Academy of Social Sciences in Australia
Download this issue of Dialogue [PDF: Filesize
739.71 kB]
President's Report
Leon Mann
The issue of national research priorities has been the subject of several of my columns in Dialogue over the past 18 months.
Why do I keep coming back to this subject? Research priorities and national research priorities have been high on the Government's 'Backing Australia's Ability' agenda from the beginning of 2001. Priorities were centre stage in 2002 when there was community consultation and expert advice on the setting of national research priorities in the area of science, engineering and technology. Now in 2003, the social sciences and humanities have been invited to briefings with the Minister, to a working Conference, and to a Summit to discuss how they will contribute to (add, refine, assist) the implementation of the Big Four designated national research priorities announced by the Prime Minister in December 2002.
I return to the subject because I see the designation of national research priorities as a litmus test of how far social and human concerns, and therefore social science ideas and knowledge, influence the thinking of Government, government departments, and the central research agencies. A more compelling reason for returning to the issue is my strongly held belief that truly national research priorities involve in most cases a combination of nature and society, environment and people, of the physical and the social. Social sciences knowledge and insight must partner natural sciences and technology concepts and discoveries in the identification and implementation of our most compelling national research priorities.
In this regard, Australia lags behind many overseas countries where there is a clear recognition that the social/human dimension is a key to the new knowledge society/economy and that complex problems and their solutions require both social scientific and natural science/technological inputs. But how far behind? Is there a prospect of catching up? I believe the answer to the first is a long way behind; and, that the answer to the second is elusive - time will tell.
Where do we stand at present?
The Prime Minister's strategy in announcing 'Backing Australia's Ability' in January 2001 was to focus the national research and innovation system on backing winners in scientific and technological innovation. The four winners were:
- Nano-materials and biomaterials
- Genome/phenome research
- Photonics
- Complex/intelligent systems.
The ARC was invited to redirect more of its funding to these 'high tech' areas.
The priority setting initiative became more national and 'whole of government' in 2002 when there was wide consultation and an expert advisory process aimed at determining national research priorities. Many observers - including the scientific community - thought it odd that this was to be accomplished in two stages: science, engineering and technology in 2002; then social sciences and humanities in 2003.
In Dialogue (2/2002) I predicted 'look out for sustainable environment, in particular the issues of salinity and land degradation. Look out for new technologies to support clean and renewable energy sources. Also look out for ageing and maintaining a healthy population'. I confess to a combination of calculated guesses and 'insider' trading of information to make those predictions.
In December 2002 Australia's Big Four national research priorities were announced by the Prime Minister. They are:
- An environmentally sustainable Australia
- Promoting and maintaining good health
- Frontier technologies for building and transforming Australian industries
- Safeguarding Australia.
I hadn't predicted Safeguarding Australia … but that was pre-Bali. Dr Brendan Nelson commented after the PM's announcement: 'The four national research priorities set a clear and coherent direction for Australian research. Science is now at the centre of government policy making, acknowledging the vital contribution that scientific achievements can make to the quality of all our lives'.
As noted in Dialogue (2/2002): 'in most of these areas social scientists will find plenty of scope and opportunity to make a significant contribution'. That is still the case, most obviously in regard to Promoting and sustaining good health, Environmentally sustainable Australia, and Safeguarding Australia, but also in regard to understanding the conditions for building Frontier technologies. The social sciences are not completely sidelined; but they are clearly not centre stage.
The Social Sciences and Humanities Conference on 28 March 2003, (sponsored by the Department of Education, Science and Technology) is the focal point for engaging social sciences and humanities as contributors to refining, adding to, and assisting in the implementation of the Big Four. Two aspects of the Conference are reassuring. First, that the implementing agencies, such as CSIRO and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), will be involved in discussing how their plans incorporate social science and humanities contribution and partnership. Second, the case for additional research priorities is on the Conference agenda. This is good news. It signals that while the Government and implementing agencies are trying to bed-down the Big Four, and devise new structures for their implementation, there is a willingness to listen to the case for an additional national research priority.
A first inclination is to push for a fifth national research priority squarely in the social science/humanities area. If successful, we could take satisfaction in gaining admission to the national research priorities club. Admittedly, the recognition comes a year behind and there is only one priority to display, but at least we have something to work with. But that inclination could be a mistake because it reinforces the archaic view in this country of a separation between science, engineering, and technology in one camp and social sciences and humanities in the other. Importantly, it undermines the idea that most of the national research priorities that really matter involve an understanding of the inseparable nature of environment and people, of the social and physical. The way forward is to bring all knowledge domains together to identify Australia's compelling issues, problems and opportunities and from this basis, work out the highest priorities and how our research and innovation effort can be applied to make a significant difference.
I believe that there should be a fifth national research priority, and that the area can be justified in terms of the Government's priorities initiative as well as politically. I would define the fifth national research priority as 'Building Australia's creative and innovative capability'.
Such a priority incorporates 'developing human talent', one of the eight themes to emerge from the public consultations in 2002. The priority area focuses national research effort on such goals as devising new strategies and interventions to improve scientific and technological literacy, enhance reading and writing proficiency, foster numeracy and command of languages, and effective remediation for learning difficulties and dyslexia.
This priority area also focuses on research into the best models for schooling and life long education for nurturing creativity and innovation, and for devising new social structures and incentive systems to foster creativity and innovativeness in everything we do - and not only in regard to frontier technologies for Australian industries. It also encourages research into all sectors of the community and their capacity to respond to, and participate in, the new knowledge economy. It also focuses research into how best to generate structures of support to those researchers who are challenged to make a significant – rather than incremental - difference in each of the Big Four national research areas, and all that might follow.
Australia's Big Four priority areas are, to put it simply: healthy people, safe people, better environment, and blue sky technology winners. A fifth priority area - research into fostering and developing capable, skilled, educated, creative, and innovative people - would be a national winner.
Leon Mann
2003
Last modified: 2 November 2009.