Research and Research Training Management Plans

While universities’ research management functions vary in their structure and scale, all appear to have a Deputy Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor with primary responsibility for managing research, an associated research office, and a range of committees which oversight various research and research training activities. Many now have a graduate school and a commercialisation arm. All have established policies and procedures to address various aspects of research and research training, such as the responsibilities of research students and their supervisors, the management of intellectual property, and the ethical use of human and animal subjects in experimentation.

Universities have adopted a variety of approaches in identifying their research strengths. Some have used traditional indicators such as research income, the number of research active staff, the number of publications, higher degree by research completions, and success in winning research grants. Most have strategically selected research strengths which reflect their institutional vision. Many regional universities have identified strengths in research that will enable them to better serve their regions. In a number of instances, universities selected research strengths following a competitive institutional process.

Table 1

* Edith Cowan University has three research strengths that cut across several disciplines but only one has been identified as cross-disciplinary. The institution has been double counted in line with the information supplied in its submission.

Universities identified 513 areas of research strength in total. Of these, 182 (35 per cent) were in science and technology areas, 205 (40 per cent) were in the arts, humanities and social science areas, 69 (13 per cent) were in health and medical science, and 57 (12 per cent) were in cross-discipline fields.

The Group of Eight universities (Monash University, the University of Queensland, the University of New South Wales, the University of Sydney, the University of Melbourne, the Australian National University, the University of Western Australia, and Adelaide University) identified a total of 182 research strengths.

The Australian Technology Network universities (RMIT, University of Technology, Sydney; Queensland University of Technology; Curtin University of Technology; University of South Australia) although identifying most strengths in the fields of science and technology (30 or 42 per cent), also recorded very high numbers of strengths in the areas of the arts, humanities and social sciences (25 or 35 per cent). The fields of health and medical research accounted for 7 (10 per cent), while areas of cross-discipline strength accounted for the remaining 9 or 13 per cent out of the 71 areas in total identified by these institutions.

The regional universities (Charles Sturt University, Southern Cross University, University of New England, University of Newcastle, University of Wollongong, Deakin University, La Trobe University, University of Ballarat, Central Queensland University, James Cook University, University of Southern Queensland, University of Tasmania, and Charles Darwin University) identified many strengths in areas relating to the environment, agriculture, biological science, coastal management, nursing and rural health, aboriginal and tropical health, earth science and renewable energy – areas relating to the communities they identify with. However, they also identified 56 research strengths in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

The post-1987 universities (University of Western Sydney, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria University of Technology, Edith Cowan University, University of Canberra, Australian Catholic University, Charles Sturt University, Southern Cross University, University of Ballarat, Central Queensland University, University of Southern Queensland, Charles Darwin University) reported 41 research strengths in arts, humanities and social sciences and 36 in science and technology.

Universities not included in the groupings listed above (Macquarie University, Flinders University of South Australia, Griffith University, Murdoch University, University of the Sunshine Coast, Melbourne College of Divinity, Australian Maritime College and University of Notre Dame, Australia) reported 75 research strengths. Of these, 36 were in arts, humanities and social sciences, 22 in science and technology, 11 in cross-disciplinary fields and six in health and medical science.

The University of Queensland reported the largest number of cross-discipline research strengths (12). All of the research strengths identified by the University of Wollongong and the University of Tasmania lie in cross-disciplinary fields. 26 institutions reported that none of their research strengths were cross-disciplinary.

The number of research strengths reported by each university varied widely. The University of Western Australia reported the largest number (54). The University of Newcastle reported 32 research strengths. Half of the universities reported between seven and 12.

Reports provided the following measures of research performance:

• research income;
• numbers of staff who generated research income;
• numbers of staff who supervised higher degree by research students;
• numbers of staff who generated publications; and
• numbers of higher degree by research students in areas of research strength

Table 2

* Data not provided

The reports indicate that, in total, some 10 200 university staff generated $1.068 billion in research income in 2000 (‘research income’ includes funding obtained from Australian competitive research grants, other public sector research funding, industry and other funding for research and cooperative research centre funding). Approximately 20 000 staff members (or about 60 per cent of all academic staff) generated publications and 15 700 supervised higher degree by research (HDR) students. Slightly less than 23 900 HDR students (or approximately 64% per cent of the total HDR student population enrolled in 2000) were studying in areas identified as areas of research strength by their universities. In terms of the broad groupings of universities referred to above:

• The Group of Eight universities generated around $700 million in research income through the efforts of 5600 staff members. Approximately 10 600 staff generated publications, 7000 supervised HDR students. 12 200 HDR students in the Group of Eight were studying in areas of institutional research strength.

• The regional universities generated around $144 million in research income through the efforts of around 1800 staff members. Approximately 3100 staff generated publications, 3300 supervised HDR students. 4500 HDR students in regional universities were studying in areas of research strength.

• The ATN universities generated around $83 million in research income through the endeavours of around 1200 staff members. Approximately 2500 staff generated publications, 1900 staff supervised HDR students. 3100 HDR students in ATN universities were enrolled in areas of research strength.

• The post-1987 universities generated around $60 million in research income through the efforts of around 800 staff. Approximately 2100 staff generated publications, 1,800 staff supervised HDR students. 2400 HDR students in post-1987 universities were studying in areas of research strength.

• The remaining institutions generated around $81 million in research income through the activities of around 900 staff members. Approximately 1700 staff generated publications, 1600 staff supervised HDR students. 1700 HDR students from these institutions were enrolled in areas of institutional research strength.

A major thrust in Knowledge and Innovation was to foster the growth of an entrepreneurial culture in Australian universities and among researchers. The Government encouraged institutions to form partnerships and collaborate with other universities and industry both in Australia and overseas to ensure that Australia could take advantage of all new knowledge created and take every opportunity to commercialise recent discoveries.

Universities have established offices or independent arms to assume responsibility for the commercialisation of research, and to manage research contracts, consultancies and the exploitation of intellectual property generated by university employees and research students. Many have also formed partnerships in technology parks and business incubators and have in some cases been effective in commercialising research and managing profitable commercialisation operations. Universities employ a range of strategies to commercialise their research, with contract research and licensing arrangements being the most prevalent strategies used.

Many universities are attempting to raise the awareness of their staff and students to intellectual property issues and opportunities for commercialising research results. For example, Flinders University is conducting workshops, forums, educational programmes and other professional development activities to help researchers identify intellectual property with commercial prospects. Most universities are running training programmes to alert staff and students to their policies on intellectual property and commercialising research.

Almost all universities retain ownership of intellectual property generated by staff in the course of their employment, with the researcher being given recognition and financial reward from the successful commercialisation of research. In most cases a sliding scale is used to distribute revenue with the university’s percentage increasing as the rate of return increases. The one exception is the University of Melbourne, which bequeaths intellectual property rights to the researcher in return for a small percentage of revenue derived from successful commercialisation. Most universities giver ownership of artistic works created while at the university to their originators.

The intellectual property rights of students are less clear. In most cases a university will only assert an interest if the student has made substantial use of university resources or the commercial potential merits the university taking responsibility for commercialising the research results. When a university decides to pursue intellectual property rights over research resulting from a student’s endeavours, the student is treated as a member of staff, particularly with regard to any distribution of revenue.

Although not all university policies address ownership issues of intellectual property generated by visiting academics, in most cases visitors undertaking research are treated as members of staff if the university decides to commercialise intellectual property arising from their research.

Most universities have put in place structures to support the education of their research students. Several have set up Graduate Schools to look after the needs of their research students while others have appointed Deans of Postgraduate Studies and given them this responsibility.

Some universities have set up registers of eligible supervisors with special criteria required for academics to have their name added to these registers. Courses are being provided for current and aspiring supervisors, who may not have had any formal supervision training previously. Some have made supervisor training compulsory for any academic wishing to supervise a research student. At the University of Western Sydney, for example, academics cannot supervise research students unless they are registered, formally approved by the university Research Committee to undertake supervision, and undertake regular development programs. Courses for research students are now also conducted in many universities, providing training in areas such as project management, communications and teamwork.

Some universities conduct exit surveys and/or interviews of their research students, generating feedback on how to improve the education and training of future research students. Universities utilising exit surveys and interviews argue persuasively that these methods provide far more specific and better information than the Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire.

Universities report that they are producing research degree graduates with a wide range of attributes, from the very specific to the very generic. The most common attributes reported are written and oral communication skills. A few universities have identified literacy in IT programs and procedures. Many have identified a desire for lifelong learning as an attribute of their research degree graduates.

The attributes identified by some universities reflect a focus on collaboration with industry and employability. Most report that they are producing research graduates with the ability to work in teams, adopt leadership roles and have sound organisational skills. Seven directly attribute employment potential to their research graduates. Eleven identify commercialisation and knowledge of issues dealing with intellectual property as attributes gained by their research degree graduates. Many emphasise the need to produce research graduates who are aware of their social and ethical obligations.