Academy of Social Sciences in Australia
Download this issue of Dialogue [PDF: Filesize
836.88 kB]
President's Report
Leon Mann
The 2002 Symposium 'Building a better future for our children' was undoubtedly the most innovative in a long line of ASSA Symposia. It was innovative in format and in the diversity of participants involved in the program. It included: paper presentations on the symposium theme by leading scholars; a book launch; a 'hypothetical' with a panel of experts and community representatives grappling with the problem of what to do about 'Eugene', a very difficult eight year old; a group of young people making statements about their concerns and interests; a panel of 'stakeholders' from the public service, media, and academe, identifying which single group of children was most at risk and where they would direct additional support to make most difference to children's well being. Of the many highlights, two stand out: Paul Jennings, a writer of children's books, reflecting on children's worlds, and his understanding of children's needs and their anxieties, interspersed with excerpts from his story about Lenny's quest to find his biological mother; and Fiona Stanley's memorable Cunningham Lecture 'Doing more for our children in the twenty-first century'. The response from Fellows was genuinely warm and supportive. At the following day's AGM, one Fellow enjoined everyone to spread the word that the Annual Symposium and Cunningham Lecture had been rich and rewarding events.
Arguably, the topic of the Symposium was conducive to a flexible and open format. It might be harder to achieve that in a symposium on globalisation and its discontents… or social and environmental sustainability in rural Australia… but it would be worth a try! The point is that ASSA is a continually evolving institution that changes its structure and activities with the times, and it is hoped, in advance of the times. Experimenting with the program and format of ASSA activities is a sign of organisational innovation, and Fellows Margot Prior, Sue Richardson and Fiona Stanley, the convenors of the 2002 Symposium, were highly creative and innovative in their concept and delivery.
The creativity-innovation theme was mentioned at the Annual Dinner by Robin Battterham, Chief Scientist, while speaking about the national research priorities initiative. Dr Batterham recounted his attendance at a forum on innovation policy held in Western Sydney that morning. He observed that nothing disturbed the parade of predictable presentations until someone dared to ask why Australian school children by the age of 12 years seem to have their natural and spontaneous creativity knocked out of them.
Good question. Expect the issue of fostering and maintaining creativity across the lifespan, but especially in childhood, to be on the agenda of the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering, and Innovation Council. After all, creativity is the first step in the tortuous cycle which leads to innovation - and innovation is more than a change in office layout, or installing a better telephone system; it is also the creation and adoption of truly novel ideas and concepts, new processes and products. And dare I say, once again, that social sciences and humanities are as much a part of that endeavour as science and technology, although that message is not always appreciated. Indeed, having witnessed Paul Jennings' account of the skill and craft of the children's book writer and the magic effect of reading a book (as against for example, watching a television version) on children's empathy, wonderment, and curiosity, I'm in favour of getting Jennings appointed consultant to PMSEIC (on children and creativity) and to DEST (on improving literacy rates and reading standards in schools).
The question 'Are Australian scholars becoming less creative?' has been raised as evidence mounts that Australia is slipping in the proportion of research papers cited in the world's leading academic journals - an indicator of the quality and importance of new research ideas and findings. Of course, we may not have slipped in absolute number of new ideas, theories, findings, and patents produced. But it is small comfort if other nations are surging ahead and our relative influence and impact has declined in the world of knowledge.
ASSA Fellow, Simon Marginson (What's wrong with the Universities?), argues that the decline is due to an emphasis in the higher education system on quantity rather than quality of publications which has led to a 'makework' culture in many disciplines, reinforcing what I would call a 'publish much - or perish quickly' mentality. The 'makework' culture diverts attention toward immediate results and relatively quick publication and away from fundamental lines of inquiry with longer term horizons. The system itself is a creature of government funding policy for research infrastructure. Meagre funds trickle to universities in return for easy-to-count evidence of productivity (defined in units of output). This system is bound to shape and influence creativity and how it is directed toward works and products. To survive as an academic researcher, it makes sense for early career researchers, and scholars in impoverished departments, to stay with well-travelled paradigms and methods likely to lead to quick, assured publication even in second tier journals, rather than strike out in new directions, knowing it could be years before the publications auditor needs to enter your name in the annual publications audit.
It is more a case of a dumbing-down of the system than dumbing-down of academics. Academics are learning that in order to survive until conditions improve they must play the 'makework' game. The worry is that survival habits can take on a life of their own. Worse still, is the prospect that universities will begin to reinforce the system by hiring and favouring academics adept at playing the 'makework' game. The parallel is the astute 12 year old who figures that handing in school work which fits the approved template is safe and rewarded, while idiosyncratic work outside the template is risky, at best ignored, and at worst invites rejection.
In 1995 the Department for Industry, Science and Technology (DIST) held a national consultation program on Innovation, and in 2000 the Department of Industry, Science, Resources (DISR) convened a National Innovation Summit on the same issue. The urgent calls from both events, to devise programs and incentives to foster innovation and commercialise its benefits, seem to have sunk without much trace. What odds on a future Creativity Summit, convened by the Department of Education, Science, and Training (DEST) in partnership with the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) attended by government, industry, researchers, educators, creative artists and professionals to work on the nexus between creativity and innovation, and on the question of how to foster and reinforce the kind of creativity that leads to outstanding innovation?
There is a rationale for a Creativity Summit, if one is needed. 'Developing Human Talent' was one of the eight thematic priorities - broad visionary objectives - which emerged out of the Public Consultations on the setting of national research priorities this year (See Consultative Panel Report. DEST, July 2002: 17). And one of the six goals listed under Developing Human Talent was - wait for it - 'Education that retains the joy of discovery'. To be sure, the themes Sustainable Environment, and Healthy Society were far more prominent in the public consultations than Developing Human Talent. But it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how developing human talent and fostering creativity connect to the themes of Sustainable Environment, Healthy Society, and all of the others.
Leon Mann
2002
Last modified: 2 November 2009.