Academy of Social Sciences in Australia

Australia's Landmark Research Infrastructure Needs

Submission regarding the National Research Infrastructure Council's Process to Identify and Prioritise Australia's Landmark Research Infrastructure Needs

PDF Download this submission   [PDF: Filesize 669.88 kB]

15 July 2010

Introduction

The Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (ASSA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Discussion Paper regarding the National Research Infrastructure Council's (NRIC) process to identify and prioritise Australia's Landmark Research Infrastructure Needs.

A foundational element of ASSA's Constitution is the commitment to comment where appropriate on national needs and priorities in the area of the Social Sciences. The Academy supports in principle the development of a considered and effective process to identify and prioritise Australia's research infrastructure needs. However, though the Discussion Paper recognises that the NRIC will expect proposals to cover humanities and potentially industry outcomes, ASSA's main concern is that:

  • The proposal in its current form is strongly focused towards the provision of funding to projects which develop large, identifiable installations, such as laboratories, a process which appears likely to favour funding outcomes for the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) sector. ASSA points to need for the support of non-hardware infrastructure for the decentralised, digitally-based infrastructure which underlies much of the leading research undertaken by the Social Sciences sector, and is also an integral part of the STEM sector s analytical capacity to manage its data. Data banks and information archives are critical needs of all researchers in all sectors of research. Their presence in a well considered national strategy for research infrastructure should be made explicit.

Thus, the Academy reiterates its position as outlined in its 2008 submission regarding the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, namely that Landmark Research Infrastructure extends in meaning to all tools and enabling mechanisms exploited by researchers. The collective data maintained and utilised at data banks, libraries and archives provide the substance that permits researchers to build strong evidence based arguments to support further research, policy development and the national good.1

Longitudinal data sets are of crucial importance in many of the Social Sciences, yet they have been established more slowly in Australia than in many other countries. Having the funding to maintain and manage access to a set of well-targeted longitudinal data sets is an important example of research infrastructure needs pertaining to the Social Sciences and other research sectors. The use of major data sets to address critical national issues should not be overlooked simply because they do not require high levels of funding equivalent to major scientific apparatus. The large statistical data sets that provide crucial information must be maintained and made accessible to bona fide researchers who provide knowledge and evidenced-based advice to Government, industry and others on matters of health, housing, taxation and innovation, for example.

ASSA is therefore conscious of the benefits which a streamlined process for identifying key landmark research infrastructure projects would provide, but would like to ensure that all sectors of the Australian research landscape are given equal opportunities in any such process.

ASSA's Response to the Discussion Paper Questions

1. Does the definition (as contained in the NRIC Discussion Paper) appropriately capture all potential landmark research infrastructure projects? Are there limitations in the definition that may restrict its usefulness?

While the definition of landmark research as contained in the Discussion Paper is basically sound2, this Academy is concerned that the clear emphasis which this definition places on physically distinct facilities may lead to an over-emphasis of sponsored research infrastructure projects from the STEM sector. This definition does not adequately allow for the decentralised, digitally-based infrastructure facilities heavily utilised by both Social Science researchers and researchers from other sectors.

A further valuable source of data is administrative, yet that is rarely seen as a component of research infrastructure. Thus, administrative agencies also require the resources to facilitate access for their own research purposes and management needs.

2. Is the financial threshold of $100m acceptable for landmark research infrastructure?

The Academy considers that a financial threshold of $100m may be too high for the development of new landmark research infrastructure facilities to support the Social Sciences. It is also unclear why a five year timeframe is stipulated for this threshold.

3. Are there any other criteria that should be necessary for registering a potential landmark research infrastructure project? Should all of this information be made publicly available?

4. Is the proposed set of criteria for funding proposals sufficient? Are there any other criteria that should be applied?

In response to questions three and four, the Academy supports the criteria in their current form. However, they could also incorporate integrated infrastructure and facilities, in order to sufficiently capture all aspects relating to Social Science-based research.

5. Is a program for landmark project proposals warranted? What is the scale of funds realistically required for each project to make such a program worthwhile?

ASSA welcomes an initiative such as the Landmark Research Infrastructure process outlined in the Discussion Paper on the basis that, in implementing such a program, consideration is taken to ensure that those projects which receive funding will subsequently be afforded suitable avenues to secure the ongoing funding required to cover the costs associated with maintenance, conditional upon their consistent high performance.

The Academy is conscious of the not-uncommon experiences of researchers and research administrators from the Social Sciences, who have in the past been able to access funding to instigate and develop research infrastructure for the Social Science sector (for example, remotely-accessible data repositories) but have been unable to secure the funds to maintain such infrastructure. The Australian Social Science Data Archive (ASSDA) serves as a key example of research infrastructure which benefits a significant number of Social Science researchers, as demonstrated by the high number of users outlined in the figures and tables contained in Appendix #1 (page 5).

Moreover, it is the Academy's view that such a program is warranted only insofar as the funding allocated to develop landmark projects does not compromise funding for already existing infrastructure and facilities, including those relating to the Social Science sector.

6. Is a major evaluation after 5-10 years of operation an appropriate timeframe? Should there be further rolling evaluations over the course of the project s lifetime?

The Academy supports the major evaluation of projects in circumstances where such evaluations consider securing the costs of maintenance and possible long term expansion. In terms of risk management, an initial evaluation after three years may be worthwhile, in order to avoid mishaps in a project s early stages, or to identify where changes in direction are required should particular projects face difficulties or become affected by external factors.

Recommendations

The preceding paragraphs imply some adjustment to the considerations being given to the process by which Australia's Landmark Research Infrastructure needs are identified and prioritised. In order to ensure that the interests of all relevant stakeholders are taken into account, ASSA has the following recommendations for the Council:

  • Acknowledging the aim of the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy to provide researchers with access to major research facilities and the supporting infrastructure and networks necessary to undertake world-class research3, careful consideration must be undertaken to ensure funding is allocated to research infrastructure which will benefit the Social Sciences, as well as the physical and technological sciences.
  • A balance must be maintained between developing new facilities, and maintaining and enhancing existing research infrastructure of value to all sectors.
  • The Academy would welcome the opportunity to convene a policy roundtable, or an equivalent forum which could inform the development of policies which recognise the varying infrastructural needs of different research sectors, and support the equitable development of research infrastructure in Australia.

References

Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (ASSA), Submission to the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (2008).

National Research Infrastructure Council, A Process to identify and Prioritise Australia's Landmark Research Infrastructure Needs: Discussion Paper (2010).

The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy Evaluation Report (2010), p1.

Contributors

Professor Jon Altman, FASSA (Member of ASSA's Policy and Advocacy Committee; Professor, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University)

Dr. John Beaton (Executive Director, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia)

Professor Peter McDonald, FASSA (Member of ASSA's Policy and Advocacy Committee; Director, Australian Demographic and Social Science Research Institute, Australian National University)

Professor Deborah Mitchell (Director, Australian Social Science Data Archive; Deputy Director, Australian Demographic and Social Science Research Institute, Australian National University).

Mr. Dennis Trewin, FASSA4 (Chair of ASSA's Policy and Advocacy Committee; Director of Dennis Trewin Statistical Consulting)

The Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia

The Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia is an autonomous, non-governmental organisation devoted to the advancement of knowledge and research in the various Social Sciences, and to the representation of Australian Social Sciences and Social Scientists. The Academy is recognised by the Australian Government as one of Australia's four Learned Academies, and consists of an elected Fellowship of approximately 500 of Australia's most prominent Social Science researchers, representing seventeen Social Science disciplines. ASSA'strives to foster excellence in Social Science research; to encourage the advancement of the Social Sciences in Australia; to act as a coordinating group for the promotion of research and teaching in the Social Sciences; to strongly support efforts to encourage and facilitate research collaboration between Australian and overseas researchers; and to consult, advise, and comment where appropriate on national needs and priorities from the perspective of the Social Sciences.

Footnotes
  1. See Submission to the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (2008), p2.
  2. The National Research Infrastructure Council defines Australian landmark research facilities as typically large-scale, complex facilities that serve large and diverse user communities, [are] generally regarded as part of the global research capability, and engage national and international collaborators in investment and in access protocols. See A Process to identify and Prioritise Australia's Landmark Research Infrastructure Needs: Discussion Paper (2010).
  3. As described in the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy Evaluation Report (2010), p1.
  4. FASSA - Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.