Research impact and engagement in Australian law schools – a grounded theory study of the legal scholar’s experience (Research proposal)

This research will investigate how legal scholars in Australian law schools experience and understand research impact and engagement. The study plans to take a broad approach to the term ‘impact’ to discover how academics experience all forms of impact, including academic and non-academic impact. Currently, literature in research engagement and impact largely focuses on the experiences of science, technology, mathematics and engineering (STEM) disciplines, with a more recent move towards discussing the experiences of the humanities and social science disciplines (HASS) (Bastow, Dunleavy, & Tinkler, 2014; Haddow & Genoni, 2009). There are no studies, however, which explicitly investigate how legal scholars experience this phenomenon. Bowrey (2012) concurs, stating that ‘A lack of knowledge and disciplinary discussion … contributes to arbitrary and unfair assessments [in law]. It also contributes to considerable anxieties within the discipline as there is little information to inform institutions and researchers about how they can perform better.’ The objective of this study is to fill this knowledge gap, contribute to further discussion in the area of higher education policy and research evaluation practices, and produce data that will benefit law schools to better understand how their academics experience research engagement and impact. This new knowledge may lead to improved training, resources and workload polices for the law discipline and other HASS disciplines. Using a qualitative, constructivist grounded theory approach, this study also aims to generate insight into how research culture and research evaluation policies such as the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) and Australia’s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) affect and influence legal scholars' experiences and perceptions of academic engagement and impact. Therefore this study will respond to the question: how do Australian legal scholars’ experience research engagement and research impact

The Research Excellence Framework and the Stern Review – Implications for Australia’s Engagement and Impact Assessment Framework

This article explores the advancement of a national research impact assessment framework for Australia. It focuses on the historical development of an Australian research impact agenda inspired by neoliberal ideologies, which began with the conservative Howard Government in the late 1990s and continues today. The article will also discuss the findings of the UK’s Independent Review of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) by Lord Nicholas Stern and how the Australian Government, in the development of a research engagement and impact assessment framework, could draw on and learn from the findings conveyed in this report. Finally, the article suggests ways forward for Australia as it approaches its 2017 research impact pilot and 2018 full research impact assessment alongside the 2018 Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA)

Appendix: National Redress Scheme Victims Support

The Commonwealth recently announced better support services for National Redress Scheme (NRS) applicants, following recommendations from the Kruk Review into the National Redress Scheme. An analysis of the number of potential Redress applicants originally suggested an estimate of 60,000 survivors which was later re-estimated at 40,0000, however this does not differentiate between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) applicants and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander applicants. At the end June 2020, just 2,726 applicants had received payments averaging at $82,000. By 31 October 2020, 9117 applications had been received. The Royal Commission originally estimated that the number of applications would be in the region of 20,000 between 2019-2021. The significantly small number of applications that were assessed and remunerated by the end of June 2020 is a serious concern and implies several shortcomings of the scheme for all survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, particularly ATSI survivors who continue to face trauma caused by the Stolen Generation in addition to the trauma of institutional child sexual abuse.This paper considers the key problems and shortcomings associated with the NRS and the application process for ATSI applicants. It considers issues such as lack of cultural support and safety, and re-experiencing trauma as aspects as to why ATSI survivors are not seeking financial redress, and recommends a way forward based on submissions from groups who work closely with ATSI survivors

Is Australia Ready for AI on the Bench?

The rapidly-accelerating integration of artificial intelligence into our lives will soon affect court rooms and other legal environments in Australia. This will occur so quickly and so soon that critical threshold issues for a smooth integration of AI into court environments remain unexamined. In particular, the psychological- and attitudinal-readiness of the judiciary to work with algorithmic tools is in question. Further, the literature is silent as to the degree to which judicial decision-makers are open or resistant to the fettering of their discretion by inscrutable AI systems. This distinct gap means that we do not yet know (1) whether Australian judges understand AI, (2) whether they trust it, (3) whether they appreciate its potentials and risks or what might influence their attitudes, (4) whether they are aware of the differences between automated and augmented decision making, and (5) what accountability and oversight mechanisms will be required. This paper considers the likely barriers and risks to a successful integration of AI into the work of judges in Australia, based on research and experience in other jurisdictions – mainly the United States, where algorithms already play a significant role in facilitating judicial-decision making