Newsletter on TI and RQF
At Deakin, three interconnected issues are particularly important at the moment – the RQF, the introduction of Teaching Intensive (TI) positions, and the intensification of teaching loads.
By the latter I mean not just increases in student numbers but the expansion of the teaching year into summer and winter semesters.
The RQF– A Risky Game.
The Commonwealth Government’s decision to proceed with the implementation of the Research Quality Framework was announced by the Minister for Education, Julie Bishop, in November 2006 when she released the RQF’s Development Advisory Group’s (DAG) Recommended Model. The stated objectives of the RQF are to encourage and reward high quality and high impact research and to ensure accountability for publicly funded research through the development of a quality/impact assessment framework based on peer review and international benchmarks.
However, as more details of the RQF are revealed (keeping in mind that much of the detail in relation to the assessment process and how the results will translate to funding outcomes are unknown at this stage) it is becoming apparent that the RQF is shaping up as yet another policy tool which will be used to help the government achieve its broader goal, namely to create a more specialised and stratifed higher education system. The revelation that the panels being set up to review research outputs are dominated by representatives of the Group of Eight universities only serves to reinforce this direction. The RQF can be seen as a game where the Government provides incentives to universities to adopt a form of behaviour which will ultimately serve its broader policy objectives. The NTEU believes that it is a game that presents a number of substantial risks related to:
• the role universities play as research educators,
• the legitimacy and integrity of the assessment process and its outcomes,
• the industrial and professional rights of university staff.
Some of the basic rules of the RQF game -
One of the critical aspects of the RQF is that its results will be used to distribute about $570m of Commonwealth research funding each year. Because universities can select which research groups and staff they submit for assessment, the proposed model means that not all universities are likely to adopt the same strategy in relation to the RQF game. Some universities may aim to maximise their RQF ratings (and boost their research reputations) by submitting a highly selective and elite number of research groups and staff. Others may see it as necessary to protect or maximise their research revenue base, by increasing the number of research groups and staff submitted for assessment, but as a consequence risking lower RQF rating.
It seems clear that Deakin is proposing to be highly selective and elitist in its choice of whose research it will submit for assessment, a strategy which, given the lack of detail, may well present a risk to the level of research funding it receives from the Commonwealth.
In essence the government has created a game where the nature and scope of research submitted to the RQF might vary significantly between individual institutions because the di- erent players may have different objectives. In other words, the outcomes of RQF assessment may not necessarily be comparing apples with apples. This presents a risk to Australian higher education because the outcomes ratings will no doubt be interpreted as an indicator of the overall quality of an institution’s research capacity.
Universities as research educators
The decision to explicitly exclude the output and education of higher degree research students is a critical flaw in the design of the RQF given the essential role of universities as the educators of future researchers.
Lack of confidence in RQF ratings
It is essential that outcomes of the RQF are seen as credible and that those involved and those who will be relying on its results have confidence in them. The NTEU has serious concerns that the RQF will fail this test because the expert assessment panels will not have the necessary resources or time to undertake a genuine peer review of the research submitted to them for assessment. According to the latest RQF timeframe, panels will have two months to undertake separate ‘peer reviews’ for quality and impact. Given that each panel will be assessing many thousands of research outputs, the timeframe makes it impossible for this to be achieved unless the assessment is little more than a ‘review’ of research metrics
- not genuine peer review which would involve assessors actually reading/ examining the submitted outputs.
Teaching intensive positions: a threat to staff rights
As staff employed at Deakin know all too well the introduction of the RQF has the potential to erode your industrial and professional rights. Professor John Rosenberg’s paper on creating a Teaching Intensive (TI) classi cation (Nov 06) states: “..as a result of the forthcoming Research Quality Framework (RQF), it is important for Deakin to clearly identify any TI sta- to assist in the RQF outcomes.” The link is clear and direct.
The University anticipates that it will be of benefit in relation to the RQF outcomes to identify up to 10% of its academic sta- as Teaching Intensive in the short term, but it is clear that this is not seen as a longer term strategy. It is obvious that Deakin management has taken some important decisions about which strategy it intends to adopt in relation to the RQF. These decisions will impact on all sta- through changes to career paths, career prospects, funding levels, student pro le, etc.
The introduction of Teaching Intensive classifcations is just one step in implementing management’s strategy. Will Teaching Intensive academics have equal access to research funds, to support for conference attendance, to study leave, to promotions rounds? What teaching loads will they be expected to carry? (The material circulated by Deakin refers to excellence in teaching, academics who have concentrated on teaching, leadership in advancing teaching and learning, etc, but makes no mention of a more intensive teaching workload. Yet the classifications are not called “Teaching Excellent” or “Leaders of teaching and learning”. They are called “Teaching Intensive”). And just as important is the threat to professional rights. While Deakin has proposed to amend its promotions criteria to ensure ‘Teaching Intensive’ staff have a similar career path to teaching and research academics, there is no guarantee that other universities, in Australia or overseas, will recognise such a classi cation or such promotions. This may adversely impact on individual staff mobility within the sector.
Long term prospects for TI staff
However, perhaps the most telling aspect of the Deakin proposal is the intention to reduce the number of teaching intensive staff form 10% of academic sta- in 2007 to 5% in the longer term. It seems clear that the creation of Teaching Intensive positions is not a long term strategic objective, but rather a short term x aimed at reducing the number of sta- who might be considered eligible for inclusion in the RQF. Once a person is part of the 10% identified in 2007 as Teaching Intensive , how do they manage to avoid redundancy when Deakin decides it only needs 5% Teaching Intensive staff? And by what process might sta- be able to move back to a teaching and research classification?
Intensifcation of teaching loads
The introduction of Teaching Intensive positions is just one symptom of the rapid intensi cation of teaching loads. Another is the creeping expansion of the academic year. First came summer semester – now Deakin has announced its intention to introduce a winter semester. Both summer and winter semesters are fundamentally about making more money for the university. The problem is that they eat into research time. The contradiction is obvious: the more pressing the need to encourage research, the less time the university allows for sta- to actually conduct it. Deakin’s approach to summer and winter semesters is also discriminatory, since only full-fee paying students are allowed to enrol: HECS students are excluded. This sets a worrying precedent that all students should be worried about. Students should also be concerned that workload pressures on sta- and poor sta- -student ratios are leading to the eradication of tutorials, or hopelessly large tutorials, the dumbing-down of assessment tasks, high stress levels for staff, and a less personalised relationship between teacher and student – all this at a time when students are being asked to pay more and more for their education.
What about consultation?
Deakin management is rushing to implement its cunning plan. Perhaps it is a good plan. Perhaps it is a bad one. Perhaps it has room for improvement. But however good, bad or indi- erent it is, there has been no attempt to engage the university community – staff and students – in its development. Decisions of such great import are apparently not considered worthy of consultation with the people who are, in fact, the university.
The Enterprise Agreement requires management to consult with sta- over changes such as the introduction of a whole new classi cation structure and career path for academic staff . But even if the Enterprise Agreement were silent on the subject, surely it should have crossed the mind of someone in the vice-chancellery that this sort of decision needs broad collegiate discussion and input from across the university community.
There are too many questions and not enough answers. Bland reassurances from the University are not good enough. Come to the all-staff meetings to have your say.
Dr Colin Long
NTEU Deakin Branch President.