Higher Education 17:307-321 (1988) �9 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Netherlands

Research policy and the changing nature of Australia's universities 1

RUTH NEUMANN & ALAN LINDSAY School of Education, Macquarie University Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia

Abstract. Two central features of Austral ian universities are a strong research base and a structural organisation which reflects a close relationship between teaching and research. Current policy deliberations have produced recommendat ions in the "nat ional interest" for the future development of Austral ian university research which are incompatible with these two central features. The recommendat ions consolidate the recent trend towards greater centralisation, co-ordination, selectivity and concentration of university research and its funding. Al though certain sectors of Austral ian university research will benefit f rom the changes, the recommen- dations reflect neither a longer term view of the total higher education system, nor a sufficient concern with preserving the excellent and productive qualities of the current system. Their implementat ion will mean the adoption of research goals inimical to the fundamental purposes of universities; a less flexible and more conservative research system; a re-orientation of the research role of universities so that it is less harmonious with their teaching role; and a potentially harmful differentiation of academic staff, subject areas and institutions. In responding to the new demands of government, universities face a challenge in preserving their current strengths and core functions.

Introduction

Since the end of the Second World War, Western universities have found it increasingly difficult coping with mounting social, economic and political pressures. Many of these pressures have tested the traditional functions and organisation of universities. Although universities in different countries have

responded to these demands in varying ways there are some underlying similarities. In many cases, a massive expansion in student numbers has been followed by a squeeze on resources and accompanied by increasing calls for relevance in teaching as well as utility and applicability in research.

Australian universities have not been exempt from this trend. During the last decade, the research role of universities has come under ever closer scrutiny by the Commonwealth Government. This has resulted in a number of new policy directions which, if fully realised, will produce radical changes in the purposes and functions of universities. The emergence of these new policy directions and the associated debate have been discussed in the context of organisational, manpower and financial considerations in an earlier paper

(Lindsay & Neumann, 1987). This paper describes the features of university research which have evolved

308

over the last century as research has come to occupy a prominent place and argues that, in Australia, the teaching-research nexus is at the core of universi- ty organisation and activity. It then analyses the recent initiatives and recommen- dations made by government agencies for the redirection and reorganisation of research and suggests some national and institutional implications arising from them. These implications are examined in the context of the features of university research and the teaching-research nexus. The incompatibility of the recommendations with these core features means that a period of tension and conflict is likely as the universities resist, or struggle to accommodate to the pressures for fundamental and far-reaching changes. To conclude, some unresolved issues associated with the government's foreshadowed policy di- rections are highlighted.

University research and the teaching-research nexus

Historically, the research function in universities has evolved in close relation- ship with the teaching function. Originally universities provided professional training in areas such as law, theology and medicine but, in conjunction with this teaching function there was a major concern with the notion of scholarship and the preservation of knowledge. The institutionalisation of modern science in universities during the nineteenth century grew out of this tradition of scholarship and critical argument and the Humboldtian idea of the unity of teaching and research became one of the "cardinal principles" of German, American and British universities, which has continued on into the twentieth century (Redner, 1987). Australian universities exemplify this integrated approach to teaching and research. Hence, research policy for higher edu- cation must take into account not only national research needs but also the full range of purposes of higher education, and its concomitant values, structures, and processes.

Research within universities is characterised by certain well-established features:

1. Research receives its main impetus from problems defined within the framework of a discipline. That is, the contribution that a research project may make to the field is the primary consideration, with any direct economic or social benefits being secondary. As a result, both research proposals and outcomes are judged mainly on the basis of excellence rather than their immediate industrial or social relevance.

2. Both individual researchers and their departments/centres require a high level of freedom from external interference in order to adequately pur- sue specific research goals as well as the general purposes of higher education.

309

3. An integral part of the research process is the publishing of results for scrutiny by other researchers.

4. Diversity in approach is valued and fostered. Consequently, research is conducted in many different ways: observing and chronicling; experiment; theory construction, testing and refinement; scholarly analysis, criticism and elucidation; and partly, consulting and advising.

5. The majority of academics are involved in both teaching and research, although there are variations in the balance depending on preference, capability and career stage.

Resource allocation mechanisms have developed in accord with these features to provide reasonable access to the facilities necessary for academic staff to maintain their research activity.

This interconnection of teaching and research, a basic feature of Australian universities, is found at all levels from the institutional to the individual academic. The disciplines provide the organisational framework for univer- sities. The basic unit, whether it be the "depar tment" , the "school" or the "cen t re" , usually reflects a single discipline, or a cluster of related disciplines. The "profess ional" faculties and departments, while oriented towards the profession concerned, still have a disciplinary focus. Thus, universities are structured to reflect the division of knowledge. The search for new knowledge largely takes place through these disciplinary structures which have evolved and continue to develop in response to the requirements of research. As new areas of knowledge have emerged through the progress of research, depart- ments have proliferated. The teaching role in universities mirrors the research- based structures, with the overall course patterns, the organisation of know- ledge into subjects, the approach to each subject, and the inherent attitudes and values of each field, all reflecting past and current developments in research. Thus, both teaching and research take place within a disciplinary framework which has been shaped by the accumulation of research. This is not to deny that the overall development of universities has been shaped by interaction with society, but merely to assert that, in universities, teaching responds most directly to developments in research, which in turn is influenced by social, political and economic forces.

As a result of these multi-layered connections, teaching within Australian universities, especially from the senior undergraduate and honours years on, is not only closely informed by research but gains its essential substance and direction from research. The involvement in teaching by academics active in research is an important means of maintaining contact with the needs of students as well as a way of placing research within the broader spectrum of the knowledge content of the field. At the postgraduate level the teaching and research roles are not merely interrelated but partly merge. The output of a student's research and that of the student's supervisor often come from a

310

" joint product ion" process in which the research process and the research training process have common elements. Indeed, through their thesis investi- gation, research students make an important contribution to university re-

search.

The challenge to the research role and the teaching-research nexus in Australian universities

These traditional notions of university research and the teaching-research nexus, institutionalised in the period since the Second World War have, in the early 1980s. been called into question. The first moves in this direction resulted in the establishment of Special Research Centres and greater emphasis on directly-funded contract research. These moves have now culminated in the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's (CTEC) (1987a) establish- ment of the theme of "concentrat ion of ef for t" for the 1988-1990 triennium. However, the major challenge to the accepted structures and practices has come from the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) (1987) in response to a request by the Commonwealth government for a review of the role of Australian universities in the national scientific and technological research and development (R& D) effort. Several of the policy recommen- dations in the ASTEC Report demonstrate a limited understanding of the nature of universities and seem to be at odds with both the notion of the teaching-research nexus and the characteristics of university research. This mismatch between research policy-making and higher education policy-mak- ing in Australia has already been identified by Le Grew (1984). The ASTEC's intention is to promote research which is in the "national interest" and thus to harness the research role of universities in attacking Australia's present economic problems. To this end, the ASTEC's recipe is a more centralised,

selective and concentrated research effort. However, a policy of selectivity in conjunction with a narrow notion of utility could undermine Australia's excellence in basic research, while a policy of concentration could be used by governments to fund a small number of highly visible research centres, and hence reduce the overall level of expenditure on research.

One of the ASTEC's major recommendations is the establishment of an Australian Research Council, which would promote research in the "national interest" and would subsume five existing funding schemes, notably the major schemes for financing, on the criterion of excellence, basic research in all fields of study. Not included in this proposed council are bodies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council and National Energy Research Develop- ment and Demonstration Council which predominantly fund applied research. The schemes to be subsumed under the council would seem to suggest its

311

primary concern would be with basic research, although such an orientation would be at odds with the broad thrust of the ASTEC Report, and a substantial

redirection of funds into applied research appears likely. The council which, before the restructuring of Commonwealth ministries, was intended to be under the Minister for Science, has a proposed governing board composed almost exclusively of science, technology, government and industry represen- tatives. It has been proposed that the council support research not only in the natural sciences and engineering, but also the humanities and social sciences. Concern has already been expressed about the balance of pure and applied research and the mix of fields represented under such a system (Federation of Australian University Staff Associations, 1987; Lindsay & Neumann, 1987; Lowe, 1987; Neumann & Lindsay, 1987; Skilbeck, 1987).

It seems virtually certain that an Australian Research Council will be established. While such a body could operate with little departure from the path established by the existing schemes, it will more likely become an instrument of more direct government control of university research. A less radical version of this council involving only consultation among the granting bodies has been proposed by both the Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education (Hudson, 1986) and the CTEC (1987b) in its response to the ASTEC Report. Unfortunately a bureaucratic powerplay developed over

the CTEC's role in relation to the Australian Research Council and this has diverted attention from the more fundamental issues of the likelihood and desirability of more centralised and direct control of university research.

In line with concerns with the "national interest" and Australia's economic future, the ASTEC recommended more active interaction between universities and publicly funded R & D organisations and private sector companies. Such interaction would involve staff exchanges, the sharing of equipment and the establishment of university consulting companies to assist with university and industry liaisons. This trend is already well under way with universities establishing or strengthening such companies to deal with the anticipated increasing interest in university research by the private sector stemming from government encouragement for industry investment in R & D.

Whereas the proposals discussed above relate to the mix of pure and applied research and the funding priority to be accorded research in different fields, two further recommendations relate not only to the research function of universities, but also their teaching function. It is recommended that staffing policies and reward structures be developed to promote greater variation in the mix of involvement by individual staff in research, scholarship and teaching. This recommendation is based on the premise that university acad- emics, who in Australia are "teaching and research" staff, presently follow a formula of a fixed percentage of their time for research, which overlooks the wide variations in individual work patterns which already exist. Secondly

312

it has been recommended that the Commonweal th Postgraduate Award sti-

pend be reviewed. The aim is to increase the stipend in order to encourage the

student mobility that will be necessary when the concentration of research

effort leads to a rationalisation of postgraduate study into a smaller number of centres across institutions. The CTEC (1987b:8) has supported this move

and has even gone a step further, suggesting it take a key role in advising which

disciplines postgraduate sholarships should be awarded in. It appears that here too utility could overshadow excellence.

Implications at the national level

The changes in research policy have broad implications for the purposes and structure of higher education. The redirection of purposes towards greater

utility will affect the current balance and stratification of fields. Whatever specific arrangements are decided upon, achieving the government 's goals will

clearly require greater centralisation of co-ordination and control.

A. Purposes of universities

The re-orientation of the research role of universities so that it is less in harmony with the teaching role, strikes at the core of the university idea by

weakening the teaching-research nexus which is the key feature differentiating

universities f rom other research institutions and other higher education insti- tutions. I f the joint pursuit of teaching and research goals does not produce

distinctive outcomes not otherwise obtainable, the rationale for having univer-

sities disappears. The current proposals would require universities to adopt research goals, organisational characteristics and activities, which are inimical

to their fundamental purposes and approach to research. While the general

purposes for university research set out by the ASTEC Report are unexception- able, the specific proposals embody a departure f rom such traditions as discipline-based research, and freedom from external interference, which, as

was argued in an earlier section of this paper, are fundamental characteristics of university research. Such a deviation f rom accepted principles should only be mooted after a full and wide-ranging consideration of the total enterprise. Higher education institutions have complex and multiple relationships with their communities and their contributions to society are social and cultural as well as economic, and long-term as well as short-term.

In any event, the nature of the new orientation for university research is not clear. In the first instance, the ASTEC Report does not adopt a broad enough perspective on the wide range of activities that are encompassed in the term

313

"research" to allow ready application to all fields. In particular, the categories

of " p u r e " and "appl ied" are treated simplistically. Of even greater concern, is the lack of adequate definition of the notion of "national needs" and how they are to be determined. Leaving them to be politically defined within the interests and time-scales of governments is fraught with difficulties. Nor in the broader sense is there an agreed set of national needs at any one time. The different parties involved, the research community, business and government - and the factions within them - all have quite different and conflicting conceptions of what "national needs" are.

B. Structure of higher education

In broad terms, there is explicit support in the Efficiency Review (Hudson, 1986) and implicit support in the ASTEC Report for the continuing concen- tration of research in the universities. While the binary system of higher education is now widely regarded as approaching the point of breakdown, the pressures on it arise out of the broader political and economic context rather than from changes in research policy. However, greater selectivity and concen- tration could well reduce further the number of institutions with a high level of research activity to a small group of elite "research universities". That such an outcome could arise does not appear at all far-fetched in the light of the current proposals to differentiate British universities. Greater emphasis on utility and support for links with industry could lead to expansion of applied research and problem-solving consultancies in some colleges of advanced education. Thus, of the set of 64 higher education institutions in Australia, those most likely to gain advantage from the current policy directions are the large, well-established, prestigious universities which could bid successfully for official or de facto status as "centres of excellence", and the institutes of technology which are well placed to extend their problem-solving service to industry. Institutions strong in the "exploi table" fields of science, engineer- ing, medicine, and other technologies, which can emphasize strategic and particularly mission-oriented research will have a clear advantage over insti- tutions strong in the humanities and the less quantitative social sciences.

C. Mix of fields

Despite the ASTEC's assertion that there is no necessary conflict between "excellence" and "ut i l i ty" , the use of "ut i l i ty" in the form of "immediate industrial relevance" or "commercially exploitable results" is not neutral in its application. Those fields for which such outcomes are not applicable or

314

easily demonstrable, that is, all the humanities, most of the social sciences, and some of the natural sciences, will inevitably be disadvantaged by the proposed criteria. Further, the establishment of a national research council in the manner proposed would also disadvantage the humanities and social sciences. It is interesting, indeed remarkable, given its mandate and the membership of the Working Party, that the ASTEC Report purports to cover the needs of research in the humanities and social sciences, since the Report does not go beyond acknowledging their existence to even consider their

distinctive value and needs. The enquiry's published Terms of Reference refer only to " the role of higher education institutions in the national scientific and technological research and development e f for t" , and it is revealing that these Terms of Reference were not printed in the Report which lists instead the ASTEC's broad mandate to advise government on research policy. With the inherent bias of the policy and organisation proposed by the ASTEC, certain fields will clearly be disadvantaged if the more radical proposals are imple- mented. Exactly how these changes would better serve the national interest has not been explained.

D. Coordination and control o f research

The increasing centralisation also has important implications for policy and management. It has been amply demonstrated that centralisation tends to foster conservatism and uniformity (see for example the literature on the Australian state education systems), and so the diversity and risk-taking essential for research to flourish will be under greater pressure. In particular, suggesting the CTEC, the major agent of uniformity in Australian higher education, as a promoter of diversity in research seems rather incongruous. The centralisation inherent in the ASTEC proposals is also incompatible with the need for greater freedom in order to develop closer links with industry, a process which in practice has to be undertaken at the individual institution or even project level. The erosion of institutional autonomy embodied in these plans will weaken the system's ability to respond quickly and flexibly to rapidly changing local needs. Again, the ASTEC recommendations represent a deviation from the fundamental rationale of higher education research, and are proposed without any persuasive case of evidence and argument.

Implications at the institutional level

Universities face a difficult task in reacting to these pressures from their environment. The broader implications at the national level also flow on to the institutional level. For example, any re-ordering of purposes at the national

315

level will have effects at the institutional and departmental level, and right on down to the individual academic. However, there are some implications following from the current trend which have particular relevance for institutions. Universities are being encouraged to: (a) adopt more centralised planning approaches, (b) develop more active formal fundraising and financial management sys-

tems, and (c) weaken the teaching-research nexus.

A. Co-ordinated planning

In reacting to the pressures to adopt more co-ordinated and centralised planning approaches, institutions are turning to strategic planning. This approach requires agreement on an overall set of goals and priorities as part of a master plan for the integrated development of the institution in which planning at the department level follows the overall plan. Since strategic planning requires high-level leadership in the institution, it will become more common practice for institutions to develop and strengthen senior manage- ment involvement in research planning. Equipment replacement and acqui- sition is the major area in need of longer term planning, owing to high levels of obsolescence, escalating costs and declining budgets.

However, implementing strategic planning in universities will be a difficult task, since institutions must reconcile a centralised management technique with the traditional academic decision-making approach which requires little agreement about overall goals and priorities, and which is weighted towards the departmental level and the individual academic. Alterations to the existing balance of fields, and in particular the designation of areas of institutional research strength, could be major sources of conflict. Resource allocation is already relatively centralised, but since the associated conflict is institutionalis- ed so that decisions reflect marginal changes to traditional patterns and statuses, the lack of agreement is not a major hindrance. Strategic planning is an approach not easily adapted to the organisation and culture of univer- sities, where, consistent with the nature of academic work, initiatives develop at the departmental level and are merged into the overall plan through the complex and proven system of committees. Thus, institutions should prepare for a period of increased conflict and debate about both goals and appropriate ways of achieving them.

B. Fundraising and financial management

Clearly Australian universities will need to continue to develop mechanisms

316

for attracting larger amounts of outside funds and for better management of multiple financial sources. Potential advantages in diversifying funding in- clude larger research budgets, more effective connection with economic and social objectives and less dependence on government. However, much fundraising needs to be undertaken at the project level, and such initiatives require flexible systems with a rapid response time. These needs will somehow have to be reconciled with the increasing centralisation associated with strate- gic planning. In addition, some reservation needs to be expressed about academics devoting a high proportion of their time to entrepreneurial fundrais- ing at the expense of productive research. These issues are among those discussed by Clarke (1986) who, writing as a scientist, examines problems and paradoxes arising from the financing of university research by external, vested-interest groups. Academics will need to come to terms with secrecy in research as opposed to open inquiry, the erosion of traditional patterns of reporting results, delays in publication and the question of ownership of intellectual property.

C. The teaching-research nexus

The implementation of the ASTEC proposals could result in significant numbers of university academics no longer having access to research funds.

As a means of pursuing this aim the ASTEC made a false distinction between "research" and "scholarship". Such a distinction is simplistic and misleading given the wide range of approaches that characterises university research.

The implications for the teaching-research nexus in terms of individual workload are not really clear since the ASTEC appears to have assumed all academics currently devote roughly the same proportion of their time to research. In re-examining the teaching-research balance, institutions and de- partments will first need to review the current spread among their academic staff. Insufficient data are currently available on the range of work patterns of Australian academics and their associated levels of productivity. In view of these unknowns, departures from the existing pattern should not be intro- duced without careful consideration. A move to separate the teaching and research function into two distinct career paths of "teaching only" and "research only" positions could have unforesen and undesirable conse- quences, leading eventually to first and second class citizens. An added concern is that a large proportion of academic positions could well become untenured. A move to untenured "research only" positions could see a decline in the number of quality researchers continuing along a research career path, which could become even more precarious by increased reliance on non-government funding. With a move in the opposite direction, that is not making teaching

317

positions tenured, the trend would be for good teachers to pursue other career

paths. In any weakening of the teaching-research nexus, the needs of students must

be taken into account. Undergraduate teaching could suffer if there were less cross-fertilisation of teaching and research. With less stimulus from academics actively involved in research, students may be less likely to undertake postgrad- uate research. Since research degree students in Australia are an integral part of the research enterprise in universities their needs must be accorded a high priority. Concentrating research effort into large teams may threaten the quality of training received by the research students involved, through a narrowing of experience and an emphasis on routine tasks. In particular, the pressures for more external funding and increasing industry/university links may not be entirely beneficial for students. Clarke (1986), in considering the implications for postgraduate students, argues that externally4unded research projects pose a threat to the academic values in research training, leaving students vulnerable to conflicts between academic and commercial impera- tives.

An OECD (1981) study on university research in OECD countries analysed the current pressures on universities, the demands being placed on their research and teaching roles, and future challenges for the university system. The study concluded that instead of promoting a division in the teaching- research roles of academics, attempts should be made to re-emphasise the teaching-research nexus on the grounds that graduates taught by those unin- formed by current research will be unable to cope with the demands of a rapidly changing work environment.

The dimensions and strengths of the teaching-research nexus need a good deal more investigation but, in addition to the data presented by the OECD study, there is certainly some evidence from the literature that the mix of teaching and research is a productive one. From an historical perspective it can be argued that this ideal of unity of teaching and research, which was first developed within the humanities, has proved in the last century to be extremely productive and perhaps even more successful for the natural sciences (Redner, 1987). A study of research productivity in the natural and social sciences by Pelz and Andrews (1966) reported that the combination of research and teaching, or research and administration, facilitates rather t han hampers research performance. Similarly, Knorr, Mittermeir, Aichholzer, and Waller (1979) have found that productivity among scientists peaks when approximate- ly one-third of a scientist's time is spent on research, with the rest on teaching and/or administration.

318

Unresolved issues

Despite the current push for concentration and selectivity in research, coupled with more centralised control of research funds and objectives, several major issues are still in need of closer investigation:

1. The teaching-research nexus

The current proposals would require reducing the connection between teaching and research. This strikes at the core organisational principle of academic work, opening the way for the downgrading of some universities. Such far-reaching changes should not be made without clear evidence of the benefits that would result. Key questions include: a) the different forms of the teaching-research nexus in the various fields; b) the relationship between research productivity and the proportion of time

devoted to research;

c) the relationship between research productivity and working environment; d) the extent to which research training is interwoven with the processes of

research; and e) the way in which course structures and content evolve in harmony with

research progress.

2. Pure and applied research

The present trend, which involves a swing away from pure research towards applied research, is problematic since:

a) reliable data are not currently available on the balance between pure and applied research in each field; and

b) persuasive arguments have not been advanced on what the balance ought to be, nor even how it should be determined in relation to "national needs" and the roles of the other research sectors.

3. Concentration

Although higher education research is already concentrated into the univer- sities, further concentration has been proposed on the basis of the needs in a small number of fields. Apart from research requiring very expensive equipment, the case for concentration is not clear in the absence of data on: a) the threshold project size for effective research in each field;

319

b) the relationship between research productivity and team size for each field;

and c) the effects of concentration on the access to, and the quality of, research

degree programs.

4. Control

The current trend is towards more coordinated and centralised control but: a) reliable data are not available on how different forms and levels of

coordination benefit and inhibit research excellence, utility and productivi-

ty; and b) a persuasive case has not been made that improved research productivity

will result from more centralised control.

5. Funding criteria

More support for " re levant" research has been proposed. In Australia the current criterion of excellence, judged by peer review, has been proven as a vehicle for developing research of international repute. Considerations of immediate relevance introduce another dimension which may be in conflict with excellence. The sensible determination of allocation criteria requires:

a) a clear set of priorities; and b) empirical data on how different criteria for allocating funds affect research

quality and productivity.

Conclusion

A clear trend in policy has emerged over recent years, culminating in the recommendations on research in the Efficiency Review and most particularly the ASTEC Report. Given the evident level of government support, research policy appears set to move towards greater centralisation, coordination, selectivity and concentration. Changes to the research role may be necessary, and indeed inevitable, given the scale of the problems in funding higher education research. Potential benefits of the trend include: 1. more rapid progress in alleviating equipment obsolescence; 2. better coordination of expenditure on expensive equipment; 3. the establishment of larger research teams where these are needed; 4. better levels of support for the best researchers;

320

5. better overall coordination while maintaining diversity of funding sources and forms of research; and

6. full-cost charging for contract research. However, the trend has broad implications beyond the research role for

overall university structures and practices. Many of these implications have not been fully explored, although they carry the potential to radically change,

and quite possibly weaken, the university system. Substantial damage could result through:

1. reductions in the overall level of support for research; 2. the downgrading of basic research; 3. the neglect of "non-exploitable" fields of research; 4. stifling diversity and flexibility by central control; 5. the politicisation of research decision-making; 6. more rigid stratification among institutions and fields; 7. conflict between business and academia arising from a clash of commer-

cial and public interest values; 8. increased time spent on fundraising and entrepreneurial activity at the

expense of productive research; 9. the dislocation of academic career paths;

10. a decline in the quality of undergraduate teaching; and 11. the exploitation of research students.

Fundamental changes to a university system need to be based on a long-term view and not on a preoccupation with short-term political considerations. A holistic view of research and of the higher education system with its broad range of roles needs to be adopted. In addition the current excellence and productivity of the system should not be lost. The present trend in Australia does not reflect a long-term perspective, a broad view of research and other higher education roles, nor a sufficient concern with maintaining the positive and productive parts of the present system. One of the most disturbing features of the current policy trend is the extent to which the momentum for change has developed in the absence of clear evidence or argument to support the claim that the net effect would be beneficial. As the effect of changes to the research role of universities spreads through the system, the synergetic relationship of teaching and research will be weakened and the distinctive features that characterise universities will become blurred. Universities have little option but to respond to the current demands of government. However, the challenge will be to capitalise on any opportunities presented while minimizing the damage to their capability for pursuing their core purposes.

321

Note

1. This article is based on a paper, Lindsay, A. and Neumann, R., "The Research Role of Higher Education: Policy and Management in a Changing Environment" presented at the "New Order For Tertiary Education In Australia" conference, held at the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, Toowoomba, Queensland, July 1987.

References

Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) (1987). Improving the Research Perfor- mance o f Australia's Universities and Other Higher Education Institutions. A Report to the Prime Minister. Canberra: ASTEC.

Clarke, A. (1986). Intellectual Property - Problems and Paradoxes. Journal of Tertiary Edu- cational Administration 8 (1): 13-26.

Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) (1987a). Report For 1988-90 Triennium Volume 1 Part 1 Recommendations on Guidelines. Canberra: Australian Government Publish- ing Service.

Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1987b). ASTEC Report: Improving the Re- search Performance o f Australia's Universities and Other Higher Education Institutions - CTEC Response. Canberra: CTEC.

Federation of Australian University Staff Associations (FAUSA) (1987). FA USA News. 2 April, p. 1.

Hudson, H. (Chairman) (1986). Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Knorr, K., Mittermeir, R., Aichholzer, G. and Waller, G. (1979). Individual Publication Produc- tivity as a Social Position Effect in Academic and Industrial Research Units, in: Andrews, F.M. (ed.) Scientific Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Le Grew, D. (1984). Pursuing productivity, excellence and other research sharks, Vestes: The Australian Universities' Review 27(2): 39-43.

Lindsay, A. and Neumann, R. (1987). University research in flux: Policy debate in Australia, Higher Education 16(4): 433-448.

Lowe, I. (1987). University research funding: the wheel still is spinnin', The Australian Univer- sities' Review 30(1): 2-12.

Neumann, R. and Lindsay, A. (1987). Excellence at risk?: The future of research and research training in Australian universities, The Australian Quarterly 59(2): 199-209.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1981). The Future of University Research. Paris: OECD.

Pelz, D. and Andrews, F. (1966). Scientists in Organisations: Productive Climates for Research and Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Redner, Harry, (1987). The institutionalization of science: A critical synthesis, Social Epistemol- ogy 1(1): 37-59.

Skilbeck, M. (1987). Bringing the argument out of the political corridors. The Australian Higher Education Supplement, 3 June, p. 14.