ATEC has asked universities whether each should research quite so many disciplines.(Education Minister Jason Clare suggested it have a look, FC HERE, and for a later government line, HERE ). Submissions have closed, but the Commission has not got around to publishing responses yet.
But the Australian Council of Deans of Science wants it known that this is not the best idea since Bunsen came up with burner, releasing its response to ATEC’s required queries yesterday.
“ACDS considers that the opportunity for research specialisation should be available to all universities, while respecting institutional autonomy, rather than being prescribed by government or regulatory authorities. We support an enabling regulatory framework that allows universities to specialise, if they choose (but) National priorities should principally be advanced through incentives, investment and collaboration and not prescription and regulation” is the line, and the Deans stick to it.
And so when the Commission’s questions suggest the issues are less whether research specialisation should happen, than how to make it so, the Deans try to hold their line.
When asked, “how should research depth, scale and sustainability be demonstrated under a more specialised model,” their Council responds: “research depth, scale and sustainability should be demonstrated through institutional capability— including people, infrastructure, investment and research pipelines—not simply current research performance.”
How about maintaining institutional quality, with a “more specialised research model”? ATEC inquires. The Council states its position again: “greater research specialisation should not separate research and teaching in ways that weaken research-led and research-informed education or opportunities for researchers to develop teaching expertise.”
What about confidence in the system when there are specialist institutions? The Council does not fall for that one, “specialisation should be enabled rather than prescribed. Universities should retain responsibility for deciding whether, where and how they specialise, informed by their strengths, expertise, mission and institutional and regional context.
There is more along the same lines and the overall answer is that the Deans do not want what ATEC intends, although they do appear to accept it is what they are going to get. In answer to a question on transition arrangements, the Council replies: “Transition arrangements should avoid encouraging universities to prematurely abandon established capability simply to comply with a new framework. A phased and predictable transition should minimise disruption to students and researchers”
Can’t fault the Deans of Science for realism.