|
Volume 7, Edition 2 – March 2011 |
ATN in PROFILE
With ERA results showing both a group of long-established,
research-intensive institutions and a strong, upcoming group of young,
‘Market Challenger’ universities with growing research capacity, the big
question now becomes what we now do with the ERA results, how they will
affect research funding priorities and what the future of Australia's
research and innovation sector will look like.
The fact is world-leading research takes time to grow. A 1970 ERA evaluation
of the 21- year-old University of NSW, when compared with its 119-year-old
University of Sydney counterpart, might not have resulted in the emergence
of UNSW as the powerhouse of research and innovation it is today.
In this context it is critical that any funding allocated on the basis of
performance in ERA does not result in the flattening of the trajectory of
the performance of the next generation of research intensives and result in
a decreased research capacity across Australia.
An excellent example of a country that has recognised the importance of
investment in the growth of research capacity is China. During the past 11
years, research output from China has increased from just more than 20,000
research papers in 1998 to nearly 112,000 in 2008.
The Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities is often cited
as the benchmark for research-intensive universities. Given all that growth,
how many universities does China have in the top 100 of those rankings?
None. How many in the top 200? Two.
But can anybody argue that with three Australian universities in the top 100
and a further four in the top 200, we can in any way compete with China by
maintaining the status quo through the next decade?
A final salutary example is the US, long acknowledged by many to be the
world leader in quality research.
The recent Thomson Reuters' Global Research Report: United States, released
in November, has found the US is losing share and its relative international
research competitiveness is being challenged. Significantly, one of the key
suggestions of the report is that this gradual decline in the US's research
position is because of the structure of its research base and evidence of an
increasing concentration in research output.
As the study states, the Association of American Universities, representing
only 20 per cent of total institutions, is responsible for most research
outputs and accounts for 58 per cent of all federal research funds provided
to colleges and universities.
Unfortunately, the concentrated apex of the US university system is not
pulling the rest of the research base in its wake, and the US is losing
position to countries that have less concentrated research systems. The
evidence would indicate that an overemphasis on the concentration of
research funding support in a relatively small number of institutions leads
to stagnation.
So what should Australia's priorities be to build our own competitiveness
and international position in the future?
Just as China has, we need to recognise that growth is the key to
maintaining and increasing our position in the long term.
Obviously we need to maintain our existing research strengths and
concentrations, but growth is going to occur where there exists the capacity
and culture for it to happen.
Australia's research funding strategies and ERA should align to support the
development of at least 1000 world-class research centres across the country
and to build the next generation of such centres, with a much stronger link
to innovation, that will underpin our future prosperity and social cohesion.
This will be critical in ensuring that Australia's international research
engagement is not carried by relatively few groups or organisations with a
limited age or geographic distribution, and will ensure the sustainable
growth required to maintain Australia's international reputation and profile
into the future.