The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research

Copyright @ 2008 Wiley Periodicals Inc. This is the accepted version of the following article: Donovan, C. (2008), The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008: 47–60, which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ev.260/abstract.The author regards development of Australia's ill-fated Research Quality Framework (RQF) as a “live experiment” in determining the most appropriate approach to evaluating the extra-academic returns, or “impact,” of a nation's publicly funded research. The RQF was at the forefront of an international movement toward richer qualitative, contextual approaches that aimed to gauge the wider economic, social, environmental, and cultural benefits of research. Its construction and implementation sent mixed messages and created confusion about what impact is, and how it is best measured, to the extent that this bold live experiment did not come to fruition

Action now: classroom ready teachers

This report provides recommendations intended to achieve improvements in both the content and delivery of initial teacher education courses in Australia. Executive summary The evidence is clear: enhancing the capability of teachers is vital to raising the overall quality of Australia’s school system and lifting student outcomes. Action to improve the quality of teachers in Australian schools must begin when they are first prepared for the profession. Initial teacher education in Australia has been the subject of a large number of reviews, but the outcomes have had limited impact on the policy and practice of developing new teachers. The goal of the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group is to provide strong, implementable options to initiate genuine national reform. It is clear that there is significant public concern over the quality of initial teacher education in Australia. This concern is intensified by both media comment and political intervention. There is much debate over entrant selection and the desirable balance between academic skills and personal characteristics. There are mixed views on what teachers need to know, how they should teach, and how best to integrate theory and practice to have a measurable impact on student learning. Debate extends to assessment of classroom readiness and support for graduate teachers once they enter the profession. The Advisory Group found a high degree of variability in the quality of practice across initial teacher education in Australia. There are examples of excellent practice, where providers deliver evidence-backed programs that are constantly reviewed and improved. Disturbingly, there are also significant pockets of objectively poor practice, and these must be addressed decisively. It is the Advisory Group’s view that the standard across all initial teacher education programs must be lifted. A culture of high expectations, best practices and continuous improvement is necessary to give Australian parents, students and the community confidence in those delivering school education. Higher education providers and the teaching profession must together embrace the opportunity to fully participate in a reformed, integrated system of initial teacher education. This participation will be essential in embedding the reforms necessary to deliver high-quality teaching in every Australian school. The Australian Government has a vital role to play in driving this structural and cultural change. National leadership is needed to bring providers, the government and non-government sectors and schools together to transform initial teacher education, so that every Australian school student has an effective teacher drawn from a high-quality, national teaching profession

Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth annual report 2013

The purpose of LSAY LSAY is designed to examine major transition points in young people’s lives, including completing school and transitioning to work or further training and education, as well as other aspects of their lives. LSAY follows nationally representative cohorts of young people over a ten-year period, with interviews taking place annually. Each cohort starts out with about 14 000 students. Survey participants enter the study when they turn 15 years or, for earlier studies, when they were in Year 9. To date, there have been five cohorts,1 the first starting in 1995 (known as Y95), followed by further cohorts in 1998, 2003, 2006 and 2009 (known as the Y98, Y03, Y06 and Y09 cohorts respectively). The last three of these cohorts were still active in 2013 (although it was the last year for the Y03 cohort). Interviews are conducted by telephone, with online interviews also possible from 2012. Since 2003, the sample for the initial wave has been coordinated with the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Only six other countries have surveys that use the PISA sample (Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and Uruguay), making LSAY a relatively unique survey. LSAY provides a rich source of data relating to the transitions of students from school to post-school destinations; it also explores their social outcomes, such as wellbeing. Information collected as part of the LSAY program covers a wide range of school and post-school topics, including: student achievement; student aspirations; school retention; social background; attitudes to school; work experiences; and what students do when they leave school

2011 Strategic roadmap for Australian research infrastructure

The 2011 Roadmap articulates the priority research infrastructure areas of a national scale (capability areas) to further develop Australia’s research capacity and improve innovation and research outcomes over the next five to ten years. The capability areas have been identified through considered analysis of input provided by stakeholders, in conjunction with specialist advice from Expert Working Groups   It is intended the Strategic Framework will provide a high-level policy framework, which will include principles to guide the development of policy advice and the design of programs related to the funding of research infrastructure by the Australian Government. 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. The 2011 Roadmap is primarily concerned with medium to large-scale research infrastructure. However, any landmark infrastructure (typically involving an investment in excess of $100 million over five years from the Australian Government) requirements identified in this process will be noted. NRIC has also developed a ‘Process to identify and prioritise Australian Government landmark research infrastructure investments’ which is currently under consideration by the government as part of broader deliberations relating to research infrastructure. NRIC will have strategic oversight of the development of the 2011 Roadmap as part of its overall policy view of research infrastructure

Department of Fisheries Annual Report to the Parliament 2009/10

This annual report provides an overview of the Department and its operations for the financial year ended 30 June 2010. It has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Management Act 2006, the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 and the Public Sector Commission’s Annual reporting framework – 2009-10 reporting year.https://researchlibrary.agric.wa.gov.au/ar_fish/1000/thumbnail.jp

Department of Fisheries Annual Report to the Parliament 2010/11

This annual report provides an overview of the Department and its operations for the financial year ended 30 June 2011. It has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Management Act 2006, the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 and the Public Sector Commission’s Annual reporting framework – 2010/11 reporting year.https://researchlibrary.agric.wa.gov.au/ar_fish/1001/thumbnail.jp

Australian innovation system report 2011

Key points Metrics and baseline indicators which track progress against the Government’s innovation priorities and targets – these metrics are presented under four themes: skills and research capacity, business innovation, links and collaboration and public sector and social innovation Features and trends of the Australian innovation system and performance as a whole by comparing Australia’s innovation performance to other OECD countries in areas such as framework conditions for entrepreneurship and innovation, the ways Australian firms innovate, investment in intangible capital, collaboration and skills used and shortages Actions, achievements, and forward plans of various participants in the national innovation system, including governments, public sector researchers, and industry

Innovate and prosper: ensuring Australia's future competitiveness through university-industry collaboration

Executive summary The continuation of Australia’s economic growth is under threat. In order to sustain the levels of prosperity we have previously experienced, we have to build on our competitive edge in key industries to remain globally competitive. Alongside these developments, Australia’s higher education system is under increased pressure to become more productive and develop courses that address employability. Innovation represents the most reliable and sustainable solution to transition into a high value, high wage economy. Yet Australia ranks 29th out of 30 in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in terms of the proportion of large businesses and small to medium enterprises (SMEs) collaborating with higher education and public research institutions on innovation.   This report acts as the next level of detail to publications such as the Department of Industry’s Boosting the Commercial Returns from Research report and the Business Council of Australia’s Building Australia’s Comparative Advantages, which have highlighted Australia’s poor performance in collaborative innovation. We present five recommendations that are a call to action to universities, industry and Government to take the necessary steps to build an innovation economy. They are not a call for additional funding from Government, rather a more effective way of using our existing resources. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) have engaged with leading figures from industry, including the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group), and partnered with the ATN to develop this five point action plan for Government, the university sector and industry 5 that will provide incentives and impetus for collaboration. Our recommendations include: Rebalance the national research agenda to underpin Australia\u27s economy and future prosperity Create incentives for university-industry collaboration Train researchers for diverse careers Enhance career mobility between industry, academia and government Provide incentives for co-investment in research infrastructure between universities, industry and state and federal government Each recommendation contains a number of practical strategies for consideration by Government, universities and industry. The hope is that the report will encourage dialogue between the three groups and prompt bold policy changes in the coming 12 months and beyond. &nbsp

Fitting the need

A compendium of advice from the National Board of Employment, Education and Training to the federal government in 1992 in regards to the appropriate balance of growth between the education and training sectors. It provides a holistic look of the trends in education and training systems in Australia in the early 1990s, and the recommendations presented to the Department of Employment, Education and Training