![[ Murdoch University logo and link to homepage ]](/images/header/cs/logo/mu_logo_lhs_45.gif){kind=logo}
| SEARCH| MURDOCH| INDEX| PEOPLE |
|
|
Research and Development |
|
|
Research & Development ManagementResearch And Development Board, 8 August 2001 - MinutesPresent: Professor Val
Alder (Chair) Apologies: Dr Paul D'Sylva 112. Minutes of last meeting The minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 20th June were accepted as a true and accurate record of that meeting. The following items were noted. Resources for Research Students (86) Most Schools have responded to the questionnaire related to the resources their School provides to higher degree research students. A summary will be provided at the next Board meeting regardless of whether all reports are in or not. Special Research Grants (106) The Board noted the new Guidelines for the Administration of the SRG Scheme in Divisions and that both the Special Research Grants scheme and Early Career Researcher Grants scheme have now been advertised. Reform in Research Training (107) At the last meeting the Board discussed a proposal from Professor Ian Ritchie outlining an alternative teaching model for research degrees and resolved (18/01) to forward Professor Ritchie's paper to RDSC, who should form an advisory group to examine the proposal. The group to include Prof Ritchie and appropriate student representation. The RDSC should recommend on whether a degree program should be developed consistent with the ideas suggested by Prof Ritchie, and if it recommends on the development of a degree, it should also recommend on the type of degree that would represent the best vehicle for implementation (eg PhD, Professional Doctorate, honours, etc). Professor Ritchie attended the RDSC meeting and spoke to his paper. The majority of members did not agree with the philosophy underlying the changes proposed by Professor Ritchie. The Committee agreed Professor Ritchie should progress his proposal, in the first instance, as a Professional Doctorate in the Division of Science and Engineering. Research Funding Model (108) The Board noted that Academic Council had endorsed the Board's recommendations regarding the new research funding model with one minor amendment and a few additional requirements. Members examined an estimate of the 2002 budget based upon the new research funding allocation using 2001 budget figures. The estimate was just an indication of the changes that would have occurred if the new funding model was introduced this year and the figures should not be seen as a draft of the 2002 budget. Board members were asked to consult with their colleagues and provide the PVC(R) with suggestions as to how we might pipeline changes in over the next two years, so complete by 2003. The Board was also presented with the provisional 2002 RTS, IGS and RIBG budgets recently released by DETYA. Murdoch demonstrated strong growth in its research performance for 1999 and 2000 resulting in a 5% increase in RTS and IGS funding and a 41% increase in RIBG funding. It is worth noting that in order to protect universities from losing too much funding under the new RTS and IGS schemes no university was awarded more than a 5% increase in funding. Murdoch's actual research performance warranted a 11.4% increase in the IGS and a 7.74% increase in the RTS. The combined value of the RTS, IGS and RIBG in 2001 is $13,028,677 and the provisional 2002 value is $14,059,844 representing a $1,031,167 (7.9%) increase. Professor Alder will be discussing with DETYA how long the 5% cap will be in place and as to whether the deducted funding will only be used to support universities with a greater than negative 5% performance or if it will also be available through the regional universities support scheme. Another issue to be tackled is why certain universities received special regional status, yet none in Western Australia received the same recognition. Murdoch University Academic Audit Report (109) The Board noted the response from the Division of Science and Engineering in response to the recommendation from the Audit report "That Murdoch University reassess how top researchers can be provided with adequate time for their research, but also be integrated into the teaching activities". A follow up request has been sent to the other Divisions. 113. Board Membership Dr Shelda Debowski was welcomed to her first meeting as a member of the Board. It was noted that at the 27 June meeting of Academic Council A/Prof Frank Murray and Dr Shelda Debowski were appointed to the R&D Board with their term of office expiring at the commencement of second semester in 2004. Dr Paul D'Sylva has also joined the Board in the ex officio position of Director of the Division of Research and Development. In acknowledging Jim Meckelburg's resignation from the Board, the Chair conveyed her appreciation for his hard work on the Board and RDSC, plus his work on various Board working groups.
To expand the breadth of knowledge on the Board and include a member of Academic Council, the PVC(R) approached Associate Professor Bev Thiele to become a member of the Research and Development Board. The Board
At the last Academic Council meeting (Minute item 6215) the Pro Vice Chancellor (Research) was requested to raise with the Research and Development Board the issue of not automatically precluding the Chair of a Divisional Research and Development Committee from being a member of the Board. At the May 2000 meeting of the R&D Board it was resolved (10/00) to incorporate the following statement in the guidelines for membership of the Research and Development Board - "Members of the R&D Board cannot concurrently be Chairs of Divisional Research Committees. This is to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest as members of the R&D Board are required to deal with global University strategic issues." In recognition of the valuable role that members of a Divisional Research Committee, including the Chair, can play as a member of the Board it was
The Board further agreed that the Chairs of Divisional Research Committees would be invited to all meetings of the Board rather than just alternate meetings. 114. Research Grants Awarded The Board noted the list of external research grants awarded from 6th June to 31st July 2001. 115. Research and Development Board Budget The Board noted the status of the Board's accounts as at 25th July 2001. A recent problem has arisen in that not all of the special strategic funding of $1,066,000 may be available for expenditure in 2001. The DVC and PVC(R) are looking at options that will allow the Board to continue to fund new initiatives this year as well as support recently developed schemes scheduled for funding later this year. These options include using RIBG and SRAF funding that has not yet been committed. By the next meeting it is expected that the University budget for 2002 will be finalised. To assist planning of the Board's budget for next year it was agreed to invite Board members, the Division of R&D and the Divisional Research Committees to submit funding scheme/initiative ideas to the September meeting. At the same time a review of current funding schemes/initiatives will be undertaken to assess whether they should continue. A budget outlining future commitments will also be provided. The Board would then short list the best ideas and where necessary set up small working groups to fully develop these ideas for presentation at the 14th November Board meeting. At that meeting the Board can decide which schemes to support allowing them to be advertised before Christmas and allocate funding by early 2002. An appropriate amount would still be set aside for ad hoc initiatives that occur during the year. 116. Postdoc Fellowship Scheme 21 applications were received in the 2001 round of the Murdoch University Postdoc Fellowship Scheme. The applications were initially ranked by the Divisions before being assessed by an independent panel consisting of Associate Professor Michael Borowitzka, Dr Shelda Debowski and Professor Mike Innes. The Panel was changed from that originally agreed by the Board due to the resignation of one member and the unavailability of another. The Panel awarded the three available fellowships to
117. Research Degrees and Scholarships Committee The Board noted the minutes of the RDSC meeting of 4th July 2001. 118.
Divisional Research Committees
The Board noted the minutes of the
last meeting of the Research Committees in the Division of Science and Engineering
and Division of Social Science, Humanities and Education. 119.
Pro Vice-Chancellor's Briefing
Professor Alder reported on the following: Educational Profiles reports The Research and Research Training
Management Report (R&RTMR) has been submitted to DETYA as the final document
in the University's Educational Profiles submission. The DETYA profiles visit
to Murdoch University will occur on 17 August 2001, for which the Division of
Research and Development has prepared supporting documents. The Operational Research and Development
Plan produced in conjunction with the R&RTMR was circulated to Divisions
for comment and will be considered at the next OCG meeting. 120.
Academy of Advanced Studies
The Board examined the report from
the Advisory Group that has been working on the criteria for entry in to the
Academy of Advanced Studies and Areas of Research Strength. Reference was made
to the present Operational Research and Development Plan 2001 – 2003 that has
as a key strategy: R.2 To identify single or small groups of researchers who have an international
reputation and locate them, for funding purposes, in the Academy of Advanced
Studies The operational strategy for implementation
is: R.2.1 To nominate to the Academy of Advanced Studies based on outstanding
research performance, individuals or small research groups not in profiled areas
but having a distinguished international reputation. The group analysed individual research profiles prepared
from 1996 to 1999 data, provided by the Division of Research and Development,
for members in Areas of Research Strength. The profiles provided an indication
of how much DETYA research funding (IGS and RTS) each academic earned for the
University, based upon their research performance. This information proved extremely
useful as a starting point in formulating their guidelines for entry into the
Academy. The Chair thanked Associate Professor
Stelbovics and his group for the work achieved to date, acknowledging it will
assist the Board in implementing an effective and equitable mechanism for appointing
members to the Academy. In examining the proposed guidelines the Board agreed
that the Academic Research Profiles using DETYA weightings prepared by the Division
of R&D would be used in the initial stage of identifying individuals not
in designated areas of research strength but having a distinguished international
reputation. The profile to cover the period 1998 to 2000. It was recognised that data for 1998
and 1999 often only recorded the Chief Investigator on a research project and
the first supervisor in research student supervision. Since 2000, with the use
of new research information databases, information on the full research team
and research student co-supervisors are now available. Information for 2000
is to be added to the current individual research profiles so a comparison on
current profile outcomes can be made to ensure no individual has been disadvantaged.
Research and research training in
science areas is often more expensive due to the facilities, equipment and consumables
required. Due to this the DETYA formula weights and funds research training
in the science areas greater than the non sciences. In recognition of this it
was agreed to still use the DETYA formula weightings, but assess researchers
in each Division separately. This is also required because researchers in different
disciplines have different needs in being able to achieve an outstanding research
performance. For example it was noted that some staff in the School of Economics
have a very high publication performance, but a low performance (in comparison
to a science school) in attracting external research grants. This does not equate
to a poor research performance but demonstrates that in certain disciplines
there is not a need to attract large research grants in order to excel in research
publications and research student supervision. At the last Board meeting, members
agreed to five different classifications of researchers, one of which is the
established researcher. “Established researcher” broadly speaking requires achievement
of any two of the following three research results over a three-year period:
publications, research grants or equivalent (eg research consultancies) and
research supervision. Therefore as well as achieving a high score in the DETYA
formula rankings it should be the normal expectation that members of
the academy satisfy as a minimum requirement the 'established researcher' designation. Taking the above recommendations into
consideration the Division of Research and Development would prepare a list
of the top researchers in each Division, who are not in an area of research
strength. An assessment would be made of the mean and standard error (SE) of
the dollar value of the DETYA profiles for each Division. The list provided
to Divisions would include researchers above the mean value in their Division
and those within one SE below. The Executive Dean would then have the opportunity
to assess and make recommendations on which researchers in their Division, they
would nominate for membership of the Academy. Nominations from the Division
can include researchers not on the list prepared by the Division of R&D,
particularly staff new to the University for which the Division of R&D would
not have a profile. The PVC(R) would chair and appoint a selection committee
to choose the membership of the Academy from the shortlists provided by the
Divisions. In addition to the list a short CV for each nominated researcher
would also be provided along with an explanation as to why the researcher could
not be a member of a current area of research strength. It is expected that members of the
Academy would not only have a distinguished research performance, but also foster
and encourage research activity within their area. Membership of the Academy
is by invitation only in recognition of research excellence and financial support
will be provided to all members to assist them in furthering their research
career. While members of the Academy will be provided with additional resources
to allow them to improve their personal research profile, they in turn will
be asked to assist in improving the University's research profile. This will
not be in the form of onerous tasks but in the sharing of their knowledge and
best practices. Examples may include mentoring an early career researcher or
making presentations at research workshops (grant writing, commercialisation
of research, establishing a research career, effective research student supervision,
etc). Although mentoring is usually an ongoing process, the workshop participation
would generally be for one workshop a year in an area where their expertise
can be best utilised. At this stage no decision has been made on the number
of Academy members or how often nominations will be requested. However it is
expected that when a new member of academic staff is appointed that the Executive
Dean would make a recommendation as to whether the staff member should be incorporated
in an area of research strength or the Academy. When appointed, it is expected
that an Academy member would maintain a high research performance, which would
be reviewed at least every three years. For some members it is also very likely
that they would build up a small research group into an emerging area of research
strength at which time they would relinquish membership to the Academy. Although
the Academy is a mechanism for recognising small research groups with an international
reputation, only those members of the group with an outstanding research performance
would be considered for membership of the Academy. However, to help facilitate
the growth of the group it is possible the Academy member may receive additional
strategic funding. The Academy of Advances Studies is
essentially another area of research strength, except unlike the other areas
it is a group of disparate research interests. With this in mind a researcher
should not be seeking membership to the Academy if their research can be accommodated
in an area of research strength. It is appropriate however for those researchers
in an area of research strength that demonstrate the same high level of research
excellence as members of the Academy, from within their Division, should have
Affiliate membership status of the Academy. This would not entitle them to the
same financial resources of the Academy, as areas of research strength are funded
separately, but does recognise their outstanding research performance. At this
stage it was decided that early career researchers, unless they demonstrate
the required level of outstanding research performance, would not have a category
of membership within the Academy. The Board will continue with its programs
aimed at assisting early career researchers. Since the concept of the Academy was
first raised there have been differing opinions on the actual name. However
as no other more suitable name has been forthcoming the Board decided that for
the time being the academy will be known as the Academy of Advanced Studies.
It has also been debated as to the requirement for members to demonstrate a
distinguished international reputation. This is still considered an essential
requirement although it does not mean they must perform in all three main research
areas - grants, publications, research student training - at an international
level. For example they may publish in an internationally recognised research
journal, but they have no overseas funded research grants. Associate Professor Stelbovics agreed
to take the recommendations of the Board back to the Advisory group and is confident
that the issues and concerns of the group can be resolved quickly and a final
report provided to the Board by its next meeting. Meanwhile, the Division of
Research and Development will continue the updating of the database collection
on researchers. 121.
Guidelines for the Establishment and Management
of Centres
It was noted that Academic Council
resolved (106/01) (i) to endorse the report
‘Recommendations on Implementing Changes to the Guidelines for the
Establishment and Management of Centres’ and the recommendations contained
therein; and (ii) to RECOMMEND
to Senate to approve the attached ‘New Guidelines for the Establishment
and Management of Centres’ to take effect 1 October 2001. One of the recommendations of the
report was the establishment of a sub committee that will have the authority
and responsibility to consider and respond to the annual reports and final reports
submitted by research Centres to the Research and Development Board, and organise
reviews of research Centres that submit applications to continue in operation
for a further five years. The same sub-committee also having the responsibility
for monitoring and reviewing Areas of Research Strength. In discussing membership of the sub-committee
it was agreed that it should consist of ·
One member of the Research and Development Board
as Chair (A/Prof Bev Thiele was recommended) ·
The Chairs of the Divisional Research Committees ·
A Director of a Research Centre (which under
the new guidelines would be classified as a University research centre) ·
A member of an Area of Research Strength The option to co-opt an external member
to also be available. The PVC(R) agreed to determine the most appropriate person
to appoint in the categories of: director of a research centre and a member
of an area of research strength. 122.
School of Engineering Review
gold Attached are the Board's
responses to the recommendations of the panel that reviewed the
School of Engineering. The next meeting
of the Board is scheduled for Wednesday 26th September 2001 |
