Overview of 2002 Reports

Research and Research Training Management Reports (RRTMRs) were introduced as part of the Knowledge and Innovation reforms announced in December 1999. Their objectives are to:

Higher education institutions are required to submit a ‘Research and Research Training Management Plan’ for annual approval by the Minister to be eligible for funding for research and research training under section 23 subsections (1A) to (1E) of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 (HEFA). A Research and Research Training Management Report (RRTMR) serves as ‘Research and Research Training Management Plan’ for the purposes of requirements under Section 23(1E) of HEFA. Programmes encompassed by these provisions are the:

Higher education institutions that may be funded under these programmes are listed in section 4 of HEFA and comprise all Australian public universities, Bond University, Notre Dame University, the Australian Maritime College, Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, and the Melbourne College of Divinity.

Universities’ eligibility for support under the research funding schemes listed above is contingent on their having an approved RRTMR in place. The Australian Universities Quality Agency may, as part of its audit function, ask for evidence to substantiate levels of performance claimed in the Reports.

The Reports provide increased transparency in the setting and reporting of universities’ research and research training activities. They provide a snapshot of the way each university is directing its research efforts, its areas of research strength, and how it is performing in those areas. They enable each university to demonstrate the distinctive contribution it is making to the national research and innovation system and to inform prospective students, collaborative research partners and industry as to how it has chosen to direct its research and research training activities.

Reports comprise two sections. In Part A, institutions describe their objectives for research and research training, their future directions, practices and policies for managing research and research training, collaboration and partnerships, and arrangements to manage intellectual property issues and the commercialisation of research outcomes. In Part B, institutions report on their research and research training performance in a standardised format, which will enable performance trends over time and between institutions to be detected. Part B is intended to demonstrate the extent to which institutions have implemented the spirit and substance of the reforms announced in Knowledge and Innovation, focussing in particular on institutions’ identified research strengths.

During 2002, 42 eligible institutions submitted a report. All 42 reports met the guidelines sufficiently to satisfy requirements. There was an across-the-board improvement in the quality of reports compared to those for 2001.

This overview provides data tables and some broad observations relating to:

• what universities have reported as their research strengths;

• a range of research performance measures relating to research income, publications, HDR supervision and representation of HDR students in areas of research strength;

• indicators of commitment to assuring the quality of research training; and

• the efforts universities are making to commercialise their research and how they are dealing with intellectual property.

Universities adopted a variety of approaches in identifying their research strengths. Some used a round of competitive submissions and review; others undertook consultations; while others made use of a range of performance indicators, such as level of research income, peer review recognition, publications, patents, research collaborations, establishment of strategic partnerships, HDR student commencement and completions load.

Data provided in Part B of the RRTMRs on areas of research strength in 2001 are summarised in Table 1. More detailed data by research cluster and showing the number of HDR students and HDR commencing students in areas of research strength is provided at Appendix 1. The equivalent data for 2000 is available at - RRTMR 2001 Overview Table 1 and Appendix 2.    

Of the areas of research strength identified, 39 per cent were in science and technology areas, 17 per cent in health and medical science and 43 per cent in the arts, humanities and social science areas. The number of research strengths reported by each university varied widely, between 2 and 54. Breakdowns by university groupings are below.

• The Group of Eight (Go8) universities identified a total of 158 research strengths, 42 per cent in science and technology, 20 per cent in health and medical and 37 per cent in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

• The Australian Technology Network (ATN) universities, out of 78 areas of research strength, identified 47 per cent were in science and technology, 15 per cent in health and medical, and 37 per cent in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

• The regional universities identified amongst their research strengths areas relating to the environment, agriculture, animal sciences, biological sciences, marine sciences, coastal management, nursing and rural health, earth sciences, conservation and resources – areas relating to the communities they identify with. Overall, regional universities identified 107 research strengths, 37 per cent in science and technology, 22 per cent in health and medical and 40 per cent in arts, humanities and social sciences.

• Universities not included in the groupings above reported 142 research strengths. Of these, 33 per cent were in science and technology, 11 per cent in health and medical and 56 per cent in arts, humanities and social sciences.

Reports provided the following measures of research performance:

• research income;
• number of staff who generated research income;
• number of staff who generated publications;
• number of staff eligible to supervise HDR students
• number of staff who supervised HDR students; and
• number of higher degree by research students in areas of research strength

Data on these measures for 2001 from Part B of the reports are provided in Tables 2, 3 and 4 below. Data for some of these measures for 2000 is available at RRTMR 2001 - Overview Table 2 and Appendix 3. More detailed information at institution level is at Appendix 2 with breakdowns to research cluster at Appendix 2.

In total, some 9,940 university staff generated $1.16 billion in research income in 2001 (‘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 20,340 staff members generated publications; around 24,850 staff were eligible to supervise HDR students; 13,540 supervised HDR students as principal supervisors and 9,250 as associate supervisors.

The percentage of staff generating research income ranged from 4 per cent to 53 per cent across institutions (average 30 per cent). The percentage of staff generating publications ranged from 5 per cent to 89 per cent (average 61 per cent). The percentage of staff eligible to supervise HDR students ranged from 32 per cent to 97 per cent (average 75 per cent).

Of the nearly 30,000 HDR students, 75 per cent were studying in areas identified as areas of research strength by their universities. This is up from 64 per cent in 2000. 74 per cent of the 7,350 commencing HDR students were studying in areas of research strength.

Measures of research performance are summarised below for the broad groupings of universities.

Comparisons by institution of data for 2000 and 2001 for the number of staff generating research income, number of staff generating publications and HDR students in areas of research strength are at Charts 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

Overall the number of staff generating income rose by 1.4 per cent in 2001 compared to 2000. There was an increase in the number of staff generating income in 23 of the universities, a decrease in 13 (for the remainder there was either no change or no data available). For the number of staff generating publications it was much the same picture, with a rise of 6.5 per cent between 2000 and 2001, with 24 universities reporting an increase, 13 a decrease (no change or no data for the remainder). The number of HDR students in areas of research strength fell marginally (-0.4%) overall, but increased in 21 universities, fell in 15 (no data for the others).

Almost all institutions have now clearly set out their research training objectives as well as attributes for their research graduates. While the reports suggest that there are varying levels of support for research training across institutions, they provide evidence of a general commitment to improving research training.

In Part B of the RRTMRs, universities reported on characteristics of HDR supervisors. This data is provided in Table 5.

The share of HDR supervisors who hold research qualifications ranged from 72 per cent to 100 per cent. For 32 universities it was 90 per cent or higher. One university commented that in some areas, for example design, fine arts and music, theoretical knowledge combined with professional practice and performance skills are used as the relevant indices of high level competency (rather than a research degree). Another point raised was that institutions do not necessarily distinguish between masters degrees which are research degrees and those which are based on course work. Some institutions provided data for principal supervisors only.

The percentage of HDR supervisors who undertook formal supervisor training in 2001 ranged from 0 per cent (7 universities) to 100 per cent (1 university). Some universities indicated that they had training programmes in development, being phased in or moving towards a more formalised system. Another institution stated that their training was part of a formal induction programme for new and less experienced staff. Comments from several universities indicated that some supervisor training undertaken was not counted. In one case data reported was for a university–wide programme only and did not take account of training at the local level. In another university there was some training of less than half a day duration. Another reported data only for principal supervisors.

The number of supervisors who supervised one or more HDR students to completion in the year varied between 7 per cent and 82 per cent. Given that supervisors may be supervising several HDR students, and the data gives a one year snapshot of a two to four year process, this measure is difficult to interpret. The majority of institutions fall within the 20-40 per cent range.

Universities were asked to outline their criteria for determining which staff are eligible to supervise HDR students, and (if used by the institution) how ‘principal’ and ‘associate’ supervisors are defined and selected. Information provided is at Appendix 4.

31 of the 42 universities reported some commercialisation activities. Nearly all institutions have an intellectual property policy in place and have provided a copy or a link to an internet site. Data from the reports confirm the findings of the recent National Survey of Research Commercialisation for the Year 2000, released by the Australian Research Council, CSIRO and the National Health and Medical Research Council, that commercialisation activity is concentrated in a small number of institutions. Many universities are still finding their way with respect to research commercialisation, and are still developing suitable management frameworks.

Table 6 provides a summary of commercialisation activity and details by institution are at Appendix 5.

The stock of patents held by Australian universities and/or their controlled entities at the end of 2001 was 1,116 – 554 Australian patents (across 30 universities) and 562 overseas patents (26 universities). The distribution of patents is shown below.

Of the patent stock, 90 Australian patents (16 per cent) and 55 overseas patents (10 per cent) were granted for the first time in 2001. Of these 106 (73 per cent) were to Group of 8 universities. 36 patents (3 per cent of the patent stock) were sold or transferred (8 universities) in 2001.

21 universities reported 131 licences issued in 2001, with $33.9 million revenue granted (17 universities). Distribution of revenue received from licences is given below.

45 spin-off companies were generated across 22 universities in 2001. Equity distribution in spin-off companies ranged from 100 per cent to the university in 9 spin-off companies (3 universities) to 0 per cent to the university in two companies (1 university). Originator equity was 100 per cent in one company and 0 per cent in 24 companies (12 universities). In 27 companies (in 15 universities) equity was shared with third parties.

• Table 1 - Number of areas of research strength, 2001    (230.50 KB)

• Table 2 - Research income, 2001    (230.50 KB)

• Table 3 – Research active staff, 2001    (230.50 KB)

• Table 4 – Higher degree research (HDR) students and higher degree research (HDR) commencing students in areas of research strength, 2001    (230.50 KB)

• Table 5 – Higher degree research (HDR) supervisor characteristics, 2001    (230.50 KB)

• Table 6 – Summary of commercialisation activity in Australian universities and controlled entities, 2001    (230.50 KB)