The 2011 Roadmap will aim to consider new or emerging areas of research which may require different types of infrastructure in the future, and determine whether the current mix of Capability areas continues to meet researchers’ needs. The 2011 Roadmap will consider priorities in an international context, reflecting the international, collaborative nature of modern research and the important role of collaborative research infrastructure in bringing researchers together.The 2008 Roadmap indicated that -
Investment in research infrastructure is an essential input to the conduct of excellent research. Research infrastructure is a vital subset of the resources that support researchers. It comprises the assets, facilities and services that support organised research and development across the innovation cycle and that maintain the capacity of researchers to undertake organised research1. In this sense, research infrastructure includes more than just physical assets, and extends to enabling infrastructure such as information and communication technologies (ICT) and skilled support staff who maintain and operate research facilities.In the current Discussion Paper DIISR claims legitimacy with the statement that -
Some infrastructure investments involve providing Australian researchers with access to major research facilities located overseas. International collaboration of this sort helps to link Australian researchers more strongly with the global research community. Correspondingly, investments in national research infrastructure can contribute to building world class facilities that are attractive to overseas researchers. ...
At the institutional level, investments in research infrastructure are generally site-specific in nature and are implemented from the host institution’s resources. The Research Infrastructure Block Grants (RIBG) program is a key funding mechanism for universities in this respect.
Roadmapping has been identified in the Strategic Framework Discussion Paper as the most appropriate prioritisation mechanism for national, collaborative research infrastructure. The strategic identification of Capability areas through a consultative roadmapping process was also validated in the report of the 2010 NCRIS Evaluation.They would say that, wouldn't they.
Six Expert Working Groups have been established using the National Research Priorities (NRPs) as an organising principle, with additional groups for ‘Understanding Cultures & Communities’ and ‘eResearch Infrastructure’. The eResearch Infrastructure group will specifically consider the underpinning, pervasive ICT infrastructure requirements needed to support all research and research collaboration.As a consequence, if you want more than loose change, shoehorn your research or your research unit into those boxes.
The six Expert Working Groups are as follows -• Environmentally Sustainable Australia
• Frontier Technologies
• Safeguarding Australia
• Promoting and Maintaining Good Health
• Understanding Cultures & Communities
• eResearch Infrastructure
The Discussion Paper comments that -
while we have established a separate Expert Working Group 'Understanding Cultures & Communities', it is important not to lose sight of the role that research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences disciplines plays in the translation, implementation and transformation of research across the NRPs.After that momentary genuflection, the DIISR vision seems to concentrate on areas of profound importance such as "Human Movement and Sports Science". References to law and to justice are scanty - drive onwards, enthusiasts for dirigisme, and ignore what is conveniently not signposted as you head for what DIISR labels "Super Science", the big rock candy mountain or research Kingdom of Cockaigne. Page 37 (under the rubric of 'Securing Australia') exceptionally refers to -
The identification and prevention of the planning and execution of unlawful acts against Australian citizens is a feature of research into countering crime and extremism. Linking and integrating social datasets to conduct large-scale surveys using digital means is assisting socio-cultural research into methods to identify and prevent organised crime and terrorism-related radicalisation of the populace and social resilience to any such radicalisation globally. Decreasing prices for high-tech devices and ready access to information on the internet is also driving research into new methods of traditional and digital forensics and the utilisation of sophisticated techniques and best practice models for non-polemic extraction of evidence from an incident or scene.The Paper goes to acknowledge that -
The Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Infrastructure & Equipment Fund (LIEF) is another important basic source of infrastructure funding. However, the scheme is not designed to meet the growing needs of social and cultural research in Australia. Some examples of projects supported in the period 2006-2011 include the various phases of AustLit, humanities eResearch infrastructure for literary and narrative studies, access to the European law collection, the Australian Women’s Archive, the Australian Dictionary of Biography Online, AusGate (digital technologies for live performances) and Australian Policy Online. It is notable that the success rate of LIEF grants awarded to the Humanities & Creative Arts (HCA) and Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences (SBE) sectors combined in 2006-2011 was only 16.5%, translating to just 6.3% of total funds awarded.There is however no clear commitment to address that inadequacy and DIISR support can be read as being merely rhetorical: there aint no damn money, it aint our fault and we definitely aint gonna fix it! If LIEF "is not designed to meet the growing needs" what solution will be provided by DISR and the Education Department?
Taken overall, the current investments in research infrastructure catering for the needs of the humanities, arts and social sciences are inadequate, being generally ad hoc and largely unconnected – both factors inimical to collaborative, multidisciplinary research in complex subject areas. Researchers require infrastructure solutions appropriate to the research practices in this sector and to the data which they generate. They also urgently require effective and efficient interconnections with international research communities and the data they produce and utilise. At stake is the capacity of current and future generations to be globally engaged and productive. Current investments do not meet the current needs nor go substantially towards the future needs of the sector.
The Discussion Paper notes that -
Each of the current National Research Priorities identifies research from the humanities, arts and social sciences as a key goal. However, research infrastructure to maximise the benefits and reach of the major outputs of the social and cultural sector is yet to be substantially supported. Appropriately resourced, the Understanding Cultures & Communities Capability will address this deficiency. Cross-Capability integration should be sought where possible, to enable social and cultural research to feed directly into problem-solving within the domains of science, health, border security, or other priority areas, and more broadly to enhance investment in and synergies between existing Capabilities.We might think about -
• meaningful funding of law, justice studies and the humanities
• rectification of ARC and HERDC research evaluation criteria that are based on the sciences
• conceptualisation of 'infrastructure funding' as including funding of access to databases rather than large shiny buildings suitable for ministerial photo ops and self-congratulation by the research roadmap Great & Good (often, alas, the New Class of the Ruthless & Well-connected).
