![[ 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 ManagementBOARD OF RESEARCH MINUTES, 25 SEPTEMBER, 2002 - MINUTESProfessor Val Alder (Chair) Dr Shelda Debowski A/Professor Bernie Dell Associate Professor Frank Murray Professor Val Alder expressed her thanks to Professors’ John Yovich and Stephen Thurgate for standing in as Acting PVC(R) during her absence. She also thanked Dr Paul D’Sylva for taking on much of her portfolio while she was on leave and introduced her new executive research officer Sue Kinsella to the committee. Professor Alder advised the committee that the latest provisional DEST figures for research at Murdoch University have increased. In 1999 the University received approximately 1.3 – 1.5 per cent of the funding available while in 2002 this has risen to 1.58 – 1.67 per cent. Despite this success the University’s completion rates are still below the national average. Murdoch has 1.69 per cent of national enrolments and only 1.42 per cent of completions. To continue to maintain Murdoch’s success the PVC(R) reiterated that those applying for research funding need to consider collaborative and interdisciplinary applications. Such consortiums are currently being funded well and Murdoch University should try and be a part of these. However such applications usually require a cash contribution from Universities. It is important to leverage these cash contributions by a factor of at least x2 and preferably by much more. The
PVC(R) also advised that the Strategic Plan is currently being prepared to
decide how the University wishes to be placed in the future fast changing
external environment. Some feedback is expected by the end of October in
regards to teaching, research and general management. Those on the research
focus group include a postgraduate student, an Executive Dean, some researchers
and three R&D Board members. Part A The Board agreed to reserve items 6.1 and 6.2 from Part A of the agenda for further discussion in Part B. These relate to the PVC(R)’s support of leveraged research projects for the Innovation Facility Funding and the Australian Centre for Plant Water-Use Efficiency. <269. Minutes of last meetingThe minutes of the 7th August 2002 Meeting were considered and accepted. <270. ApologiesApologies from Professor Mike Dilworth and Dr Paul D’Sylva were noted. <271. Divisional Research CommitteesThe minutes of the meeting of July 31 2002 Research Committee in the Division of Social Sciences Humanities and Education and the April 9, 2002 Research Committee in the Division of Business Information Technology and Law were noted. <272. Research Degrees and Scholarships CommitteeThe minutes of the August 14, 2002 Research Degrees and Scholarships Committee meeting were noted. <273. Budget UpdateThe Board noted the status of the R&D Board budget as at September 18, 2002. <274. Centre of Excellence in Soil HealthThe Board noted the support of $1000 matching funding for the development of the business plan for the Centre of Excellence in Soil Health. <275. Grant in Aid to Assist Centres with ReviewsThe Board noted the estimates of the grant in aid funding likely to be requested from the Board for the review of Centres in 2003. <276. Parasitology Congress Funding The Board noted the support of $3000 to co-sponsor the Parasitology Session at the Australian Health and Medical Research Congress. <277. Grants AwardedThe Board noted the grants allocated between 5 July 2002 and 30 August 2002. <278. Report on the Academy Working PartyThe Board noted the membership status of the Academy. <279. Review of the School of EducationThe Board noted the review of the School of Education. Part B FOR DISCUSSION Pvc(r)’s Support Of Leveraged Research Projects <280. Innovation Facility Funding The Board raised concerns that the supporting application with this funding request did not include a business plan and it was agreed that Board members would be sent a copy of this for comment once it was produced. At present an expression of interest by Murdoch for this application to the State Government has been accepted and now the State Government has requested that the business plan be developed. It was agreed that when funding decisions are made with a high leverage level the Board is comfortable with these decisions being made without their consultation, though leveraged projects can only be made in this way during the duration of the leveraged project and not as a continuous ongoing commitment. When money is being provided without leverage these applications must all be sent to the Board for consideration against how they impact on other decisions and so they can be discussed in relation to the Boards future Strategic Plan. The Board noted the PVC(R)’s once off support of $40,000 for the Innovation Facility.
<281. The Australian Centre for Plant Water Use Efficiency<The Board expressed concern that this application’s leverage factor did not match the draft motion. Though willing to support it on this occasion in future application must provide a clearer more accurate assessment. The Board noted the PVC(R)’s support of $239,400 over five years for the Australian Centre for Plant Water-Use Efficiency.
< <282. Andy Mounsey Post-Doctoral Fellowship Funding Request<The Board expressed concern at who would own any Intellectual Property (IP) information generated by the collaborative arrangement between Murdoch University and University of Western Australia (UWA). The Board agreed to request a letter from UWA confirming that no IP was generated during this collaboration and that UWA will make no future claims. Concerns were raised regarding whether UWA has an obligation to continue with this contract, and if by giving Dr Mounsey this fellowship that others are not being denied the opportunity to complete for the funding available. The Board agreed that they are willing to provide funding for this fellowship until the end of 2003 with re-consideration given at that time. The Board was advised that in addition to his contractual obligations Dr Mounsey has been successful in obtaining a grant and scholarship for the University.
283. Institutional Membership to the Australian Consortium for Social and Political Research, Inc (ACSPRI) The Board was advised that this database is very much desired and used by social scientists.
284. ARC Centres of Excellence - Centres for Functional Genomics for Crop Protection The Board discussed this application and noted that it had a leverage factor of at least four. The Board agreed to fund this proposal contingent on the application being successful.
Reports from Working Parties <285. Report from CRC Review Working PartyDr Shelda Debowski, the Chair of the CRC Review Working Party clarified that this group had looked at CRC’s where any anticipatory funding was requested. A major problem experienced by this group was identifying data on which to make decisions. Though there is evidence of money flowing back to CRC’s there is very little evidence to say how much Centres cost, with some refusing to disclose this information. The PVC(R) agreed that although difficult to disentangle there would be an attempt at a cost benefit analysis of our CRC’s. This working party looked at “middle of the road” sample Centres and discovered that returns are good compared to money outlayed by Murdoch and that there are many additional benefits to being involved in a Centre. Though there is overall value the working party are unable to say if greater value could be obtained by using this funding in another way. Concerns raised by the group, are that when Murdoch University is a node or second party to a Centre how much financial benefit actually comes back to the University? It is very difficult to obtain accurate information the PVC(R) explained that a node usually had fewer administrative costs required from Murdoch – but it was important to make a financial contribution sufficient to guarantee a seat on the Board. This
working party also discussed in-kind contributions, which are an invisible cost
being paid by the schools to support CRC activities. Many schools perceive that
they are in deficit as they have been awarded CRC’s. However, the PVC(R) noted
that the salaries of the academic staff involved would still have to be paid
even if no research within a CRC was done. In the planning stages for CRC’s there are hidden costs, which end up requiring researchers to request additional funding due to the high cost of administrative processes. The working party agreed that the problem is in the initial application and a template needs to be formulated to highlight all costs. The second part of Dr Debowski’s report focused on the more formalised processes of establishing a Centre. The working party agreed that a great deal of information and support from the Board must first be obtained. Applications for Centre’s must go through a rigorous process beginning with obtaining divisional support. The working party agreed that CRCARS guidelines should be the basis of the plan, which would be three to four pages long and would ask questions such as how this proposed centre would impact on other Centres and Research Areas at the University. It was agreed by the working party that in the future applications for Centres must be signed by the Executive Dean and communicated to the Divisional Boards. Dr Debowski agreed to develop a cover sheet for future applicants. The PVC(R) reiterated that frequently negotiations with multiple research institutions, Government and industry partners continue to the final date for applications. The process is very little different from ARC Linkage Grants, just more complex. She agreed that the Board has to be aware of potential CRC applications as they evolve but suggested that the PVC(R) had to be given discretion to negotiation final terms. She also pointed out that many applications for CRC’s were not successful and ended up with no financial commitments from Murdoch. There was also sometimes a need for some degree of secrecy about potential applications involving many partners when bidding against other partners. Also sometimes the time line between deciding to be part of an application and its submission was very short and could fall between Board meetings. The R&D Board congratulated the working party on the report and recommendations they had provided.
286. Report and Recommendations from the Large Equipment Funding Working Party This item was postponed until the November 13, 2002 R&D Board Meeting. In the meantime the PVC(R) has been requested to raise the question of what happened to the capital fund at the next meeting of the Senior Executive.
287. Report from AINSE Working Party The Board was advised that in the past AINSE membership has provided factor four leverage and that if the University does not put money in this year they will not be able to access the facilities and opportunities offered through membership. DSE Executive Dean, Professor Yianni Attikouzel will be asked to fund 25 per cent of the approximate $9,000 cost to AINSE. It will be noted that if he does not support this, the Board is unlikely to support payment of the entire cost.
Discussion Items 288. Individual Research Quantum Recording Dr Shelda Debowski outlined the concern staff have regarding the accuracy of the 1998 - 2000 data based on DEST indicators. She noted that they are not being given the opportunity to view this information and correct inaccuracies on which many are having their performance judged. The database before 2001 is known not be complete for load or completions and research income as secondary and support staff are not given any acknowledgement. The PVC(R) agreed it was important that the databases were as accurate as possible. The PVC(R) explained that the process of producing accurate databases or research indicators was an evolving process with 2001 and 2002 being the years where the Division of R&D was convinced a high level of accuracy is present. However, if the R&D Division is not notified of data it cannot include it and it also tries to avoid double counting of data. It did rely on researchers complying with procedures. At the PVC(R)'s request the R&D Board discussed whether individuals should see their own information from 2002 onwards and whether such information should be made public within the University. In discussion the Board was of the view that individuals should be able to access their own data though not that of others so they can ensure it is accurate. It was also suggested that they should receive a school and divisional average in each database category to enable them to rank themselves in each of the categories. Grants staff are involved in should also be listed. It was suggested this could be set up under the MAIS, personal pin access system with full results limited to Executive Deans and Heads of School. The Board discussed potential issues of releasing this data including that full information would be required by Divisional Research Committees to determine who to distribute REGS to based on the MUERI index. It was also noted that though this information is sensitive, it is not confidential. Concerns were raised that by releasing the full data to all staff. Morale issues could be a problem particularly if data is used inappropriately.
289. Centres of Excellence sent to the R&D Board for In-Principle Support The Board noted the support for the four Centres submitted in the Centre of Excellence Round. They expressed concern at these large sums of money being requested and not given proper consideration at a full meeting, particularly the Centre for the Molecular Biology of Parasitism as the Executive Dean and Divisional Research Committee in VBS were unaware of this application. The PVC(R) noted this concern was dealt with under item 285.
290. Concerns regarding Centre of Excellence In-Principle Support Professor David Hampson expressed satisfaction that his concerns regarding the short notice members were given to provide in-principle support to the applications for the Centre of Excellence had been discussed and addressed. This included in future providing fuller information and ensuring full committee discussion when possible. REGS 291. REGS Budget for 2003 and Formula Allocations to Divisions The REGS scheme is the amalgamation of funds from Strategic Research Grant's (SRG), Areas of Research Strength (ARS), Early Career Researcher (ECR) and Post-Doctoral schemes. It is proposed that from 2003 around one million dollars will be available under REGS from the Board budget for 2003. Several models were considered regarding how to allocate this money to the various Divisional Research Committees for distribution to researchers. It was agreed that some should be allocated to Early Career Researchers with the rest distributed on the basis of how the income was earned. The income is earned through RTS/IGS on the basis of 47 per cent from research income, 33 per cent completions, 10 per cent publications and 10 per cent HDR load. It was agreed that funds will be distributed on the basis of 90 per cent using the above formula and 10 per cent on the value of Early Career Research Grants awarded in the previous year. It was noted that the formula used to determine how much money Divisions will receive will result in some changes from last year VBS receiving less funding than in the past. The Board agreed to support the formula on the condition that a review of processes for next year's round is held in June 2003.
292. Implementation of REGS within Divisions and Feedback from Divisional Chairs
BITL proposes to have a project based system, which will see funding divided between a number of quality ECR applications and more established researchers. This will be looked at more closely by the Division in October. It is anticipated the application form for this will be two pages plus appendices. DSE DSE proposes to make a distinction in the applications process between allocation based on formula and by project funding applications. It proposes an approach whereby new staff and established staff will be assessed separately. Project funding applications will apply to ECR, active researchers who have recently come from elsewhere, interrupted career researchers and staff who can make a convincing case to increase their performance indicators. Established staff will be assessed based on performance indicators and recent grant applications. All applicants will be asked to put in an application including a proposal for expenditure of funds allocated. Application forms for ECR’s and others as above will be longer than two pages to provide these staff with experience at applying for funding. The DSE formula for established staff is curvilinear to award proportionately more funding to those with low to middle research income earners taking some away from the top research income earners to give proportionally more to those who need the funds to improve their performance. The strategic advantage of this approach is to support effective researchers whilst also encouraging those who would not otherwise be competitive. There was discussion about whether the limited funds should filter down to all staff or whether only the more active researchers should be given larger amounts. The Division was urged to ensure that ECR are provided with adequate funds. Also the issue was raised about the minimum amount that can be usefully awarded to improve research performance. The DSE representative was asked to take these issues back to the Divisional Research Committee for discussion. SSHE SSHE’s guidelines were developed to be as flexible as possible with the bulk of applications to come from individuals and small groups of researchers for dedicated project funds or ARS for strategic developments. Weightings provided by the Board will be combined to maximise the use of the investment for research efforts. Sixty per cent will be given for quality projects with the remaining 40 per cent coming from track record, external linkages and the enhancement of research potential of individuals and of the Division. SSHE will develop an assessment procedure and endorse the notion of re-visiting the allocation system in early 2003. The application form will be three pages long for projects with no page limit for those from ARS. These will need to take a similar form to a business plan. SSHE is currently working on finding out how they can support groups that don’t fall into either of these categories such as honorary staff and just completed research students. VBS VBS proposes a similar formula to DSE, primarily supporting ECR and those who can make a special case to improve research performance. Last year all SRG funding from VBS went to ECR’s and special cases, however if this continues established researchers may begin to complain. VBS will ask applicants to outline how they will distribute and spend funds with successful applicants to report to the Board at the end of 2003.
293. 2003 Meeting Dates.The Board noted and approved the proposed 2003 meeting dates. 294. Next Meeting.The next meeting of the R&D Board is scheduled for Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 2pm in The Senate Room. There being no further business the meeting closed at 5.20pm.
|
