HASS researchers rarely rate for a big share of funding and the policy push for grants to grow the economy will not help (despite the impact that HASS research can have).
And so the Australian Academy of the Humanities is making the best cases for cash it can in responses to major reviews of where the money should go.
The Academy thinks there is a splendid idea in the Australian Research Council’s proposal for new funding schemes, (FC February 25). The ARC suggests, “there should be greater support for the important, but not always visible, work of researchers which can provide a launchpad for the tangible creation of value for the cultural, economic, environmental and social benefits for Australians.”
To which the humanities lobby replies that it welcomes the ARC’s “view of the false dichotomy of basic and applied research” and agrees that commercialisation is not “fundamental” to ARC programs. The history of ‘picking winners’ is a very chequered one, AAH argues.
And so it warns that the ARC’s proposed funding streams do not address the skew towards science in existing schemes. The overall issue AAH wants addressed is, “how to utilise the full complement of research capabilities to address national and strategic policy challenges, and specifically to incorporate the research potential of the HASS disciplines.”
AAH is also anxious about the future for senior scholars. It welcomes the “clarity of focus” on ECRs but “there is concern about the possible consequences of what looks like a reduction in support for senior researchers doing discipline-building research.”
Overall, the detailed submission demonstrates a determination to concede no changes to existing schemes that will reduce the already-small slice of the research cake afforded to the humanities.
In contrast, AAH takes a bolder position in its submission to the Research and Development Review, perhaps because it has less to lose. R&D now is about dividends for companies and country and there is not much demand for humanities in the marketplace.
”If Australia is to develop an innovation economy which involves the full development of breakthrough technologies and effective responses to current and future challenges, (the review) needs to make recommendations that will build bridges into the humanities, arts and social sciences,” is the pitch.
The Academy expands the argument, calling for:
- Expanding r&d partnerships: “there is a significant opportunity cost if our R&D framework fails to give value to the innovation that Australian researchers and professionals can lead through government, in public-private partnerships, and in a new level of engagement with business and industry.”
- Leaving the grants system alone: “the system is complex and will need to evolve quickly, so it is vital that the institutions that understand their part of the system are allowed to do their job autonomously.”
- On-going infrastructure: there is an “immediate need” for scale investments in HASS and Indigenous research data
- Recognising the value of services: “in Australia, services are the leading edge of innovation”
- Involving HASS from the start: industry engages “historians, philosophers, artists, linguists and communication experts,” but they need to do it earlier to get better results. Plus, HASS work should be included in the Research and Development Tax Incentive.
And the AAC wants more money for the public sector: “there is a significant opportunity cost if our R&D framework fails to give value to the innovation that Australian researchers and professionals can lead through government, in public-private partnerships, and in a new level of engagement with business and industry.”
