DASSH endorses the emphasis on simplifying systems and reporting requirements, incentivising engagement with end-users, and recognising that Australia has a mature university system in which individual higher education institutions should determine the best use of their research funding (with appropriate reporting requirements). We also applaud the proposal to double weight HDR completions by Indigenous students within the RTP allocation formula

Australasian Council of Deans of Arts

Social Sciences and Humanities

Analysis and Policy Observatory (APO)

DASSH response to the Department of Education and Training’s consultation paper

Name not available

	Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH) 
Suite 5, 1 Geils Court, Deakin, ACT 2600     T: 02 6162 1297     E: eo@dassh.edu.au 
www.dassh.edu.au	
	
DASSH	Response	to	the	Department	of	Education	and	Training’s	Consultation	Paper:	
Sharper	incentives	for	engagement:	
	New	research	block	grant	arrangements	for	universities	
	
	
The	Australasian	Council	of	Deans	of	Arts,	Social	Sciences	and	Humanities	(DASSH)	
welcomes	this	opportunity	to	respond	to	the	Department’s	consultation	paper.	
	
In	summary,	DASSH	endorses	the	emphasis	on	simplifying	systems	and	reporting	
requirements,	incentivising	engagement	with	end-users,	and	recognising	that	Australia	has	a	
mature	university	system	in	which	individual	higher	education	institutions	should	determine	
the	best	use	of	their	research	funding	(with	appropriate	reporting	requirements).	We	also	
applaud	the	proposal	to	double	weight	HDR	completions	by	Indigenous	students	within	the	
RTP	allocation	formula.		
	
1. Does	RSP	funding	require	limits	on	allowable	expenditure?		If	so,	would	the	proposed	
restrictions	allow	sufficient	flexibility	to	support	HEPs	research	activities?	
With	appropriate	reporting	requirements	in	place,	DASSH	endorses	the	removal	of	all	
restrictions	on	the	expenditure	of	RSP	funding	on	the	basis	that	the	best	use	of	funds	
will	vary	for	different	universities	and	that	maximising	university	autonomy	in	this	
sphere	should	promote	innovation.		
Acknowledging	the	reality	of	research	students’	integration	into	HEPs’	research	
activities	aligns	with	the	broader	emphases	of	this	consultation	paper;	excluding	costs	
associated	with	supporting	HDR	students	is	not	practical.	
	
2. What	information	could	HEPs	provide	to	best	demonstrate	value	for	money	and	
performance	under	the	RSP?	
DASSH	supports	the	Department’s	suggested	measures	around	number	of	
researchers/research	support	staff	(with	the	comment	that	an	FTE	measure	may	be	
most	appropriate),	type	and	number	of	research	outputs,	and	number	of	research	
projects.	Individual	HEPs	are	best	placed	to	respond	to	this	question,	given	the	
emphasis	–	which	DASSH	supports	–	on	keeping	reporting	requirements	as	low	as	
possible	for	HEPs.	
	
3. Should	a	cap	be	imposed	on	international	enrolments	or	should	enrolments	be	
unrestricted	and	monitored	over	time?	
Enrolments	should	be	unrestricted	and	monitored	over	time.	Overall,	the	proposed	
block	grant	changes	will	(further)	prioritise	enrolment	of	high-performing	candidates	
with	good	potential	for	timely	completion.	
	Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH) 
Suite 5, 1 Geils Court, Deakin, ACT 2600     T: 02 6162 1297     E: eo@dassh.edu.au 
www.dassh.edu.au	
	
Under	current	University	funding	arrangements,	there	are	institutional	pressures	to	
accept	International	fee-paying	or	supported	HDRs	on	an	uncapped	basis.	The	emphasis	
on	timely	completions	may	strengthen	and/or	retard	that	desire	to	recruit	international	
HDR	candidates	(or	international	students	from	particular	regions),	given	current	higher	
completion	rates	among	international	students	versus	perceived	additional	support	
requirements	for	international	students.		
	
4. Which	key	dimensions	of	RTP	support	(such	as	the	type	of	students,	total	amount	of	
support	and	stipend	levels)	would	reporting	need	to	include	to	ensure	the	program	is	
meeting	its	policy	goals	and	no	undesirable	consequences	are	occurring?		
Reporting	should	include	details	about	disciplinary	areas	and	occur	within	a	framework	
that	recognises	the	diversity	of	end-users	and	impact.	Any	tendency	to	narrowly	
interpret	industry	engagement	risks	excluding	key	components	of	the	Australian	
economy	and	society,	such	as	the	creative	industries,	NGOs,	the	education	sector	and	
the	public	sector.	
Because	of	measurement	by	completion,	opportunities	for	candidates	at	risk	of	longer	
candidatures	due	to	disciplinary	norms	or,	more	importantly,	SEO	factors	or	experience	
of	disability,	mental	illness	etc.,	should	be	monitored	by	institutions.	
Pressure	for	fewer,	higher	offer	scholarships	at	select	institutions	or	in	specific	
disciplines	may	create	a	tiered	system	not	conducive	to	innovation	or	best	practice	in	
the	longer	term.	
	
5. Are	the	proposed	RTP	eligibility	criteria	an	improvement	on	current	arrangements?	
Are	there	likely	to	be	any	unintended	consequences?	
The	simplification	of	requirements	is	an	improvement	on	current	practices,	and	
removes	complexity,	confusion	and	some	areas	of	discrimination,	particularly	for	
candidates	moving	from	one	institution	to	another,	and	candidates	for	whom	part-time	
enrolment	would	enhance	employment	or	family	options.		
	
6. Is	the	proposed	approach	to	defining	RTP	benefits	a	better	approach	to	meeting	the	
goals	of	the	program?		Are	there	likely	to	be	any	unintended	consequences?	
AND	
7. Will	the	flexibility	to	set	maximum	stipend	rates	result	in	competition	across	the	
sector	and	mean	that	most	students	will	receive	the	maximum	level	of	RTP	support	
and	cause	a	substantial	reduction	in	HDR	student	numbers?		If	this	is	a	likely	risk	what	
constraints	should	be	built	into	the	new	arrangements?	
Within	the	Arts,	Social	Sciences	and	Humanities	(ASSH)	sector,	a	relatively	limited	
number	of	students	receive	RTP	support	beyond	the	minimal	amounts	required	(the	
norms	are	smaller	scale	top-up	payments	which	fall	well	within	the	proposed	funding	
ranges	to	provide	incentives	in	certain	fields/areas	or	for	work	on	particular	research	
	Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH) 
Suite 5, 1 Geils Court, Deakin, ACT 2600     T: 02 6162 1297     E: eo@dassh.edu.au 
www.dassh.edu.au	
projects).	Hence	the	approach	to	defining	RTP	benefits	would	not	adversely	affect	our	
cohorts	or	our	abilities	to	recruit	high	quality	PhD	students.	However,	if	the	flexibility	to	
set	maximum	stipend	rates	creates	incentives	within	universities	to	allocate	larger	top-
ups	to	students	in	higher	cost	disciplines,	then	it	will	have	an	adverse	effect	on	our	
disciplines	and	thus	reduce	the	total	number	of	funded	HDR	candidates	in	ASSH	
disciplines.	The	option	in	the	consultation	paper	of	limiting	higher	value	support	to	HDR	
students	in	fields	of	research	with	demonstrable	industry	engagement	such	as	a	formal	
program	of	industry	placements	again	raises	concerns	about	the	risk	of	narrow	
interpretations	of	‘industry’	or	inflexible	approaches	to	industry	placements.	
	
8. Is	the	proposed	length	of	RTP	support	a	better	approach	to	meeting	the	goals	of	the	
program?		Are	there	likely	to	be	any	unintended	consequences?	
The	proposal	to	make	RTS,	IPRS,	and	APAs	consistent	in	terms	of	length	of	candidature	
would	be	welcomed	by	the	ASSH	sector	as	it	establishes	a	more	equitable	and	
consistent	system	which	also	is	easier	to	implement	and	promotes	higher	levels	of	
research	excellence.	We	foresee	no	adverse	consequences	in	our	sector.	
	
9. Is	the	proposed	approach	a	better	approach	to	meeting	the	goals	of	the	program?		
Are	there	likely	to	be	any	unintended	consequences?	
The	new	approach	in	allowing	HEPs	to	determine	their	own	competitive	processes	will	
allow	broader	criteria	to	be	used	and	greater	flexibility	to	the	institution	and	will	
encourage	distinctiveness	and	autonomy	of	research	directions.	Requiring	research	
policy	to	be	advertised	publicly	is	critical	to	the	success	of	this	new	approach	and	would	
ensure	transparency	and	equity	across	the	sector.	The	real	challenge	is	ensuring	
sufficient	institutional	support	for	HDR	programs	in	ASSH	disciplines.		
	
10. Would	the	proposed	provide	clarity	to	students	regarding	RTP	processes	and	
entitlements?		Are	there	likely	to	be	any	unintended	consequences?	
The	proposed	approach	could	provide	clarity	and	transparency	to	students	because	the	
institutional	Scholarship	Policy	would	be	written	by	each	HEP	and	would	be	read	in	
conjunction	with	that	institution’s	existing	academic	regulations.	There	would	need	to	
be	some	national	consistency	on	some	of	the	elements	because	students	transferring	
between	institutions	may	otherwise	be	adversely	affected.	
	
11. Are	the	proposed	transition	arrangements	sufficient	for	continuing	students?		Are	
there	likely	to	be	any	unintended	consequences?	
The	transition	arrangements	appear	sufficient	and	there	do	not	seem	to	be	any	
unintended	consequences.	Institutions	have	been	proposing	and	communicating	
transition	arrangements	to	students	in	coursework	programs	and	are	well	versed	in	
advising	students	in	this	domain.	However,	DASSH	does	stress	the	need	to	ensure	that	
arrangements	are	clear	for	intending	applicants	for	2017.	
	Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH) 
Suite 5, 1 Geils Court, Deakin, ACT 2600     T: 02 6162 1297     E: eo@dassh.edu.au 
www.dassh.edu.au	
	
12. Would	the	proposed	arrangements	help	the	monitoring	and	benchmarking	of	student	
outcomes?		Should	the	department	consider	collecting	any	other	types	of	HDR	
student	data	such	as	level	of	support	provided	and	a	stipend	amounts	for	individual	
students?	
While	the	proposed	additional	data	collection	is	appropriate,	DASSH	believes	that	the	
purpose	of	benchmarking	student	outcomes	needs	to	be	clarified.	Definitions	of	end-
users	need	to	be	appropriately	inclusive,	not	narrowly	defined,	to	effectively	
understand	and	monitor	the	range	and	impact	of	HDR	students’	engagement.	It	is	
currently	difficult	to	track	HDR	alumni.	DASSH	hopes	that	one	of	the	benchmarking	aims	
would	be	to	make	this	easier.	
	
13. Would	the	proposed	changes	to	Categories	2,	3	and	4	result	in	more	appropriate	and	
reliable	measures	of	research	engagement?		Should	the	department	consider	
collecting	any	other	types	of	engagement	data?	
The	current	proposals	relating	to	Category	2-4	income	as	a	proxy	for	
engagement/impact	are	problematic	for	the	ASSH	disciplines.	Our	sector’s	engagement	
with	external	partners	(including	engagement	through	Category	1	grants)	is	
underpinned	by	significant	in-kind	support	from	external	partners:	the	most	valuable	
contribution	made	is	the	time,	expertise	and	informed	advice	of	both	the	academic	and	
end-user	partners.	Failure	to	recognise	in-kind	contributions	will	disadvantage	our	
sector	as	researchers	rely	heavily	on	in-kind	support	for	Category	2	and	3	projects,	with	
industry	partners	typically	drawn	from	the	public	sector;	the	Galleries,	Libraries,	
Archives	and	Museums	sector	(GLAM);	and	Non-Government	Organisations.	Therefore,	
DASSH	advocates	the	collection	of	data	on	in-kind	contributions	to	research	(noting	that	
such	data	is	available,	for	example,	in	ARC	Linkage	grant	applications).		
	
Professor	Susan	Dodds		
President	
Australasian	Council	of	Deans	of	Arts,	Social	Sciences	and	Humanities	(DASSH)		
	
22	July	2016		
	
About	DASSH	
	
The	Australasian	Council	of	Deans	of	Arts,	Social	Sciences	and	Humanities	(DASSH)	is	the	
authoritative	agency	on	research,	teaching	and	learning	for	the	Arts,	Social	Sciences	and	Humanities	
(ASSH)	in	Australian	and	New	Zealand	universities.	
	
DASSH	supports	those	within	these	institutions	who	have	responsibility	for	the	governance	and	
management	of	research	and	teaching	and	learning	in	their	universities.	DASSH	also	supports	those	
who	aspire	to	these	positions	through	a	Network	of	Associate	Deans	(Learning	and	Teaching)	and	a	
Network	of	Associate	Deans	(Research).	


http://apo.org.au/sites/all/modules/pubdlcnt/pubdlcnt.php?nid=68197&file=http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/dassh_response_to_sharper_incentives_for_engagement.pdf

DASSH response to the Department of Education and Training’s consultation paper

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Analysis and Policy Observatory (APO)

Name not available