Academy of Social Sciences in Australia
Introduction
Download this report [PDF: Filesize
404.30 kB]
Professor Leon Mann
President, ASSA
Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne
June 2003
In the period 2001-2003 the Government introduced a major initiative to identify a set of national research priorities to provide greater focus and direction, partnership and collaboration, urgency and importance to the nation's research and innovation system. At first, the initiative was primarily focused on science, engineering and technology as the putative drivers of technological change, competitiveness and prosperity. As the initiative unfolded, the crucial role of the social sciences and humanities as partners and contributors to national research knowledge and innovation was increasingly recognised. To some extent, the increased involvement of social science/humanities coincided with enlarging the national research priorities initiative from a search for blue sky frontier technology winners which would deliver new products and prosperity, to a recognition that the research effort must also be directed to addressing a range of urgent national priorities pertaining to health, environment, energy, resources, security, well-being, and so on. To some extent the increased involvement of the social sciences and humanities was also due to the response of scientists and technologists and the advice of government agencies responsible for implementing the priority initiative, who argued that many national research priorities require social sciences and humanities knowledge to help achieve an understanding and solution.
The social sciences encompass the diverse disciplines of anthropology, archaeology, sociology, demography, social geography, linguistics, law, social philosophy, economics, history, political science, psychology, education, and social medicine. (cf. Deutsch, Markovits and Platt, 1986). At one end of the continuum the social sciences overlap with the humanities, for example in the fields of linguistics, history and social philosophy. At the other end of the continuum the social sciences overlap with the natural sciences in their use of the scientific method to test hypotheses and advance knowledge, for example in the fields of psychology and social medicine. What the social sciences have in common is their focus on the study of human behaviour and the nature of human society.
In as much as identifying national priorities (and hence national research priorities) is about defining what matters most to Australia - its most pressing problems, challenges and opportunities - it makes sense to include social science and humanities knowledge and contribution in the exercise. As I write these words I am somewhat uneasy about having stated the obvious. But at the beginning of the national research priority setting initiative the social sciences (and especially the humanities) were puzzled by the proposed artificial separation of the exercise into two rounds - Science, Engineering and Technology in 2002 and Social Sciences and Humanities in 2003. By approaching priority setting from a selective discipline-based perspective rather than a broad national need/problem/opportunity- based orientation, there was a danger that the range of national research issues would be incompletely identified and inadequately prioritised. Importantly, the separation of Science-Engineering -Technology from Social Sciences and Humanities raised legitimate concern that the national research priority initiative would become piecemeal and fragmented, evolving in a haphazard rather than systematic fashion. Many social scientists were puzzled that the artificial separation of Science-Engineering-Technology from Social Sciences and Humanities ignored the plain fact that multidisciplinary partnerships and collaborations between many fields of social science, humanities and natural sciences underpin some of the most productive breakthroughs in new technologies, health sciences, and understanding of environmental systems. Some examples: Scholars in archaeology, linguistics and genetics are collaborating to investigate the origins of human society, each discipline contributing its unique knowledge to build a more complete picture. Another example, physicists, biologists, psychologists, sociologists and mathematicians are collaborating to identify the general principles underlying complex networks of relationships between elements in social, physical and biological systems. And another example, physicists, computer scientists, psychologists, neuroscientists and philosophers are collaborating in designing sophisticated robots with artificial intelligence.
Arbitrary separation of Science-Engineering-Technology into one "round" and Social Science and Humanities into a second "round" was a pointed reminder that the national research priorities initiative had itself begun by designating the knowledge and contribution of one group of disciplines as higher priority than another group.
I document this aspect of the history of the national research priorities initiative as background to the explicit inclusion of social sciences and humanities in 2003 in the form of conferences and invited position papers. (It should be acknowledged that social science and humanities representatives, myself included, were included as members of the Minister's community consultation panel and the expert advisory committee which worked on the national research priorities initiative throughout 2002). In December 2002 the Prime Minister announced Australia's Big Four national research priorities. They were:
- Environmentally sustainable Australia
- Promoting and maintaining good health
- Frontier technologies for building and transforming Australian industries
- Safeguarding Australia
Each of the four priorities was elaborated in a set of goals, seventeen in total, to provide a clear research focus to the key problems and challenges in each priority area. The four papers which follow in this volume represent a social science perspective and response to each of the four priority areas together with suggestions for refining the priority definition and adding to their identified goals. The set of seventeen goals in the Prime Minister's December 2002 statement are included in the papers. They should be read in conjunction with the authors' comments and suggestions for changes and additions.
Dr Brendan Nelson, Minister for Education, Science and Training commented after the Prime Minister'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".
In most of these areas social scientists will find plenty of scope and opportunity to make a significant contribution. But clearly the social sciences and humanities are not centre stage, although the process of including them in the national research priorities initiative had begun. Looking back to June 2001, when the Academy of the Social Sciences together with other academies was invited to suggest national research priority areas, we submitted: Children's well-being; Effectiveness of governance; Quality of life; Indigenous Australian culture and well-being; Australian population; Australia in the Asia-Pacific region; Societal impact of technological/economic changes; and Human response to environmental change. Some of the social science suggestions with a science/technology "edge" fit in well with Big Four priorities - for example societal impact of technological/economic changes, and human response to environmental change. Other suggestions are not as well linked - for example Effectiveness of governance, Australian population, Australia in the Asia-Pacific region, Indigenous culture and well-being.
The Social Sciences and Humanities Conference on 28 March 2003, sponsored by the Department of Education, Science and Training, was the focal point for engaging the social sciences and humanities in their appointed role as contributors to refining, adding to, and assisting in the implementation of the Big Four. The case for an additional, fifth national research priority was also on the Conference agenda. Suggestions made at the Conference included: Australian culture, heritage and identity; Creative responses to globalisation; Resilient communities; Improving health and wellbeing; and Building Australia's creative and innovative capability. The interest in a fifth national research priority tended to dissipate as some of the suggestions from the March 28 conference were modified or added into the Big Four priorities as distinct goals. The National Research Priorities Forum on April 16 and a meeting of the Priorities Enhancement Advisory Group on May 2 also considered refinement of the goals and plans for implementation. It must be acknowledged, however, that the national priorities initiative, which had begun with a science, engineering, technology focus, had produced a first set of priorities and goals which, while in some respects were narrow in scope and definition, were nonetheless highly credible, vitally important, and set clear directions to the research community and public research agencies.
The papers which follow in this volume are authored by Graeme Hugo and John Beaton "Environmental sustainability"; Fiona Stanley "Promoting and maintaining good health"; Leon Mann "Frontier technologies for building and transforming industries"; and Adam Graycar and John Beaton "Safeguarding Australia". Several caveats are in order. First of all, Professors Hugo, Stanley, Mann, and Graycar are Fellows of the Academy of the Social Sciences and Professor Beaton is the Academy's Executive Director.
Their papers in this volume are based on their invited presentations at the 28 March 2003 Social Sciences and Humanities Conference. The papers should be read as the individual viewpoints of each author, each with expertise in the area. The papers should not be taken as the official position of the Academy of the Social Sciences, or for that matter the representative view of the large community of social sciences scholars, teachers and professionals.
Also, the Conference papers were prepared as brief commentary and response to each of the Big Four designated priorities, the goals underpinning each priority area, and the description and rationale for each goal. The papers should therefore be read as notes for improvement and enlargement rather than a sustained analysis of actual and potential social sciences contribution in each priority area and its constituent goals. Before concluding, it is worth restating some of the less obvious contributions social sciences can and will make to the national research priorities initiative. First, the initiative like many other government initiatives is a policy intervention or "reform" to significantly change the way in which researchers, research agencies and government departments address national issues of importance where additional research knowledge and innovation can make a difference. As such, it is important to approach the initiative as a social experiment which should be monitored, measured, and evaluated for its impact. This is especially important in the case of national research priorities. It should be possible to set target goals in advance and establish milestones and benchmarks for evaluating whether specific priority goals have been achieved and how fully. Relevant control conditions and benchmarks should be included in the "design" of this "social experiment". Social scientists with their expertise in designing social experiments (cf. Donald Campbell, 1969) can assist in this exercise.
Second, the national research priorities initiative is also an exercise in bringing together researchers in new multidisciplinary projects and programs, research agencies in new partnerships, and government departments in new associations. The priorities initiative depends for its success on new enabling and coordinating mechanisms. Social scientists study and provide advice on the factors, structures and motivations underpinning successful collaboration. They look forward to contributing their expertise to assist in promoting mechanisms to build cooperation, coordination, and trust.
Finally, the social sciences, which hold a pivotal position in linking with the natural sciences (through overlapping research methodologies and through studying the intricate connections between social, genetic, and biological factors in human behaviour) and the humanities (through overlapping subject matter), are vitally interested in multidisciplinary approaches to complex problems involving nature and society, environment and people, physical and social. The priorities initiative, if it is successful, will help transform the vision of science and technology in Australia. And as Michael Barber of the Academy of Sciences reminds me, it will also help transform the social sciences. Both are exciting prospects.
Acknowledgments. The support of staff at DEST is gratefully acknowledged. I also acknowledge the major contribution of Dr John Beaton, Executive Director of the Academy of the Social Sciences, in coaxing, cajoling, and editing various papers in this volume. Priority setting at its best.
Professor Leon Mann
President, ASSA
Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne
June 2003
Last modified: 2 November 2009.