to monitor, measure and evaluate performance of priority areas against agreed national and international benchmarks. Performance criteria appropriate to research activity in the designated priority area must be specified. A basket of diverse indicators will be necessary to ensure outcomes are properly measured.
- A strong signal and incentive for state governments, regional communities, public research agencies and research institutions to share resources and collaborate in research activity and the application of knowledge.
- An opportunity to build new structures and processes for selection of priority areas, for supporting institutional collaborations, for assessment of research proposals and the award of grants, and for evaluation of research outcomes.
Looking ahead, the national research priorities initiative will have major effects on how we plan and do research, communicate and apply our research findings, nurture research talent, and strive to become more creative and innovative. We will also learn valuable lessons about what is needed to ensure that the national research priority initiative is a net benefit to the Australian community and not, as some fear, a detriment to excellent, curiosity-driven, fundamental research that sustains all disciplines.
Leon Mann
2002
Last modified: 2 November 2009.