Guy Healy | April 09, 2008
TWELVE universities at the heart of the country's innovation system and the group that speaks for 60,000 scientists and technologists have expressed serious reservations about the Rudd Government's proposed "hubs and spokes" system for sharpening the nation's research effort.
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Minister Kim Carr argues that a country Australia's size must concentrate its research; universities with the facilities and expertise are expected to become national hubs for selected disciplines. Spokes would connect these hubs to researchers at other institutions.
But "a hierarchical, discipline-based hubs and spokes model is not the best way to go", according to Lenore Cooper, executive director of the seven-member Innovative Research Universities Australia group.
Ms Cooper praised Senator Carr's intention to strengthen research networks and improve collaboration, but said the British Government had been correct to conclude that a similar model was "not workable in practice".
Vicki Thomson, executive director of the five-member Australian Technology Network group, said the Carr model ran the risk of not cultivating quality broadly enough throughout the sector.
"The hub and spoke model is yet to be clearly articulated and we would not support a system which rewards a few or discourages collaboration," she said.
Bradley Smith, executive director of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, which represents 60,000 scientists and technologists, said: "I'm not convinced there should be only one hub per discipline. Hubs need to be aligned to where excellence is found and don't presume excellence is based upon the name of the institution."
He said it was entirely possible that each of the country's 40 universities had hot spots of excellence.
Significantly, the new research codes developed for Labor's new evaluation exercise, Excellence in Research, comprise 39 disciplines.
The emerging debate about the hub and spoke model reveals anxiety about how policy may influence prestige, reputation and funding of research in the sector.
Last week Senator Carr told the HES that he would be watching the process closely.
"Every university has to be world-leading in particular fields and, if not, we are entitled to ask why not," he said. Australia couldn't afford "a whole series of second and third-rate operations. We need first-rate research. Every university has an obligation to be part of this," he said.
IRUA's Ms Cooper urged the minister to look further afield for an alternative to the hub and spoke model.
She said the Canadian Networks of Centres of Excellence program had the advantage of focusing on multidisciplinary research themes and priorities rather than disciplines.
"(Australia's) proposed hubs and spokes model could potentially hinder rather than foster collaboration if hubs were to be selected purely on the basis of readily available research metrics, rather than evidence of collaborative capability and intent," Ms Cooper said.
She said the nomenclature of hubs and spokes suggested a "command centre", whereas in Britain the Higher Education Funding Council (for England) had acknowledged trust and effective relationships were required for collaboration.
Ms Thomson of the ATN feared that a hub and spoke model focused on excellence in a small number of institutions simply would not turn out enough graduates of quality.
FASTS's Mr Smith said the model would have to allow for a multidisciplinary approach since "all the big interesting problems such as water and climate change require multiple points of view".
But Senator Carr's approach also had supporters.
Lawrence Cram, acting vice-chancellor of the Australian National University, was one, saying: "I think a small country has to produce mechanisms to allow its assets to be shared between universities and this is one way that can happen. (But) research excellence should be funded wherever it occurs."
He said hubs and spokes was better seen as a metaphor for a network, with nodes differentiated according to their research strengths.
Victoria University's deputy vice-chancellor Linda Rosenman said her institution supported the minister's model, which she understood to be based on networks of researchers rather than universities.
"I would say many universities have one, two or three areas of excellence that make a significant contribution nationally," Professor Rosenman said.