Academy of Social Sciences in Australia
Download this issue of Dialogue [PDF: Filesize
949.59 kB]
President's Report
Professor Sue Richardson
Since my last report, the Commonwealth Government has announced its final version of the National Research Priorities. Readers of this column will be aware, from Leon Mann's reports, that the Academy was actively involved in working to have the social sciences more fully inserted into the wording of the National Research Priorities (NRP), even as we sought to have an additional priority added. In this we were actively assisted by the Academy of the Humanities. I can now report on the (modest) success of these efforts. In the Government's words, 'This process has resulted in some editorial enhancements to the original goals and the identification of four new goals.' The four new goals are:
- Increasing our understanding of the impact of climate change and variability at the regional level across Australia, and addressing the consequences of these factors on the environment and on communities.
- Understanding and strengthening key elements of Australia's social and economic fabric to help families and individuals live healthy, productive and fulfilling lives.
- Maximising Australia's creative and technological capability by understanding the factors conducive to innovation and its acceptance.
- Enhancing Australia's capacity to interpret and engage with its regional and global environment through a greater understanding of languages, societies, politics and culture.
The 'editorial enhancements' include a few key words.
The summary for the first goal (An environmentally sustainable Australia) has had the word 'human' added to the phrase 'Transforming the way we utilise our land, water, mineral and energy resources through a better understanding of human and environmental systems and the use of new technologies.' This is a small change with the potential to make a very large difference to the sort of environmental research that can gather under the NRP umbrella: The whole field of understanding and managing the impact of human activity on the environment now becomes part of the national research priorities. In addition, managing and protecting Australia's biodiversity has been recognised as having an intrinsic as well as a commercial value.
The goal of 'Promoting and maintaining good health' has been usefully modified to take on a less disease-oriented perspective. Promoting wellbeing has been substituted for preventing disease. Ageing well will now be promoted by 'developing better strategies to improve the mental and physical capacities of older people', rather than by 'reducing mental and physical degeneration based on greater knowledge and understanding of the causes of disease and degeneration of mind and body.' Safeguarding Australia is now recognised to require 'strengthening our understanding of Australia's place in the region and the world', rather than just being a matter of fending off terrorism, crime, invasive diseases and pests with clever technologies.
These are useful changes, and they do matter. It is clear that a strong effort is being made to ensure that the NRPs do actually alter the shape of research and research funding. The changes, for which the Academies of Humanities and Social Sciences fought so hard, increase the openings for our disciplines to sit comfortably under the NRP umbrella, and hence to claim a share of NRP research dollars. More importantly, they improve the prospect that these major issues confronting Australia are tackled with the full range of insights that can come from the human as well as natural sciences. The Academy (as all social scientists should be) is grateful for the major effort and skill that Leon Mann, John Beaton and a number of other Fellows put into causing this shift in the NRPs. At times it seemed to be a hopeless task. For the full list of national research priorities and the associated sets of goals, see the DEST website
In February, the Academy held its second Indigenous Postgraduate Summer School. This was jointly convened by two Fellows, Marcia Langton and Leon Mann, and was attended by 17 Indigenous higher degree students over the course of a week. I had the pleasure of joining the students and staff at the dinner that was held as part of the program. In my conversations with many of the students, it became clear that the week had been an extraordinarily positive one for them. At the same time I was struck by the size of the challenge that many of the students had taken on. Most were employed, many had children and grandchildren who needed their care and had major community obligations. They had to manage a work/study/family/community balancing act that would overwhelm most people. The support and skills offered by the Summer School was clearly valued highly, and morale among the students was high. The Summer School is the most important act of outreach that the Academy undertakes, and one of which we should be proud (see further details under Academy News).
At the first meeting of the Executive for the year, we spent considerable time discussing a new issue for the Academy. The Academy has been approached by the Australian Mobile Telephone Association (AMTA), to see if we would join them in a study of the impact of the mobile phone. They are aware that the social sciences (and humanities) are likely to have important insights into this new phenomenon, and would like our assistance in encouraging social science research on the topic, which they would fund. The issue that we debated was what should be the proper relation between the Academy and a commercial interest group that sought our assistance. There is no question that in any work that we do with other parties (including our main source of funds, the Commonwealth government), we must be free of pressures to promote a particular view or to remain silent in order to comply with the preferences of the other party. The Academy has no interest in participating in partnerships that might compromise our integrity or independence. But that said, there remain other issues to resolve.
There are several arguments in favour of responding positively to approaches such as that from AMTA. One of the main purposes of the Academy is to promote the value and usefulness of the social sciences. It is appropriate, therefore, to welcome initiatives from other groups that reflect an appreciation of the social sciences, and seek our assistance in drawing on the insights of our disciplines. For this reason, I think that our first reaction to any reasonable approach for collaboration should be encouraging rather than suspicious. The Academy should also, I believe, provide opportunities for its Fellows to do new and interesting research where it has the chance to do so. A third consideration is that co-operation with other groups can contribute to our income. This has two benefits. It is impossible to do fine things without resources. So the extra income can expand the range of fine things that we can do. Importantly, relations with a range of groups would also diversify the sources of our income. This would make us less reliant on the government grant and in this way would enhance our capacity for independence.
But there are also major grounds for caution. The Academy has a strong reputation for independence and for the distinction of its scholarship. Other parties may seek to gain unwarranted credibility through an association with us. Further, even if the work that we did was actually independent, it is difficult to ensure that we are not tainted with the perception of being influenced by the funding source. This would be especially the case if the research was genuinely supportive of the interests of the other party. Thirdly, we must be aware that private commercial groups are not usually concerned to promote scholarship in the public interest, and they may have intended uses of the work that would sit uncomfortably with the proper role of the Academy.
After extensive discussion that canvassed these arguments and more, the Executive decided to proceed, albeit cautiously, with a modest collaboration with AMTA. In essence, the Academy will run two workshops and assist in the production of a discussion paper on the topic of a research agenda for investigating the social and economic affects of the mobile phone. The discussion paper will not be badged as an Academy product, and the contents will be explicitly attributed to the authors alone. If the research agenda setting is successful, AMTA expects to commit substantial funds to further research and would seek additional funds from the Commonwealth.
In the current environment in which academics are being actively encouraged to collaborate with partners outside the universities, there may well be future occasions on which the Academy has to determine its proper relation with commercial and other interests. I would very much welcome hearing the views of Fellows on this matter.
Sue Richardson
2004
Last modified: 2 November 2009.