A discussion paper - Federation University Australia · CRICOS Provider No. 00103D Page 1 of 40...

CRICOS Provider No. 00103D Page 0 of 40

The aims of this discussion paper are to (a) describe the current research

challenges Federation University Australia faces in the light of recent

Federal government policy changes, (b) to benchmark research at FedUni

with other universities, and (c) suggest possible strategies to meet the

challenges and improve research performance at FedUni.

Research Directions for Federation University Australia

Adiscussionpaper

Professor Frank Stagnitti Deputy Vice‐Chancellor Research and Innovation September 23, 2014


Research Directions for Federation University

The aims of this discussion paper are to (a) describe the current research challenges

Federation University faces in the light of recent Federal government policy changes, (b) to

benchmark research at FedUni with other universities, and (c) suggest possible strategies to

meet the challenges and improve research performance at FedUni.

1. Implications of Federal Government Policy Changes

The Federal Government provides a definition of research for the purpose of the Higher

Education Research Data Collection (HERDC). Research is defined as the creation of new

knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to

generate new concepts, methodologies and understandings. Research encompasses a

broad range of activities including pure and strategic basic research, applied research and

experimental development. Applied research is original investigation undertaken to acquire

new knowledge but directed towards a specific, practical aim or objective (including a client-

Research income at the former University of Ballarat has dropped by 40% since 2007 or on average by 8% per annum

Our Commonwealth Research Block grant funding is threatened by under performance and recently announced changes to Higher Education policy

We invest heavily in research academic staff salaries and have sector-benchmarked moderate teaching loads

Last year, approximately 21% of the salaries budget or $2.40M out of a total $11.4M was allocated by the Faculties and Schools to support the research activity of approximately 50% of staff that produced less than 1% of the research wealth of the University in the past 3 years


driven purpose). Within the definition of research, the Federal Government recognises the

activities that support the development of higher degree by research students.

Research, as defined above, and undertaken by Australian Universities is currently

evaluated in the Excellence for Research Australia (ERA) exercise.

1.1 Research Income and the Research Block Grant (RBG)

Research in Australian universities is supported with funds from two major sources; (a)

external research income derived from research granting bodies such as the Australian

Research Council (ARC) or National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) or

communities, industries, and philanthropic organisations and/or government or semi-

government instrumentalities such as CSIRO, research development corporations (RDCs)

and cooperative research centres (CRCs), and (b) direct funds from the Commonwealth

Government to the University called the Research Block Grant (RGB).

The major schemes that the Commonwealth Government currently use to allocate research

funds to Universities to support the indirect costs of research include the Sustainable

Research Excellence (SRE), Joint Research Engagement (JRE), Research Infrastructure

Block Grant (RIBG) and Research Training Scheme (RTS). Collectively these schemes form

the Research Block Grant (RGB). Common to all the Commonwealth Government funding

schemes are three important ingredients: Research Income, HDR training and Research

Publications.

The Research Training Scheme (RTS) is based on a formula using two-year averaged data

from the annual Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC). The RTS is based on

the following formula: 50% research higher degree completions, 40% research income and

10% research publication. FedUni currently receives about $2M p.a. in RTS and the RTS is

the biggest component of the Research Block Grant (RGB) received by the University.

These funds are used to support HDR students and scholarships.

There is currently much discussion around the sector regarding tying RTS to the ERA. The

Go8 strenuously argue that RTS places should only be supported in areas of research that


can demonstrate world class standard or better as measured by the ERA. Should this

proposition prevail, then it would virtually wipe out all our RTS funding.

The Joint Research Engagement (JRE) is based on the formula: 60% research income

(Categories 2 to 4), 30% HDR student load (most recent year available) and 10% research

publications. JRE recognises and funds only four HERDC publications categories: journal

articles, books, book chapters and full refereed published conference papers. JRE income at

FedUni has been falling in recent years.

The Sustainable Research Excellence (SRE) initiative was introduced in 2010 with the

objective to address an identified shortfall in the funding available to meet the indirect costs

associated with Australian Competitive Grants Register (ACG) or Category One grants such

as ARC and NHMRC. The SRE comes in parts – base funding and threshold funding.

Threshold funding is allocated on the basis of universities' relative share of ACG income,

moderated by a proxy performance factor based on the ratio of full time equivalent (FTE)

research staff (teaching & research and research only) to weighted publications. In future

years the SRE will also be moderated by the ERA. Threshold SRE funding cuts in at $2.5M

of Category One income annually. FedUni does not currently earn a sufficient quantum of

Category One income and therefore does not qualify for Threshold SRE funding. FedUni is

only one of three Universities in Australia that does not receive SRE Threshold funding – the

others being University of Notre Dame and the Australian Catholic University. The University

of the Sunshine Coast met Threshold for the first time this year. Their Category One income

has more than quadrupled since 2007. Since 2007 Category One income at University of

Notre Dame and ACU has doubled in each institution but at the former UB it fell by almost

50% from $1.4M (2007) to $711k (2013).

FedUni is a small university operating in thin markets and in an increasingly competitive

tertiary education system. Consequently, the ability for FedUni to support research with

internal funding is very limited.

The introduction of the deregulated system, the proposed reduced level of Federal

Government funding to universities, the likely reduced levels of research funding, the

increased competition for research funds and the proposed changes to the Research

Training Scheme will significantly further challenge Feuding’s ability to support research.

FedUni must therefore develop very highly focused strategies to improve HDR and

publication outcomes and research income generation.


2. Benchmarking Research at FedUni

2.1 FedUni Research Income

The following table presents the sector average, the RUN average (excluding UB) and UB

external research income for the past 5 years.

The growth or decline in research income in the previous table is plotted below.


External research income across the sector has grown at a rate of about 8% per year since

2007 or a 40% increase since 2007. The research income across the RUN group of

Universities (excluding UB) increased on average by about 13.5% per year or 67% above

the 2007 figure. In contrast research income at UB has dropped by 40% since 2007 or on

average by about 8% per annum. As a result of the drop in external research income, our

UB/FedUni’s Commonwealth Research Block Grant (RBG) revenue has dropped from a little

more than $6.7M in 2005 to a little more than $3.5M today.

The following figure presents research income since 2007 normalised per EFT staff.

2.2 FedUni Research Publications

The former UB’s publications volume remained approximately uniform with a slight increase

of 10% in 2012 compared to 2007. Publications for the RUN group, excluding UB, shows

steady growth with a 30% increase in 2012 compared with the volume in 2007. Overall the

sector is steadily increasing the volume of publications by about 5% per annum, a 25%


increase since 2007. Whilst publications volume at the former UB has remained constant,

the number of articles published in journals has increased slightly and the number of articles

published in conferences has decreased. The average citation rate for articles published in

journals, however, remains low with more than 50% of published journal articles in the past

five years receiving one or less citation.

The following graph presents changes in publication rates since 2007.

2.3 FedUni Research Training

UB maintains a steady completion rate of approximately 25 to 30 HDRs per annum. The

2012 figure shows a slight improvement over the 2007 figure (5%) but the years 2008 to

2011 were below the 2007 figure. The overall sector shows steady growth in HDR load and

improvement in HDR completions by about 3% per year. The RUN group (except UB) is

somewhat volatile – 2010 to 2012 numbers are well below those of 2007, a decline of about

10%.


The graph below presents HDR completion rates since 2007.

Whilst UB’s completion rate is marginally better than the RUN average, the time-to-complete

a HDR at UB is higher than that for the sector. A longer time-to-complete rate is of concern

for a number of reasons. First, it requires staff to be engaged with HDR students for longer

periods of time which has implications for workload. Second, an overtime student is taking

an RTS place and/or scholarship away from another student. Overtime students adversely

impacts on RTS revenue.


2.4 FedUni Research Workload and Resourcing

Deloitte Access Economics was recently commissioned to conduct a study of resource

allocation for the newly formed Federation University Australia (FedUni). The study

incorporated the latest data (2013) for both the former University of Ballarat and Monash

Gippsland campuses. The study showed that the average workload allocations for academic

staff at FedUni are: 49% teaching, 27% research and 24% other duties. Teaching allocation

for the former UB academics was on average slightly higher (54%) compared to former

Monash Gippsland-based academics (41%). Research allocation for Ballarat academics was

on average lower (23%) compared with Gippsland staff (34%). Measured in terms of actual

salary costs, 40% of the total salary bill for the Faculties/Schools was allocated to teaching

duties, 26% to research and 34% to other duties.


The figure below illustrates the Research “Wealth” at FedUni (including all Ballarat and

Gippsland staff). The Research “Wealth” is an amalgam of research income, publications,

HDR load and completions averaged over 3 years from 2011 to 2013. The revenue streams

(RBG) that come to the University from the Federal Government resulting from the HERDC

collection (based on research income, publications, and HDR load and completions) will

differ from year to year but the revenue returned on average is as follows: each $1 of

external research income returns approximately $0.20 to Schools and Faculties; 1 weighted

publication point (based on books, book chapters, journal articles and refereed conference

papers) returns $577 per point; 1 EFT HDR load returns about $638 to Schools/Faculties. 1

HDR completion returns approximately $20,000 to Schools/Faculties and $20,000 to support

FedUni HDR scholarships. (Note: FedUni uses 50% of the RTS to fund internal FedUni HDR

scholarships. The remaining 50% of the RTS is returned to Faculties and Schools).


The research wealth and the proportion of staff generating that wealth averaged over 3 years from 2011 to 2013 is presented below. This table includes both Ballarat-based (B) and Gippsland-based (G) staff.

The previous figure and table show that

Approximately 6% of staff (25 staff) generated approximately 50% of the research

“wealth” of the University. These staff generated about a 1/3 of the publications, 2/3

HDR completions, supervised 1/3 of HDR students and produced almost 80% of

research income. These staff consumed less than 15% of the total salary allocated

by the Faculties and Schools to support research.

About ¼ of staff produced 90% of the research wealth, about ¾ of the publications,

almost all HDR completions (97%), taught 93% of HDR students and produced 98%

of the research income. In contrast almost ¾ of academics (73%) generated 10% of

the research wealth.

Approximately 21% of the salaries budget or $2.40M out of a total $11.4M was

allocated by the Faculties and Schools to support the research activity of

approximately 50% of staff that produced less than 1% of the research wealth of the

University.


2.2.1 Do FedUni staff have high teaching loads and is this a factor in research

performance?

The following most recently available HERDC data (2012) suggest that the student to

student to staff ratio (measured in terms of EFTSL to FTE staff) for the former University of

Ballarat is one of the highest ratios in the nation: UB was slightly higher than the national

average (8.9) and RUN average (9.7). Swinburne, RMIT and Macquarie have high EFTSL to

EFT staff ratios, yet have high profiles in research.

There is however an anomaly in the HERDC data. As much as a third of the HE education

students are taught by private providers under the so called “moderation” model. These

students graduate with a UB (/FedUni) degree and therefore count in the HERDC data as

our students even though they are largely not taught by our staff. When the data are

adjusted to reflect this the student to staff ratio drops dramatically. The Good Universities

Guide in 2012 ranked UB’s student to staff ratio with the following universities: Adelaide,

Melbourne, Sydney, Tasmania, Canberra and CDU.

Teaching Load measured as EFTSL/ FTE staff for 2012

EFTSL/FTE EFTSL/FTE

Top 10 with highest teaching load Top 10 with lowest teaching load

Swinburne University of Technology 11.96 University of Tasmania 6.21

RMIT University 11.90 Monash University 6.15

University of Ballarat 11.15 The University of New South Wales 5.56

University of Canberra 10.48 The University of Adelaide 5.45

Australian Catholic University 10.38 The University of Sydney 5.44

Macquarie University 10.31 The University of Western Australia 5.07

University of Western Sydney 10.31 The University of Melbourne 4.82

Central Queensland University 10.24 The University of Queensland 4.81

Murdoch University 10.06 Melbourne College of Divinity 4.02

Victoria University 9.82 ANU 3.26

Sector Average 8.03

RUN Average 9.43


3. Possible Strategies for Improvement

3.1 Research Income

The former UB experienced the most dramatic decrease in research income compared to all

other universities over the past six years. This has also resulted in a dramatic decline in

RBG funding.

The ERA and HERDC provides the best source of information to benchmark research

performance across the national sector. Appendix A was constructed using sector-

averaged research income data for each 2-digit cluster reported in the last ERA

assessment (2012) and assumes that an average academic is allocated a 40% research

loading. The data was then extrapolated to provide indicative research income generation

for academic staff operating with a 10% to 70% research workload. This table provides

useful information as to the indicative levels of achievement that an academic should sustain

if they wish to remain competitive in the sector at their current appointment level and

classification. Table 1 below has been constructed from the ERA data in Appendix A. Table

1 contains indicative research income levels for academics averaged across relevant

Faculties at FedUni. The table does not distinguish research income generated from

different HERDC categories (see Appendix B).

The information presented in Appendix A highlights an issue with health and medical

research. The NHMRC predominantly funds health and medical research. The NHMRC

budget exceeds that of the ARC. It is not unusual for the NHMRC to fund multi-million dollar

research grants in medicine. However it is almost impossible to achieve the same funding

levels in the ARC or indeed in the NHMRC for other health disciplines such as preventive

health, allied heath, para-medicine, nursing, etc. The NHMRC tends to distort the arithmetic

average. For this reason Medical and Health Sciences has been placed into two bands: The

high band; Band 1 is the national sector average for Medical and Health Sciences. Band 1

should apply for all disciplines other than those placed in Band 2. Band 2 is 50% of Band 1.

Band 2 should apply to the following disciplines: Complementary and Alternative Medicine,

Human Movement and Sport Science, Nursing, Nutrition and Dietetics, Medical Physiology,

Public Health, Health Services, Psychology and Cognitive Sciences.


Science and Technology has been placed into two bands for similar reasons. Band 1 should

apply to all research disciplines other than those listed in Band 2. Band 2 should apply for

the following disciplines: all mathematical sciences and all information and computer

sciences.


3.2 Scholarly Research Outputs/Publications

Appendix A presents sector-averaged publications reported in the last ERA

assessment (2012). This table provides useful information as to the indicative levels of

publication expected from an academic at a certain stage in her/his career. Table 2 has

been constructed from the ERA data in Appendix A. Table 2 presents indicative publication

levels for FedUni academics averaged across relevant Faculty disciplines and according to

career level. Unfortunately in this data there is no measure of the quality of publications. The

ERA uses a complex set of processes to measure quality of research outputs – these

processes are different for peer-reviewed disciplines compared with metric-driven

disciplines. It is too difficult at this stage to incorporate a quality indicator but advice to staff

is that at all times, they should attempt to publish work in formats that gain the most

exposure to their research and hence enhance the impact of their research.

The most common form of research communication is publication in journals. Academics

should target the best quality journals in their field and aim for highest possible citation rates.

The links below may be of assistance in choosing journals.

Assessment of quality for non-traditional research outputs such as creative arts, plays,

etc. is difficult but may be based upon demonstration of quality outlets and reception.

“Outlets” refers to the means by which the output appears in the public domain. This

includes but is not limited to art galleries, publishers, theatres and concert halls, networks

of film and television distribution, festivals and events and commissioning bodies. The

quality and prestige of these outlets must be evidenced. “Reception” refers to the extent

and quality of the attention received by the output. Quality can be inferred by, for example,

the review of a novel in highly regarded national/international media outlets, or by the

profiling of an architectural design or project in a leading professional journal. The receipt

of honours, prizes and awards may be used to support a claim of recognition, but is not

evidence of reception per se.

Assessment of the quality of research outputs such as books and book chapters for peer-

review disciplines largely depends on the reputation of the publisher. Authors of books and

book chapters should attempt to publish their work with highly reputable publishers.


Conferences are an excellent vehicle for communication of research and learning. Some

conferences publish research as fully refereed conference manuscripts in proceedings and

in some disciplines; for example, Engineering and IT, publications in conference

proceedings are very prestigious. However conference papers, particularly if they have not

been exposed to a rigorous referee process are generally not regarded in the same light as

a fully-refereed research article: Likewise for conference abstracts, notes, corrections,

reviews and editorials. In some Universities conference abstracts, notes, corrections,

reviews and editorials are weighted as a half publication point.

Question 1: Do Tables 1 and 2 provide a useful framework to benchmark research income generation and publication across the sector? If not what other framework with readily available and easily accessible data can be used?

Tables 1 and 2 will be updated with new data following ERA 2015.

3.3 Higher Degrees by Research

The highest source of research revenue at FedUni results from RTS which is largely driven

by HDR load and completion. Currently, 50% of the RTS funds the internal HDR

scholarships. The remaining 50% is transferred to Schools and Faculties to support their

HDRs.

RTS income is under the most threat from recently announced Federal Government policy

changes.

The following table presents the current HDR statistics for FedUni. The statistics were

calculated using a 3 year average from 2011 to 2013 and include UB and ex-Monash

Gippsland load and completions data. It is not entirely accurate but represents the best data

to date.


Most of the current load and completions (>80%) is shared by the Faculties of Science and

Technology and Education and Arts. Less than 10% of the load and completions

respectively come from the Faculties of Health and Business. Data on attrition and time to

complete is not yet available for FedUni. However a comprehensive external report

commissioned by the then School of Education and Arts in November 2013 on HDR matters

presented some very interesting findings:

most students in SEA study part time

full-time PhD candidates take much longer (4.8 years) than the 3.5 years that is

funded while part-time students (6.3 years) are under the equivalent time that would

be expected. This confirms anecdotal evidence from elsewhere that shows when

part-time candidates complete, they do so more quickly than their full-time

equivalents

there is a higher rate of withdrawal from part-time candidates compared with full time

candidates

professional doctorates take longer to complete than PhDs

overall average completion rate for students commencing in 2003 to 2005 is about

two thirds while the completion rate for professional doctorates was only 41%

there was an unusual (and unexplained) doubling in withdrawal rates from students

commencing studies in years 2008 to 2010 resulting in a current HDR profile in which

most students are very early in their candidature and completions will decrease over

the next 3 years

if not carefully managed there is significant potential to impact on staff workload and

ability for students to progress satisfactorily


A full review of the University’s HDR programs, processes, funding, support, administration,

training, supervision and development will be undertaken soon by an external consultant.

The consultant will also consider the merits of the following propositions.

3.3.1 HDR load

Supervision of HDR at FedUni should be recognised as a contribution to an Academic’s

teaching load. Each full-time HDR student approximately equates to 8 EFTSL revenue per

annum. This contribution to teaching should be apportioned by the number of supervisors

and adjusted pro-rata for part-time students.

3.3.2 HDR completion

Each completion of a PhD student generates approximately $40,000 of Research Block

Grant revenue to the University (and about half of this goes to Schools and Faculties). A

Masters by Research generates approximately $25,000 in RBG revenue. It is difficult to say

with precision how much a completion brings because the amount of RTS and RBG that

FedUni gets each year from the Department is based on the proportion of the total funds

allocated across all Australian Universities. A completion rate and a HDR load that is above

the national trend will result in a greater “relative” share of the total funds distributed by the

Federal Government each year.

A timely HDR completion should be recognised and rewarded. Over-time HDR candidature

should be more carefully managed.

To improve overall HDR outcomes, consider the following propositions:

(a) Each supervisor of a student that successfully completes the requirements for a

PhD on time (i.e. in 3.5 years equivalent full -time enrolment or less) should

attract a share of $40,000 as “notional” revenue that is counted as “credit”

towards reaching the income targets set in Table 1.


Masters by Research on time (i.e. in 2 years equivalent full -time enrolment or

less) should attract a share of $25,000 as an “notional” revenue that is counted

as “credit” towards reaching the income targets set in Table 1.

The income “equivalent credit” for completions is apportioned by the number of

FedUni supervisors. Note that the School and Faculty receive the actual income

generated for a completion through the RTS. The supervisors do not receive the

actual revenue from a student that completes but may claim the completion as a

“credit” towards meeting the income benchmark target set in Table 1.

(b) FedUni has a particular problem with HDR attrition and over-time completions. This

adversely impacts on throughput, reputation and revenue. For this reason,

no “income” equivalent credit or “offset” will be applied to supervisors of a student

that does not complete on time;

as an incentive, students who complete within 3.2 years EFT PhD will be offered

a 6 month extension of scholarship to “write up research publications”. No

extension scholarship applies to PhD students that submit after 3.2 years or to

Masters by Research candidates;

students that fail to submit their thesis within 4 years FTE for PhD or 2.5 years

FTE for Research Masters will be required to pay full fees and lose their

scholarships, unless there are mitigating circumstances;

Schools/Faculties will not receive RTS completion funds for students that submit

after 4.5 years EFT for PhD and 3 years EFT for Research Masters

(c) There are many reasons for failing to complete a HDR. Research Services preliminary

investigations indicate that more than half of the candidates experience difficulty in their

HDR programs or who have withdrawn is as a result of poor supervision, poor project

management, lack of guidance, and/or inadequate project support and resources. The

review of HDRs will provide recommendations that will be considered to improve

outcomes.


3.3.3 HDR scholarships

The available data indicate that FedUni may be facing a serious crisis with respect to HDR

completions over the next few years. This raises questions as to whether the current merit-

based allocation of scholarships is serving the University well and whether it might be wiser

to prioritise the allocation of student places and scholarships to supervisors that are highly

research active with proven record in research supervision and work in research areas that

have a critical mass of researchers. Greater restrictions should be placed on the allocation

of students and scholarships to supervisors and research areas that have historically

returned relatively poor performance outcomes. Another issue is the quality of the student

intake and ability of a student to undertake a higher degree by research in a timely fashion.

Is there a more suitable research training model that would distinguish FedUni from other

Universities and would mitigate criticisms that students need to be placed in research areas

with proven ERA track record?

One possible approach is to reduce the number of scholarships offered and increase the

stipends as shown in the following model:


Introduce a Tier A Scholarship – Industry or Community Named Scholarship

• Minimum $35,000 p.a. tax free for 3.5 years + $5,000 pa (minimum) project

support

• Requires at least $15,000 p.a. cash from industries, community organisations

and/or external grants (greater contributions pay higher awards)

• Scholarships maybe named e.g. the Prostate Cancer Foundation

Scholarship, the Brown Coal Industries Scholarship, the Mary Jones Early

Childhood Education Scholarship, the Gippsland Aviation Industries

Scholarship, etc.

• Open to both International and Domestic Students

Tier B Scholarship – Standard FedUni Scholarship

• ~$26,000 p.a. tax free for 3.5 years + $3,000 pa project support

• Open to both International and Domestic Students

International HDR Students

• Eligible for all scholarships (including tier A and B), however students ...

• Must meet entry requirements

• Must pay fees – no waivers

Phase out Tier B Scholarships within 5 Years

• Within 5 years – ALL scholarships will be Tier A (and will be the highest paid

scholarships in the nation)

Question 2: (a) Should supervision of HDR at FedUni be recognised as a contribution to an Academics teaching load? (b) Do you agree with the strategies to improve timely HDR completion? If not how should FedUni deal with over-time candidates? (c) To improve HDR quality, should stipends be increased in value, the number reduced and greater emphasis placed on the allocating students to teams of very active researchers with proven track records?


3.4 Evaluating Research Performance at FedUni

The University needs to be able to develop research performance standards that will lead to

improving its relative position in the sector. The information presented in Tables 1 and 2

forms an excellent framework for doing this.

3.4.1 Faculties and Schools

The following illustrates how the information in Appendix or Tables 1 and 2 may be used to

determine performance of Schools and Faculties.

3.4.2 Staff

The following illustrates examples of how this approach may be used to measure the

research activity of academics.


Notes: The sector-averaged benchmarks in Tables 1 and 2 were applied using a 3-year rolling average Minimum sector average thresholds for both publications/outcomes and research income generation

must be met Additional publications do not offset deficits in research income and vice-versa HDR completions may be used to offset income generation, as outlined previously described


Question 3: The examples use weighted publication points (i.e. total points split amongst all authors). There is a strong argument that this approach inhibits collaboration. Collaborative research is arguably the fastest way to improve research outcomes. Therefore is it better to allocate 1 publication point to every author, regardless of the number of authors? This will alter the HERDC averages but will it promote better outcomes?

3.4.3 Research Active Definition

The University encourages all academics to be engaged in research but recognises that the

contribution academics make to research will vary greatly from academic to academic

depending on stage of career, appointment level and ability/interest, and from discipline to

discipline.

A single, minimum-threshold metric (such as the 40% research, 40% teaching and 20%

other) is unsophisticated, not flexible, often results in a minimal expectation for staff, does

not properly account for the stage in academic career and does not take into account

differences in research culture for different disciplines.

Recognising differences in stage in career and differences in academic disciplines, Tables 1

and 2 present a more useful approach to recognising the level of contributions academics

makes to supporting research in the University.

A research active academic will have at least a publication record (averaged over a three

year period) commensurate with the 10% threshold in Table 2 and generated research

income (averaged over 3 years) commensurate with at least the 10% threshold in Table 1.

An academic that has sustained over a 3 year period a contribution in both publications and

research income commensurate with the 50% levels or better in Tables 1 and 2 could be

described as “highly research active”.

Research-only staff are expected to be “highly research active”.


Question 4: Does this definition of research active adequately describe and fairly recognise research contributions across different disciplines and career stages and lift the research aspirations of FedUni? If not, what better method might there be for determining whether a staff member is ‘research active’?

3.4.4 Setting Appropriate University Targets

The table on the next page presents the actual publication and research income data from

the latest 2014 HERDC submission (2013 data). Using a similar approach outlined above,

the expected number of publications and research income generation based on our

academic profile is shown in bold and black. The actual publication count (2013 and 3 year

average) is above the expected sector publication count. Therefore strategies focused at

increasing our publication rate are not required. However as mentioned previously the

quality of our publications as evidenced by citation rates, etc. require attention.

The expected sector-averaged research income ($7.44M) is well below actual income

($4.14M in 2013 or $3.9M for 3 year average), suggesting that FedUni urgently needs to

develop strategies aimed to improve income generation.

Question 5: Do Tables 1 and 2 (on page 14) provide useful data to set research performance expectations for the University, Faculties, Schools and Research Centres? If not what other framework should be used?


3.4.4 Excellence in Research Australia (ERA)

In the 2012 ERA, UB was assessed as having two areas of research ranked at world

standard performance: Human Movement and Sport Science and Clinical Sciences. The

following figure plots the number of disciplines at ERA level 3 and above (y-axis) versus the

Research Block Grant (RBG) funding ($) per university (x-axis). Based on the levels of RGB

funding received at the time of the last ERA assessment, UB should have had between 3 to

4 disciplines ranked at world standard or better. Based on the expected research income

projections in section 3.4.3, FedUni should expect to obtain 5 or 6 disciplines ranked at

world standard or better in ERA 2015.

The graphs below plots the research efficiency (defined in The Australian as the number of

research disciplines above world class standard divided by the number of disciplines that

recorded research activity) with the number of research-only and the proportion of research-

only staff for each university in the sector. The analysis can also be repeated using the total

research investment divided by the EFT staff - the results are very similar but not presented

here.

What is interesting in these data is the strong performance of Southern Cross University

(SCU). SCU’s “efficiency” was just above 30%. On this measure, SCU was ranked 10th

highest most research efficient university in the sector. Based on this measure, SCU


experienced the most improvement in research between the 2010 and 2012 ERA. SCU

achieved this result with an annual research investment of ~$12M p.a. and with 65 research-

only staff which is about 7% of the SCU workforce.

SCU was evaluated in only 10 specific fields of research (4 digit field of research codes) and

in 6 of these they were rated at world standard or above. SCU was only one of five

universities to achieve ERA 5 rating for geochemistry (0402) from the total of 10 assessed;


one of three universities to achieve 5 for zoology (0608) from the total of 21 assessed; one

of two universities to achieve 5 for crop and pasture production (0703) from the total of 11

assessed; one of three universities to achieve 5 for the field of forestry sciences (0705) from

the total of six assessed; one of five universities to achieve 5 for earth sciences (04) from the

19 assessed and one of four universities to achieve the highest rating in the broad field of

agriculture and veterinary sciences (07) from the 23 assessed.

Whilst many may question the validity and assumptions of university ranking models, it is

clear regardless of the model that SCU’s strategy to focus, invest and build a small number

of high quality research teams has paid dividends.

SCU has very similar demographics, size and characteristics to FedUni. In comparison

FedUni should be able to achieve comparable results to SCU.

Question 6: Given the current profile of the University, how many ERA disciplines could/should FedUni aspire to have at or better than world standard for the 2018 ERA? How many of these should we aspire to have at a ranking ERA 5? What is the maximum number of disciplines FedUni could realistically and feasibly support with our current profile?

3.5 Future Research Centres

FedUni, only being newly formed, is in a rapid period of change and evolution. For this

reason, decisions regarding the establishment of new and the dis-establishment of existing

research centres, have been put on hold until a comprehensive review of all research

structures can be undertaken by external consultants scheduled after the completion of ERA

2015. This review will commence late in 2015 and expect to be concluded early in 2016.

Until that time the University has agreed to establish a limited number of interim research

centres.

In preparation for the formal review one possible scenario for the University to consider is a

3-tier structure as outlined below:


Tier A Designated University Research Institute (DURI)

Possible characteristics of a DURI might include:

• Predominantly consists of highly-active researchers and ECRs

• Can demonstrate that the Institute is substantially and predominately

contributing to a least one research discipline that is ranked as ERA 5

• At least 50% of core members currently hold ARC and/or NHMRC grants and

75% of academics are highly research active

• Can demonstrate high levels of research performance through research

training outcomes and outputs, publications, grants, esteem factors and

impact

Tier B Designated University Research Centres

• Predominately consists of active researchers and ECRs

• Can demonstrate that the Centre substantially and predominately contributes

to a least one research discipline that is ranked as ERA 3 or above

• At least 50% of core members currently hold significant research grants and

all members are research active

• Can demonstrate high levels of research performance through publications,

grants, esteem factors and impact

Tier C Research Groups

• New and emerging research area/s

• Can demonstrate alignment with University mission and Research Plan

• Can demonstrate critical mass of researchers, excellent potential for

• new research training opportunities, and

• contribution to research quality outcomes


All future research institutes, centres and groups should sit within and receive support from

Faculties and Schools. The number that can be supported will depend on the University’s

commitment to support them – There is no point in establishing research institutes, centres

and groups unless there is a significant financial commitment to support them for a period of

time. Comparisons with other RUN universities would suggest that Tier A Institutes (or

equivalent structures) require at least $500k to $1M p.a. for at least 5 years. Tier B Centres

(or similar) require at least $200k to $250k p.a. for 5 years and research groups require $20k

to $100k p.a. for 2 or 3 years. Whatever the final agreed framework to support research, all

formal research structures must develop strong business plans and be required to meet

stringent agreed performance KPIs.

.

Question 7: (a) Is the 3-tier approach to organising University research structures useful? (b) Should these structures sit in Schools or Faculties? (c) Should cross-Schools and cross-Faculties research structures be encouraged and if so how will they be managed and funded? (d) Are the indicative funding levels appropriate? (e) Given the current profile of the University, how many research structures could FedUni feasibly and realistically support in the near future?

3.6 Future Research Workforce

The following illustrates the growth in research-only positions for the entire sector. The

proportion of research-only positions in universities has grown from about 11% of total

workforce in 1998 to a little less than 15% today.


The RUN sector average proportion of research-only staff has grown from 2.7% of total

workforce in 2009 to 4% today. Much of the growth in RUN can be attributed to the

Collaborative Research Network (CRN) project. The lowest reported proportion of research-

only staff in RUN was USQ at 1.7%. The highest proportion of research-only staff was

reported by SCU at 7.4%. SCU has experienced the largest growth in research-only staff

from 1.7% in 2008 to 7.4%. Most other RUN Universities have also increased their research-

only staff during this period except for USQ and FedUni (former UB only data). FedUni (UB)

dropped from 3.2% in 2008 to 2.8% (excluding recent departures of CRN staff).

3.6.1 Robert HT Smith Research Professors

The Robert HT Smith Research Professor scheme has proved to be a highly effective

strategy to incubate and concentrate research activity in strategically aligned research

areas. Currently there are 4.4 RHT Smith Professors at Ballarat and 2 at Gippsland. This

number should be increased to a total of 10 at any one time. These professors should be

closely aligned to research disciplines that are operating at or near ERA world standard.


3.6.2 Federation University Research Fellows (FURFs)

Due to financial contingencies the Federation University Research Fellowship scheme was

put on hold. The scheme should be introduced as soon as possible. The original proposal

was to appoint up to 10 fellows initially for periods of one, two or three years. These fellows

should be closely aligned to the research activities of the Robert HT Smith Research

Professors and in strategically important research areas.

All Robert HT Smith Research Professors and Federation University Research Fellows

should be appointed to Schools and Faculties. However, Robert HT Smith Research

Professors should jointly report to the DVCRI and relevant Executive Dean. Federation

University Research Fellows should report to a research-active professor or Robert HT

Smith Research Professor.

The complement of 10 Robert HT Smith Research Professors and 10 Federation University

Research Fellows will raise the research-only workforce ratio to about 5%.

Question 8: (a) What percentage of staff on research-only contracts should FedUni aspire to have in the immediate future? Is 5% reasonable? (b) Should FedUni increase the number of Robert HT Smith Professors from its current level of 6.4 to 10 EFT? (c) Should the University proceed with the FURF Scheme?


3.7 Future Research Development

Academic research support is currently driven through Research Services. Many universities

have different organisational structures for research services and research development.

Should FedUni create a Centre for Academic Research Development (CARD)?

CARD would be responsible to the University for a range of activities including but not

limited to

ECR training

Graduate Centre programs

Supervisor training

Emerging research leaders

Research mentoring programs

Grant, publication writing and development

Research commercialisation support, etc

CARD would require a full-time Director and a complement of staff including research

training and commercial development officers. Some officers maybe embedded in Schools

and Faculties. It would be expected that the Associate Deans Research, the Professoriate

and highly research active academics be significantly engaged in CARD activities.

Question 9: (a) Should FedUni establish a Centre for Academic Research Development (CARD)? (b) In addition to activities listed above, what other activities should CARD undertake? (c) How should CARD interface and collaborate with Faculties and Schools?


4. Feedback

Question 10: Any other comments on how FedUni can improve its research performance?

Please forward your comments and suggestions to

[email protected]

This document and excel spreadsheets containing the data in the Appendix and in Tables 1

and 2 can be found on the research services website.

Closing date for discussion: 31 October 2014.

Shortly after the conclusion of the discussion (31 October 2014), comments will be collated

and summarised. The comments and this paper will inform the final draft of the University

Research Plan and become the basis for a further consultation paper.


APPENDIX A: 2012 ERA Sector Average Data


APPENDIX B: HERDC Definitions

Research

Research is defined as the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts, methodologies and understandings. This could include synthesis and analysis of previous research to the extent that it leads to new and creative outcomes.

This definition of research is consistent with a broad notion of research and experimental development (R&D) as comprising of creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humanity, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. This definition of research encompasses pure and strategic basic research, applied research and experimental development. Applied research is original investigation undertaken to acquire new knowledge but directed towards a specific, practical aim or objective (including a client-driven purpose).

Category 1 Income: Australian competitive grants

Category 1 consists only of income from those research schemes and programs listed on the 2013 ACGR:http://www.innovation.gov.au/Research/ResearchBlockGrants/Pages/AustralianCompetitiveGrantsRegister.aspx. Grants received from the Australian Government and not included in the 2013 ACGR may be eligible for inclusion in Category 2: Other public sector research income.

Category 2 Income: Other public sector research income

Category 2: Other public sector research income includes:

Australian government – Non Category 1:

This is any other income for the purposes of conducting research received from the Australian Government, whether via programs, grants or contracts, that is not eligible for inclusion as Category 1 research income.

State or Territory government, Local government

This is income for the conduct of research received from state or territory government departments or agencies, whether via programs, grants or contracts.

Government business enterprises:

This is income for the conduct of research received from enterprises that are wholly or partly owned or funded by Commonwealth, state or territory, or local governments; have a board; and operate on a profit or cost-recovery basis.

Cooperative Research Centres:

This is research income from CRCs in which the reporting HEP was not defined within the


Commonwealth Agreement as “The Researcher” or a “Participant”.

Category 3 Income: Industry and other research income

Category 3: Industry and other research income must be categorised in the following subcategories:

Australian: Contracts, Grants, Donations, bequests and foundations, HDR fees for domestic students, and

International A: Competitive, Peer-reviewed research grant income

International B: Other income

International C: HDR fees for international students

Category 4 Income: CRC Research income

A discussion paper - Federation University Australia · CRICOS Provider No. 00103D Page 1 of 40...

Documents

Transcript of A discussion paper - Federation University Australia · CRICOS Provider No. 00103D Page 1 of 40...