Section Two: The Research Environment

3: Research Funding and the Australian Higher Education System

[next chapter] [previous chapter] [contents]

• Table 5: External Funding Input by Full-time Equivalent (FTE) by Post-1987 Institution (1993)
• Table 6: Total ARC Funding Input by FTE by Post-1987 Institution, 1994
• Table 7: Initial ARC Funding Input by FTE by post-1987 Institution (1994)
• Table 8: Productivity per FTE by Post-1987 Institution, 1993
• Gender and Research Funding

Research in the Australian Higher Education sector is largely supported via public funds. As the 1995 Industry Commission Report on research and development noted, 60 per cent of Australia's annual research and development expenditure is funded by government sources and higher education accounts for about 50 per cent of all public sector research expenditure (Industry Commission 1995: 2).

Within the higher education sector such funds are divided into three broad categories:

• National Competitive Grants (NCG);
• Other Public Sector (OPS); and
• Industry and Other Funding (IOF).

The respective breakdown of these funds as reported by Australian universities in the 1994 Financial and Publications Data Collection (covering the years 1992 and 1993) is shown below.

Figure 4: Percentage Breakdown of Unified National System Research Funds, 1994

NCG = National Competitive GrantsOPS = Other Public SectorIOF = Industry and Other Funding (Source: AVCC 1994)

The National Competitive Grants index includes major funding agencies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Australian Research Council (ARC), as well as a large list of corporate rural research agencies. Grants and grant giving bodies covered by this index play a key role in influencing both the direct and indirect research funds available to universities through the provision of large scale project funding, and also via the allocation of infrastructure support under the Research Infrastructure Block Grant schemes (RIBG). Such funds are also given significant weighting under the Research Quantum (RQ), which provides general funding for both research support and developmental activities. At the research training level, NCG grants also assist universities in gaining Australian Postgraduate Awards.

Over and above these essential financial returns, however, grants awarded from agencies on this index also convey notions of academic prestige as the annual October flurry of press releases from university public relations units testify; the major institutions attempt to put the 'best spin' on their ARC and NHMRC results.

For many post-1987 universities, however, access to NCG funds has been problematic. Between them, the ARC and the NHMRC provide approximately 40 per cent of all available funding to the higher education sector, or 66 per cent of all NCG funds (Industry Commission 1995: 358). Yet, without a medical faculty (or a close affiliation with one) universities are restricted in their access to NHMRC funds; this is particularly so for newer universities. Of the new NHMRC project grants for 1996, post-1987 universities, though accounting for 3.14 per cent of all applications, were awarded only 1.24 per cent of available funds or 2.11 per cent of the total number of new grants. This represents a success rate significantly below the national average: 19.57 per cent as opposed to 29.12 per cent (National Health and Medical Research Council 1995).

According to national 1993 data, not one post-1987 university equals the average Unified National System achievement for total external research funding per FTE academic staff.

Table 5: External Funding Input by Full-time Equivalent (FTE) by Post-1987 Institution (1993)

^1. Department of Employment, Education and Training, Selected Higher Education Statistics, 1993 (all academic classifications)

². Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, Financial and Publications Data, 1994

Likewise, successful applications to the Australian Research Council (ARC) are strongly dependent upon the track record and reputation of the applicant(s) as well as the perceived ability of the institution to sustain such research. On the whole, post-1987 universities have faired poorly in gaining major ARC funding. An analysis of the 1994 ARC Large Grants shows that post-1987 universities gained only 6.81 per cent of the total new grants. Again, success rates for such universities were well below those of older established universities - 11.61 per cent as opposed to 21.84 per cent (ARC Report on Research Funding Programs 1994, Volume 1).

Table 6: Total ARC Funding Input by FTE by Post-1987 Institution, 1994

(NB: This data includes continuing grants)

^1. Department of Employment, Education and Training, Selected Higher Education Staff Statistics, 1994 (all academic classifications)

^2. ARC Report on Research Funding Programs 1994, Volume 1

Table 7: Initial ARC Funding Input by FTE by post-1987 Institution (1994)

^1. Department of Employment, Education and Training, Selected Higher Education Staff Statistics, 1994 (all academic classifications)

^2. ARC Report on Research Funding Programs 1994, Volume 1

As Max Brennan, Chair of the Australian Research Council, noted in 1993 one of the generally unforseen consequences of the Federal Government's reform of the Australian Higher Education system was the reality that many more academics within the system were empowered, by both capacity and expectation, to undertake research (Brennan 1993: 92). Staffed as they are with newer researchers, both in the sense of new academics and older experienced staff new to research, post-1987 universities have had to build a research profile on generally lower levels of external research funding and research productivity.

A preliminary analysis of productivity per FTE academic, using nation-wide 1993 publications data, reveals that the highest performing post-1987 university is still considerably behind the average national achievement. (This is also true for one or two of the established universities.)

Table 8: Productivity per FTE by Post-1987 Institution, 1993

^{1. Department of Employment, Education and Training 1993: 124-125 (all academic classifications)}

^2. Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee 1994, Table 3

This lower productivity would seem to be linked with the developmental load confronting academics in post-1987 universities. In particular, the introduction of new undergraduate degree programs, as well as postgraduate (both coursework and research) degrees; the development of new faculties; and the transition of new disciplines into the academy. In addition, such institutions are struggling to overcome infrastructure deficiencies which are not only vital to their research effort but also necessary for effective delivery of their teaching programs.

It also needs to be considered that staff appointed in the old College of Advanced Education sector under one job description (i.e. to teach), were now confronted with a new set of expectations (i.e. to engage in research as well as teaching). Many such individuals did not have the credentials to embrace this new development, particularly in newer disciplines such as nursing where some staff lacked even undergraduate degrees, although possessing three year nursing diplomas. Many staff in post-1987 institutions enrolled in postgraduate coursework and research degrees to overcome this deficit, often supported by their institution through staff development strategies. In many cases, these degrees are only now coming to fruition. In the interim, the capacity of these staff to successfully compete for research funding and to produce the necessary research outcomes (vital to gaining access to research grants) was severely limited.

Gender and Research Funding

The possibility that women academics within newer institutions might carry a double productivity burden, belonging to both newer developing institutions and newer disciplines that lack a developed research base, was an issue that the research team wished to explore in both the interviews with women academics themselves and through some attempt at assessing women's academics success in gaining research funding from national agencies.

All the funding agencies, Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth, listed on the Competitive Research Funding Scheme-the NCG employed by the Department of Employment, Education and Training in 1993-were contacted for information regarding the gender breakdown of applications and funded projects. The aim was to attempt some evaluation of the relative performance of women researchers during the period 1984-1993.

The project also incorporated 17 other non-Commonwealth competitive grants schemes that were not on the NCG (see Appendix 3) in order to capture wider research achievement.

Each agency was asked to provide information on the:

• total number of research grant applications received;
• gender breakdown of applications and their success;
• applications by broad discipline and their success, where possible; and
• distribution of grants across the tertiary sector.

Of the 84 funding agencies contacted, over 46 per cent responded in writing. Of these the overwhelming majority could not provide the data as requested. Primary reasons for this were that neither gender information nor institutional affiliation were recorded. Many agencies recorded only the initials of applicants or the name of the chief investigator, or retained only information on successful applicants. In some instances, it was stated that insufficient staff or resources prevented the gathering of such information, let alone the development and maintenance of databases.

Moreover, there was lack of consistency within Federal Government agencies with respect to the type of data retained. Some agencies adopted a defensive position when asked for information on gender breakdown, stating that such information was not a consideration in their selection processes, which were based on merit.

Because of the lack of uniformity in the classification of data, the written responses provided by the funding agencies could not be tabulated into a single standard table.

Of the major funding agencies, the Australian Research Council has undertaken the most consistent compilation of gender statistics across its portfolio of schemes, though it should be noted that such information is not regularly published and is no longer analysed on the basis of pre- and post-1987 status. The Report on Research Funding Programs 1995, Volume One, publishes only one table with gender specific data. The issues of gender and post-1987 status do not seem to be significantly important to merit regular public reporting.

Figure 9: ARC Large Grant Applications by Sex and Field of Research (1995)

In a more detailed analysis of ARC data, Sheehan (1992) indicates that during the period 1988-1992, the pattern of statistics related to applicants and grantees (for age and sex) is virtually identical but that males are over represented in the clientele of the ARC. Hence the system is underutilised by women academics/researchers. Sheehan bases this argument on tertiary employment statistics which show many more women employed within the sector who are eligible to apply but do not. However, Sheehan takes little account of the clustering of women academics at the lower levels of appointment, and their possible lack of research credentials.

Overall, there was little consistency across the funding agencies with respect to the collection and recording of gender statistics. This was the case for all applications, unsuccessful and successful, although in the latter case, marginally more information was recorded.

[return to top]