SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS, SMALL BUSINESS AND EDUCATION REFERENCES COMMITTEE

Re:

The capacity of public universities to meet Australia’s higher education needs 

From The Director and members of the Centre for the Study of Research Training and Impact (SORTI)

Contact details: Dr Allyson P. Holbrook (Director), SORTI, Faculty of Education, University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308.
edaph@cc.newcastle.edu.au  Phone: 02 4921 5945  Fax: 02 4921 6895

SORTI is a research centre within the University of Newcastle with a brief to undertake research into research training and impact.

We wish to comment on the following terms of reference, with specific reference to the development of research training (particularly at the research student level) and the monitoring of research impact.

(f)	The adequacy of current funding arrangements with respect to (iii) The quality and diversity of teaching and research

(g)	The effect of increasing reliance on private funding and market behaviour on the sector’s ability to meet Australia’s education, training and research needs including its effect on (iv) the maintenance and extension of Australia’s long term capacity in both basic and applied research across the diversity of the fields of knowledge

(f)	The capacity of public universities to contribute to economic growth (iii) through research and development, both, both via the immediate economic contribution of universities and through sustaining national research capacity in the longer term.

(g)	The regulation of the higher education sector in the global market, including (i) accreditation regimes and quality assurance (ii) external mechanisms to undertake ongoing review of the capacity of the sector to meet Australia’s education, training, research, social and economic needs.

COMMENT EMBRACING THE TERMS OF REFERENCE NOTED

These comments are particularly directed to the area of postgraduate coursework and research training and research impact.

Equity and access to postgraduate studies

In some countries students are expected to re-locate to attend university, there is a long history of such re-location, and in many instances the distances are not vast, nor is there the concentration of urbanisation that exists in this country. Moreover the systems in these countries developed at a time when the pressure of change was not so concentrated. Particular institutions had time to ‘develop’ infrastructure and expertise, and the community assimilated the need for students to travel long distances, pay large amounts for education etc.

Pressures on university funding, globalisation, pressures on personal finance and increased cost of travel and re-location have occurred together in this country. Funding models are increasingly squeezed to ‘fit’ the pattern of overseas models, and the community is expected to adopt different values and expectations. Current funding strategy also means some types of academic expertise (disciplines and research skills) are being privileged over others. 

Recently two of the members of SORTI were engaged in a study of the impact of educational research in Australia. When we compared research being done in Faculties of Education around the country we found a strong pattern of similarity in the types of research being undertaken (including topics of research). This meant virtually any qualified student in any state could go to their ‘local’ university and undertake research of relevance to them and their professional needs. No funding model should restrict this opportunity for those with the urge to seek new knowledge and apply it. This is particularly essential for part time and mature age research students who have work and family connections and commitments that prevent them from relocating to undertake higher degree studies. 

Change and continuity

This is not to say systems should not change. We certainly have to re-evaluate what the university can contribute to Australia’s current and future generations, national stability and wealth, but any reasonable evaluation must be based on needs and on sound premises. Access to higher degree study for all with the desire to undertake such work have come to be treated as impediments to change rather than as important equity considerations to be guaranteed and accommodated within the change process. There is also a need for social continuity that is provided by universities.

Funding restrictions should not be permitted to reduce access in this country to high quality postgraduate courses or research training. But long-term and systemic tertiary underfunding jeopardises the maintenance of existing ‘pools’ of expertise within universities. There is absolutely no research that suggests we will not need this expertise – in fact most countries we would compare ourselves with would seem to be developing rather than reducing access to higher level technical and research skills. However, there is no doubt we should consider the use such expertise more creatively.  A funding model that reduces opportunity, creativity and access on the basis of little more than a philosophy of economic rationalism, is perhaps worse than a stubborn refusal to change. Neither is based on a sound foundation.

Research quantity and quality

The recent study of research impact referred to above showed that by far the greater proportion of person hours spent on research in this country come from research students. The students were doing research primarily for their personal interest and to improve their professional expertise, their studies being primarily interest driven rather than directly linked to financial reward. These students can go to any university in the country – at present - and access appropriate programs. Moreover it was found that many of the postgraduate students in education, whether doing coursework or research degrees, were providing a direct conduit for the transmission of research knowledge into schools and educational policy making. This is a community resource of considerable value that will not bear the pressure of ‘market forces’. The major decreases in students undertaking postgraduate coursework courses in education, in parallel with the imposition of up-front fees, is evidence of this. In the case of education, there is no ‘ready money’ to fund such research available to the relevant stakeholders, and state departments of education have severely wound back their internal research efforts.

The issues of access to and breadth of knowledge creation, however, do not override the need for quality. The knowledge, and the learning that underpins it, has to be soundly based. Which brings us to the questions of research training and impact monitoring. Australia is not alone in the absence of a sound research base underpinning its research higher degree programs. And at present market forces are very much driving the direction of the debate on what should be included in a PhD. We argue that the considerable dearth of research into how learning takes place at advanced levels, how research skills are assimilated, and how programs are assessed and evaluated has to be addressed. It is an area that Australia can move into quickly and, in some respects, then be ahead of the rest of the world. Research training should be monitored but both the process and its evaluation must also be informed by research.

A small but significant step in improving research impact

A thorough and integrated research program into research training and utilisation is overdue. 

As well as specific studies such as the recent one of research impact in education, DETYA undertakes reviews of disciplines but there is no strategic connection between the research findings. Nor is there wide and timely dissemination of results of such studies and reviews. Discipline and/or wider academic groupings should have peak bodies that monitor trends, and evaluate research impact on a regular basis. In this way we would also have more information to inform the strategic use of funds, particularly the distribution of scholarships, etc. One aspect of the research impact study involved the development and testing of a methodology for monitoring research trends in education using information technology. With a few minor adjustments and a relatively small expenditure the monitoring in education could continue and replace the need for expensive and time-consuming surveys in the future. Similar methods could also be used across disciplines, with the same potential benefits.

We believe that an evaluation program monitoring the quality and quantity of research and its impact across discipline areas should be implemented. The pilot study undertaken for education could serve as a model.