|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
courses | hecs/oldps
| higher education home | higher
education links 2000 Review of the Australian Learned Academies
© Commonwealth of Australia 2001 This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes subject to the inclusion of the source and no commercial usage or sale. Reproduction for purposes other than those indicated above, require the written permission from the Commonwealth available through AusInfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Legislative Services, AusInfo, GPO Box 1920, Canberra ACT 2601. ContentsExecutive SummaryGeneralThe four learned academies carry out a wide range of national and international functions, many of which are important by any measure. In some countries most of these functions would be carried out by government departments or official agencies at a relatively high cost. The four independent, self-governing academies rely much on the voluntary unpaid labour of some of Australia’s most qualified individuals. For an annual investment of something like $2 000 000 in grants and subsidies, the nation receives a high return. Terms of ReferenceIn reviewing the learned academies we followed the four terms of reference formally given to us by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs:
Specific RecommendationsAs there is an overlap in the terms of reference, several of the recommendations set out below will refer to more than one of the four terms of reference. Hence the relevant terms of reference are highlighted at the end of each recommendation.
This enhances the argument for creating a United Academies Council with more power and funding than the present National Academies Forum. The new Council should be assisted by a small policy unit and coordinating bureau. The government, sometimes at short notice, could formally seek advice from this Council on multi-disciplinary questions of national importance. It is not envisaged that the Council will necessarily respond with clear recommendations for action. Sometimes the Council's ability to clarify a wide-ranging problem and to delineate possible solutions to the problem will be the timely contribution towards the development of government policy. (REF. 2,3)
ConclusionThese recommendations, if carried out, will enhance the role of the academies in formally advising governments and in leading a variety of intellectual debates within Australia. But the proposals will succeed only if the four academies are determined to make them work. At the end of the five years the initiatives should be reviewed and, if unsuccessful, reshaped or abandoned. OverviewFour main questions, some of which overlapped were referred to us. In answering these questions we do not attempt to give an exhaustive description of the academies 'activities in the five years under review. Rather we tend to highlight activities and projects that are typical or especially significant. Within the report each academy is not usually given its full name; and sometimes we refer loosely to the Academy of Science and the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering as 'the science academies’. 1. The Academies' role and the effectiveness in promoting their respective fields in Australia and abroad, noting especially the developments since 19951.1 IntroductionOverall each of the four learned academies is well known in learned circles in Europe, North America and to some extent in China and India. The four academies, however, are not widely known in Australia as a whole. We cannot be certain whether half of the teaching staff of Australian tertiary institutions know of their work and many university teachers do not even know of the academies’ existence. In Canberra, the headquarters of three of the Academies, public knowledge of the academies is higher, partly because the Academy of Science is one of the architectural landmarks of the city. In many federal government departments, use is made of the expertise within the academies. Together they form, by some definitions, the most compact, the most powerful, and most comprehensive single intellectual resource in the nation. We see strong merit in the work of each of the four academies: their international affiliations, their work amongst their own fellows, the advice they give free of charge when consulted by governments on a wide range of topics, their contribution to public debate on matters of national importance present and future, and their outreach through numerous committees. Criticisms can easily be made of the academies, but the valid criticisms probably stem from the fact that they have few administrative resources and depend heavily on unpaid labour. 1.2 The Academies' Effectiveness In AustraliaThe academies in their own right are not major research institutions and are very small compared to say the CSIRO or the Sydney University, but their combined membership includes most of the successful researchers in the nation. They facilitate research and help to promote and co-ordinate it. Most fellows (or members) would probably see the increase in knowledge - and the recognition of intellectual excellence – as an academy's main aim. Thus the Academy of Science sets out its 'vision' in this sentence: 'General recognition of the Academy as the prime representative of Australian science, a champion for scientific excellence in Australia and a source of independent advocacy for Australian scientific research and teaching and their application to the needs of Australian society.' Each academy believes that it must do more to publicise the importance of its field in order to promote the economic, social and intellectual development of the nation. During the last five years, individual academies have carried out major research and appraisal projects on topics of national importance. For example the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, along with the Institution of Engineers (Australia), produced in 1999 a major study on 'Water and the Australian Economy'. The funding came from the Learned Academies Special Projects Fund, financed by the ARC. While the report, with its profound implications for the economy and the environment, received considerable coverage on regional and national radio and in the press, it deserved a much larger audience. Other major research projects conducted by the same Academy since 1995 centred on urban pollution, the competitiveness of the Australian minerals industry, and the 'global knowledge economy' and the future. Social Sciences - to name another academy -has undertaken five major research projects in the last five years. They include a study of Australian-Asian perceptions (which led to the publication of three volumes by Oxford University Press), a study of the state of the social sciences in Australia, a study of poverty and inequality in Australia which will appear as a book this year, and an investigation of the social and economic costs of unemployment in Australia. The Academy of Science directly and indirectly takes part in a very wide range of research projects. It conducts scientific exchange programs with seven nations and represents Australia in international discussions on many science issues. It also takes seriously its educational aims, and publishes textbooks for science students in schools. During the five years under review it has found new ways of fostering science in the schools and in the public arena. Its website has an international reputation. Its Primary Investigations program helps teachers to cope with science-related topics in primary schools. Its Educational Outreach program serves a variety of secondary schools. The Academy of Science is one of the promoters of the National Science Week. Most publications by the academies are likely to appeal more to a specialist market. Some publications fill large gaps. For example, the Academy of the Humanities has set out to publish what it calls 'a library of our national literary heritage'. These represent meticulous scholarship with extensive notes for the reader interested in how the book was first published and how various versions of the text came to be published in the author's own lifetime. Three volumes have been published so far, and others are in the pipeline. A grant from the ARC initiated the series, and publishing subsidies have come from such sources as the Ian Potter and the Myer Foundations. Some academies subsidise a variety of publications in their field and some award travelling fellowships or grants. In organising conferences, each academy has its own emphasis. Thus the Social Sciences give emphasis to two-day multidisciplinary workshops which bring together perhaps a dozen or so experts in relevant disciplines. During the last five years, 24 such workshops have been organised on themes ranging from the future of democracy in Australia to the HIV/AIDs epidemic and its effect on economic development in Asia and the Pacific. Occasionally a workshop receives financial aid from a Commonwealth or State agency. An academy is often an ideal institution for building intellectual, nation-wide bridges. It can investigate, more effectively than perhaps any other national body and certainly more effectively than a single university, the condition and strengths and weaknesses of a wide range of related intellectual disciplines. Thus the Academy of the Humanities, with $20 000 of its own funds and $70 000 from the ARC, carried out what it called the 'Strategic Disciplinary Review on Research and Research Training in the Humanities'. There is no effective way of counting or measuring the influence of their seminars and workshops, for some are small and some are large, some are local and some are international, some are sponsored jointly with other bodies and some are lone efforts. Since 1990 their total activities have grown considerably. Significantly, within the last five years all the academies have set up web sites for members and the general public. They also reach their members through newsletters, annual reports and other publications. 1.3 Combined Academies' SymposiaThe public symposia which the four academies have conducted since 1996, with help from a very small secretariat, tackle a variety of many-sided and major national problems including climatic change in the world and in Australia, global population and Malthusian fears, intellectual ownership and the law, and the impact of bushfires on Australia. They bring together the diverse knowledge represented by the four academies: a range of knowledge wider than that in the possession of any other Australian grouping. The symposia are potentially a vital contribution to national intellectual life and also the formulation of national policy. Much more publicity is needed to attract audiences and to spread the ideas generated by each symposium. 1.4 Influence in Overseas LandsEach academy has international obligations. These links with similar or dissimilar bodies in other nations appear to be in the national interest. To some degree the falling value of the Australian dollar in the last quarter of a century makes these links more costly, whether the paying of subscriptions to international bodies or the paying of foreign travel expenses to those academy fellows who in effect represent Australia on international bodies. Many of these links are very important to Australia's national interests. The most comprehensive single international link is between the Academy of Science and the International Council for Scientific Unions (ICSU). In 1998 the academy spent $289 000 on this link, nearly all the money being in the form of subscriptions to the ICSU and 30 or more of its related bodies. These bodies cover such fields as geology, microbiology, research into space and the Antarctic, toxicology and biology. In recent years the Academy of Science has had difficulty in financing these traditional obligations. The Australian Research Council (ARC) and several government departments pay the academy an annual sum to promote this activity. The academy has presented to us a convincing case that these and similar links are so important for the nation that an effort should be made to increase the grant. We endorse this request and request that it be considered alongside the other recommendations. They ensure that Australia makes a vigorous contribution to international science and technology, they enhance the nation's standing, and they provide access to a wide body of expertise. In some western countries most of these international obligations are carried out by government departments or official agencies for a much higher sum than is received by the four academies in Australia. More should be known within Australia about these international activities common to all the academies. 1.5 InvisibilityDespite this wide range of activities, the academies lack visibility. They are little known in the business sector, and little known to many senior government officials and federal politicians. Even in the universities, which supply most of their fellows, the academies are not widely known. It is fair to point out that some senior administrators, in the course of discussions, could not name each of the four academies. This suggests that the impact of the academies' excellent work, especially on important national issues, is far smaller than it could be. The academies should consider greater co-ordination of their public relations and media activities, including their role in public debate and public policy. 2. The role and effectiveness of learned academies as sources of advice to Government&3. Cost-effective means by which the public-funded activities of the learned academies could further contribute to the development of public policy3.1 IntroductionThe Terms of Reference 2 and 3, which are linked closely, are treated together in the following section. In addition these questions have been partly touched on in the previous section. Government departments and official inquiries gain much from the advice given by academies or by its members working through the academies. A long list of recent Academy consultations and submissions could be compiled. They range from the problems of 'cloning' human beings and cloning for tissue repair, scientific ethics, Australia's 'national greenhouse response strategy' to the needs of higher education and research, the effect of privatisation of major Australian industries on local research and development, Antarctic research (by foreigners as well as Australians), and the best means of maintaining the study of foreign languages, including Latin and Ancient Greek. The Academy of Science spends much time responding to 'public and private calls from Government and Parliament on science policy issues'. The Academy of Technological Sciences & Engineering observes that the topics on which advice is sought are becoming more urgent, more numerous, and more complex. For the Academy to respond in a reasonable time with high quality and independent advice therefore requires more technical and professional support staff. Other academies share the same view. There is a feeling in some circles within the academies that their expertise lying elsewhere in Australia, is not sought on some major national issues. For example it is surprising that not all academies were invited to send a representative to the national summit on innovation held this year. The causes of innovation are widely said to lie not only in the realm of science and technology but also in the cultural realm. That some nations are more innovative than others may, in the final resort, be as much due to the cultural characteristics of a nation as to its scientific. infrastructure, research facilities and various technological factors. The four academies, with their very different priorities, come together in what is called the National Academies Forum. It acts as their mouthpiece. Its presidency rotates, and so every academy has its turn. Generally the individual academies pursue their own separate interests and rarely use the forum as a common voice. But the academies will not be widely known, and not be adequately funded by private and governmental sources, until they speak with unity or near unity on a few vital national issues. Indeed the disunity might not matter if somehow they used their common voice to disseminate their divergent viewpoints on important topics. The academies could be used as a reservoir of talent and experience when vacancies occur on the boards of national and state authorities and committees. Generally it would be inappropriate to suggest that the academies themselves should nominate a representative, and that such a person should be specifically seen as that academy's representative. But at times it would be useful if a relevant academy were invited privately to nominate half a dozen suitable names, from which the minister might make a selection, having in mind the usual criteria such as state representation and occupational and gender balance. It was suggested by a senior member of one academy that the National Library for example would sometimes benefit if its governing body included several scholars strongly grounded in research. 3.2 A New Arrangement for Advice to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth AffairsRecently there has been discussion of a proposal whereby the four academy presidents, perhaps meeting as the National Academies Forum, should meet the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs from time to time. The Forum, in its submission to us, expressed a wish to serve as an arms' length, high-level advisory body in higher education and research. Concerned lest this field should 'become the plaything of influential tertiary institutions or lobby groups', the Forum offered to become the mediating body. We see merit in the proposal. To facilitate the giving of such advice and consultation on other matters of national policy, the present National Academies Forum should be replaced by a United Academies Council with an independent secretariat. It would also be a suitable channel for contact with other ministers, and government authorities. 3.3 A United Academies Council and its Public RoleFederal and state governments could make more use of the knowledge and advice available within the learned academies. But there are difficulties put to us verbally by one academy and in the following pithy sentence submitted by the Academy of Science: ‘It should be recognised that the size of Australia’s scholarly communities is small and those most qualified to contribute expertise are also likely to be jealous of their time.’ That academy also noted that a busier, more influential quartet of academies, active in offering advice, would need a larger and highly-paid secretariat: ‘competent salaried staff is essential to make the best use of the valuable honorary time of our scholars.’ Furthermore, it is not certain whether every academy is always in a position to advise on official policy when so invited. Advice is often required at short notice, and the few fellows who possess the expertise might not be free to do the preparation at such notice. Moreover the skills required in formulating and discussing official policy are not the same as academic skills. Policy formulation usually requires some experience of public life and politics and the ways of the civil service. In 1989, the Academy of Science, appreciating these dilemmas set up a special staff position called Secretary, Science Policy. That officer often has the initial task of framing the Academy's initial position on such matters as human cloning. In general, the more equipped is an Academy to handle public policy issues at relatively short notice, the more frequently will that Academy’s advice be sought. The four academies are competitive, independent and proud of their independence. But their usefulness would much increase if they could find a mechanism for combining so that on certain topics, they could with one voice, advise governments and stimulate public debate on vital national questions. The potential advisory role of the four learned academies in policy has been recently enhanced by the emergence of national questions and problems - for example, climate change, economic globalisation, the information revolution and population policy - which call for expertise and research from a wide span of intellectual disciplines. Each of these problems contains a component of humanities, social sciences, scientific and technological knowledge. A solution to each problem depends on bringing together the latest knowledge from many spheres. In a democracy each problem will be solved only by a wider public understanding of the issues and the rival viewpoints involved. While the governments will make the decisions, public opinion will promote or back or undermine those decisions. Public opinion can be influenced by the debate and knowledge which the four academies can provide. The combined Australian universities themselves generally do not advise on non-educational questions. In addition, many of these new national questions are much wider than the CSIRO’s wide area of expertise. The demise of the once influential congresses of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science has removed another forum of debate and expertise. These facts strengthen the case for the United Academies Council or a similar body to set up a small policy unit or coordinating bureau to which the government, sometimes at short notice, can seek formally advice or an outline of possibilities. In addition some of the government’s special project money for the learned academies should be specifically devoted to issues of public policy, the issues to be agreed upon by the government and the academies. It is not necessarily a question of this new policy unit responding with clear recommendations: sometimes the clarifying of a wide-ranging problem and the range of possible solutions will be a timely contribution towards the government’s development of a policy. While it is not necessarily in the government’s short-term interest to encourage a new and powerful voice, a voice which will sometime be critical, it is in the national interest. 3.4 Possible Merger, Federation, or Alliance of the Academy of Humanities and the Academy for the Social SciencesEach academy from time to time proclaims that Australia gives too much esteem and prestige to sport and other activities and not enough to the intellect. Thus the Academy of Social Sciences noted in its submission that in some eyes ‘Australia is not a country which particularly values scholarship and intellectual life’. Perhaps part of the fault lies with the academies as well as the universities. Four separate and isolated voices are, in many circumstances, not persuasive. Our view is that the two science academies probably have more influence on national life and policy than do the other two academies. This may not be true in every year but it seems true of the last five years. The Academy of Science and the Academy for Technological Science for example make no secret of the fact that they try to influence politicians and corporate leaders. Their influence is to a degree resented by the academies for the Humanities and Social Sciences. On the other hand, if they so resolved, they could do much more to give the government and the public the advantage of their knowledge of viewpoints. Ideally the two non-science academies, being housed in Canberra, should co-operate more closely than at present. It is in the national interest that they have a stronger voice. There is a valid case for them forming a federation. The two would thereby make some administrative and other savings but, more important, their voice would be heard. This proposal has been discussed many times in the past. The impediments are considerable. The two academies embody rather different values. Even when they shared the same building in Canberra the co-operation was not breath taking. As a rough generalisation one academy is seen by the other side as too utilitarian and the other academy is seen as not utilitarian enough: other observers might describe the contrast in different terms. And yet these two academies have much more in common with one another than any other pair of academies. If they could merge on some kind of federal scheme, thus allowing the twin identities to remain within a new organisation, the intellectual fields and the intellectual values they both represent would become much more influential in national life. To the idea of merging the two non-science academies there will always be a likely response: ‘why not also merge the two science academies?’ At this stage the argument for a merger of the Humanities and the Social Sciences is the stronger. These two non-science academies are less influential, and sometimes their leaders admit publicly or privately that they are less influential. A merger, if soundly based, would increase their public influence. Likewise the merger of the two science academies would be a more difficult operation, at least at the present stage. In their composition and in their aims these two academies stand considerably apart. Indeed the Academy of Science probably has more in common with the Academy of Social Sciences than with the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. A merger or a loose federation offers potential bonuses. For example the presidents of the two science academies sit ex officio on the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, and value their role in the discussing and formulating of policy. The other two academies are rather envious of the prestige and opportunities thereby afforded. If, however, these two non-science academies federated, or found another effective way of combining, they would have a strong case for seeking a seat on the Prime Minister’s council. Since that council’s terms of reference include the application of science and technology to the economic and social development of Australia, the inclusion of a representative of the other two academies could be valuable. But it would be valuable only if the one senior representative could speak with the backing of, and the definite access to the expertise of, the academies of the Humanities and the Social Sciences. It could be argued that the two non-science academies each deserve a seat on the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. We are sympathetic to this argument. It has been rightly pointed out to us by DETYA that the Social Sciences and Humanities have a role in national innovation: ‘These disciplines provide the organisational, management, legal, accounting and marketing knowledge bases that are critical to successful innovation, they are the source of many of our insights into the human condition broadly, and to our understanding and managing the consequences of moving to a knowledge-based economy.’ On the other hand it is our view that some advisory bodies can lose something as they grow larger and as their electorate and goals are widened. Therefore for the time being, one addition to the membership of the Council could well be sufficient in what is clearly an experiment. If the Council improves in overall effectiveness through the addition of one representative from a non-science academy – and it will take time to reach a firm and accepted conclusion on this matter – the case for a second addition could be strong. 4. The Academies' effectiveness in assessing excellence in research and scholarship, with particular regard to a possible role in benchmarking and quality assuranceFirst, a summary must be attempted on the vital question of the overall quality of the academies. For their effectiveness in assessing excellence will depend in part on the calibre of their members and on their processes for selecting new members. 4.1 Excellence in the AcademiesUndoubtedly the academies are taking more care, than say twenty years ago, in selecting new fellows. Whereas at one time a nod from a powerful academic was occasionally enough to ensure election, election is now preceded by the collecting of confidential and independent references, sometimes from as many as ten referees. For each academy annually, far more names are nominated than elected. There is always strong competition between intellectual disciplines for their candidate to win one of the vacancies. Inevitably there will be an element of lottery in some of the choices: how does one compare an excellent geologist with an excellent chemist when perhaps only one can win? Inevitably, factions and lobbies will be at work, and some referee’s reports have to be read with a grain of salt. But the salt is more often applied in 2000 than in say 1975. There remains a belief in some circles that sometimes it is still slightly easier for a well-connected scholar in a mainstream discipline in a major state to become a fellow. During the last five years the actual selection process has received constructive and critical debate in each academy, and reform in some. Safeguards in the selection process are now numerous. For example the Academy of Science imposes strict safeguards on its selection process. The chairman of the influential selection committee can hold office for no more than two years and the members for no more than four. The academy has strict rules on the conflict of interest. It tries to cope with the tendency for some disciplines to hold undue power and it offers opportunities for rising disciplines, hitherto under-represented in the list of fellows, to have more of its stars elected. In judging the relative worth of potential fellows, it relies heavily on international referees, especially Fellows of the Royal Society. At present this academy may well be the most vigilant, but the administrative costs of this vigilance are high. 4.2 Benchmarking and QualityUniversities are increasingly interested in - or are being compelled to be interested in - the setting of high goals for themselves and for their main faculties, departments and intellectual disciplines. In deciding which models they should aspire to, whether in Australia and overseas, and in subsequently assessing which of the universities have reasonable success in matching those models, experienced advisors and maybe arbitrators are needed. This task of assessment is not easy. Moreover, if done unimaginatively, it will impose heavy indirect taxes on the universities which are compelled to explain or defend themselves on paper. The four academies, with their national and international networks and their goals of excellence, are in a position to supply the names of Australian and international scholars who might help to carry out the difficult task of benchmarking. Their wide international links place them in a sound position for the selecting or nominating of overseas scholars who could take part in assessments within Australia. The National Academies Forum has expressed an interest in helping to form a standing committee which would assess quality in research, and enlist the help of 'a small number of national and international disciplinary specialists'. We see much merit in these proposals. We also accept the observation made by the Academy of the Humanities that the academies themselves should not be the assessors and should not become directly involved in quality assurance. Their task should be to nominate scholars with the required skills. Moreover, if called upon, they could be enlisted in the vital task of defining the guidelines and the main criteria used in benchmarking. It is recommended that the learned academies or the proposed United Academies Council should be invited to set up a small reference group to advise government on benchmarking and matters of quality assurance which are increasingly prominent. 5. Other Matters5.1 Questions of Age, Gender and LocationGenerally the average age of Academy fellows is much higher than the average age of the teaching or research staff of the institutions in which the fellows themselves work. Moreover there is no retirement age for a fellow of an academy, and so a sizable minority of fellows is over the age of 60. Figures provided to us by the Academy of Humanities indicate that at the end of 1999, 53 per cent of its members were aged 60 or over. Indeed more than 20 per cent were aged 70 and over. We think there could be gains if the academies set a target whereby about 60 per cent of their members, at say the start of each decade or the middle of each decade, were under the age of sixty. If this means enlarging substantially their membership every so often, that will be a gain - so long as the standard of excellence is not impaired. In essence, each academy, because of its solid block of long-standing fellows, tends to represent more the scholarly profile of the previous generation with, among other characteristics, a lower proportion of women than men and a lower proportion of fellows from those disciplines which are dynamic and expanding in influence in the universities. Thus the communication and cultural studies and the visual and performing arts, which have increased dramatically in the arts faculties and allied fields of the universities since 1980, are still humbly represented in the two relevant academies, though the Academy of the Humanities recently set up a section to cater for this change. Likewise in the sciences some long-standing disciplines are more strongly represented than they would be it their academy was to be set up today. Would the academies exert more influence if they had a retiring age? The tentative but not decisive answer is 'no'. Many of their most active members, including those who pull their weight on committees, and many of their most famous members, are over the age of 65. In short, the Academy gains much from its older members - often they have more free time, and give it generously. To the best of our knowledge, most of the well-known academies in Europe do not insist on a retiring age. We have heard discussions on how younger scholars could take a larger part in the life of the academies. Clearly every academy in the course of the year provides high-level platforms for younger scholars who are not fellows and, by the law of averages, probably will not become fellows. Some academies have travelling fellowships and publications grants available for younger scholars, usually scholars who are not members. The idea of appointing junior fellows sounds attractive, but the charters of several academies - and the charters are not easily altered -have no provision for junior or associate fellows. Moreover to appoint a junior fellow would arouse the dangerous expectation that this is the first step towards a full fellowship. The proportion of female fellows varies widely from academy to academy. Overall the proportion has increased, sometimes as a result, it is said, of a determination to raise that proportion while honouring the accepted principles of selection. In the Academy of the Social Sciences the females successful at the annual election of new members was 19 per cent in the year 1995 and 55 per cent in 1999. At least two of the academies have elected female presidents. Likewise the proportion of fellows living in the Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney axis is generally high. From time to time there are private complaints or comments to the effect that outstanding scholars in WA, SA and other states, situated far from the Hume Highway, are disadvantaged as potential nominees for membership of the academies. This could occasionally be true, but the academies now are conscious that they should be alert for potential members working in those states. Membership of the academies is not confined to members of universities and the major research institutions. The academies have gained by widening their range and appointing talented fellows from the High Court, journalism, politics, business, the public service, and the statutory authorities. 5.2 Governance and Staffing of the AcademiesThe annual income of the two non-science academies averages about $500 000 a year, whereas the income of the poorer of the two science academies is rarely less than $2 million a year. This stark difference between the wealthier and poorer academies is reflected in the level of staffing. Thus the Academy of Science supports the equivalent of 17 full-time staff, the Academy of Technological Science about 6, the Social Sciences the equivalent of 3.7 full time staff, while the Academy of the Humanities employs no full-time member of staff but 4 part-time staff. Much of the work of each academy falls on their unpaid leaders, and several of the academies suffer somewhat from a high turnover of leaders. Those who are persuaded to serve a term as president of one of the four academies must - unless a resident of the city where the academy's head office is located – be willing to spend much time in travelling. The position is unpaid. It usually comes to fellows at a time when their careers are at a peak, and the demands on their own time are already high. The tenure of presidency tends to be short for another reason. Each academy consists of many disciplines, and sometimes a resentment or unease is felt if the leader of one discipline holds power as president for too long. The normal tenure of membership of the council or governing body is also short. The result is that the collective memory of the organization can be weak. One recent secretary or chief executive of an academy has noted that the turnover of members of the governing body was so high that major decisions made only four years ago were being overturned without the new members of council knowing what actually led to the forming of the original policy. It would be fair to say that in several of the academies this turnover of leaders is probably inevitable for the foreseeable future. Of the four academies, two lack the money to appoint salaried full-time administrators or secretaries at the high status which is probably needed. For example the Academy of the Humanities has no full-time executive. Indeed for seven years, until 1996, it was run by Professor J.D. Mulvaney without salary and with only a few fringe benefits. In effect he gave a subsidy of close to half a million dollars, in present values, to the academy. His successor is salaried and devotes 60 per cent of his time. It must be emphasised that the salaried administrative support for the two science academies, as distinct from the other two academies, is far stronger. This is an enormous advantage to these academies and the goals they pursue. Nonetheless they made submissions to us explaining that their administrative support, in relation to their responsibilities, is slender. We are inclined to agree with their viewpoint. Several academies have substantially reviewed their management procedures during the last five years. For example, the Academy of Social Sciences believes it has gained by setting up a four-sided management structure consisting of President, Vice President, Executive Director and Research Director. 5.3 Financial ConsiderationsThe two academies of the sciences are foremost in raising private funds, and deserve credit for their enterprise. The other two academies rely overwhelmingly on government grants and on membership fees; and indeed considerable numbers of their fellows are probably not enthusiastic about the idea of seeking private funds. One official gave to us his private opinion - one widely shared - that dependence on the private sector would endanger the academy's independence. There could be some truth in this. On the other hand complete dependence on the government might be said to have equally impaired that academy's independence. Therefore its influence is not as large as it might otherwise be. Thus, of the Academy of Humanities' income spent on administrative and program purposes, some 70 per cent comes from the government's annual grant-in-aid. The Academy of Social Sciences has plans to establish an Academy Foundation which will seek bequests. The Academy of the Humanities received a large bequest from Sir Keith Hancock but even with the aid of that bequest it still relies mainly on federal grants and from membership fees. The Academy of Science already has a foundation, namely the Australian Foundation for Science, which has raised in cash or secured in pledges a total of $4 723 000, of which one third has been raised since 1996. That academy possesses its own building in Canberra and total assets which, at 30 June 1999, amounted to $20 240 000. Its funding position, while excellent, has declined. Its total income from all sources, in real terms, was considerably higher in each of the four years 1996-99 than in 2000 - if this year's budget is fulfilled. The other academy with strong private-sector support is Technological Sciences and Engineering. It is the youngest of the four but is second only to the Academy of Science in its annual expenditure. In the financial year 1998-99 it spent close to $2 million, of which half came from its two endowment funds and from its Australian Technology Foundation. It is hard to compare accurately the financial statistics presented to us by each academy, for their financial statements differ greatly in construction. Although Australia's economy is becoming more dependent on intellectual capital, the real income of the academies is not increasing. The wealthiest and oldest academy, the Academy of Science, recently indexed in real terms its expenditure for the years since 1995. The trend in spending is downwards. There is a crucial difference between the universities and CSIRO on the one hand and the academies on the other: the academies depend to a massive degree on unpaid labour and skill. In at least three of the four academies the worth of the unpaid labour- if valued realistically -exceeds the salaried labour. The extent of the voluntary contributions can be gauged from an estimate made by the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering: 'Through membership of standing Committees, Regional Divisions and involvement with special projects, it has been estimated that the Fellowship of the ATSE provides, on average, 419 Fellow Days per annum to the activities of the Academy. Much of this voluntary labour is actually spent in the form of advice given as a result of requests made by the federal government to the academy - requests for expertise. If the fellows were paid for this work they would receive, on one estimate, $628 500 in the one year. In our opinion the Commonwealth government, directly and indirectly, received a high dividend for the subsidies given to the four academies. 5.4 Cost of Proposed InitiativesThis report recommends new initiatives - in policy, publicity and other areas - that would expand the national contribution of the academies. These initiatives, in the present cautious financial environment, might be undertaken for an additional $500 000 a year. Originally we had leaned towards the view that some $800 000 might be needed. This was based on an estimate of the number of full-time and part-time policy and administrative and publicity people that might be necessary, with an additional component for rent, travel, phone and other costs. Later we settled on the smaller sum of $500 000. In selecting that sum we were guided by these considerations:
$500 000 would enable the creation of a frugal but effective infrastructure. A small part of this $500 000 would come from internal savings. In other words, the United Academies Council would take over several functions which are already being financed. We hesitate to suggest a firm formula, but an United Academies Council might consist of an independent secretariat, a coordinating bureau, a policy development unit, and a small publicity and public relations unit. The establishment of the council should be accepted in principle first. Then the four academies could develop together an appropriate organisational structure and business plan, estimate the total revenue required and identify the possible private as well as public sources of revenue. These initiatives will work only if the four academies are determined to make them work. Whether all these initiatives were carried out centrally by the United Academies Council or partly performed, by delegation, within the academies would be a matter for constructive negotiation and perhaps experiment. At the end of the five years the initiatives should be reviewed and, if unsuccessful, reshaped or abandoned. 5.5 A Note on Our ProceduresEarly in the inquiry we took part in meetings, in Canberra and Melbourne, with the heads of the four academies: The Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, The Academy of Science, The Academy of Humanities and The Academy of Social Sciences. During the following three and a half months we read a wide range of background material -annual reports, special publications, handbooks, histories, conference reports, joint-academy papers, the five-yearly governmental reviews beginning in 1985. The reports read totalled maybe 3000 pages. At various times we met, or exchanged letters or faxes, to discuss the main issues emerging. We consulted a range of people who had had dealings with the academies, and sought their confidential opinion of the present and future work and role of the academies in areas that especially interested us. None of these 'witnesses' was asked to make a formal submission. In Melbourne, through the good offices of the Global Agenda, we were able to conduct a private seminar at which national leaders in business, science and research spoke on the role which the academies took or might take on important national matters. The investigation therefore took more time than was envisaged but we believe that the additional time was justified. Formal and closely-argued submissions came from each of the academies. We privately gave the four academies a detailed outline of our recommendations, and their replies persuaded us to alter some sentences of our draft report. We submitted that report to your Department on 17 June. Early in October we received further questions from the Department, but by then we were engaged on other tasks and were unable to come together quickly. In response to the Department's specific queries we have elaborated on some of our recommendations in several sections of this report. We thank the Academies for their verbal and written submissions, members of the Higher Education branch of DETYA for their contributions, and Jason Finley who acted as co-ordinator for this review.
|
|
contact
details | search |
archive search | publications
| site map | subscribe Any comments or queries should be sent to: wwweditor@dest.gov.au This page was
last updated on
Tuesday, 26 August 2008
|
