Academic Board News: ERA and EI Assessment outcomes, the National Institutes Grant and more

28 May 2019

 Academic Board 2/2019  

Vice Chancellor’s Report

In speaking to his report, the Vice-Chancellor highlighted the following:

•    A number of Executive recruitment initiatives are underway to appoint several academic leadership positions and also the next Chief Operating Officer.   
•    ARC’s Engagement and Impact Assessment – a new initiative with mixed results for the University.  The scoring system was based on a High, Medium and Low scale across three areas: Engagement, Impact and Approach to Impact.  The Vice-Chancellor noted his disappointment at the early results, and his intention to better communicate the impact of ANU research on society.    
•    The Kambri precinct is busy and lively, and while some issues concerning technology and facilities remain, Kambri is functioning very well.   
•    Science in Australia Gender Equity (SAGE): Athena SWAN Award – the University’s application has been submitted.  The application process is complex because it requires much coordination to bring together essential ANU activities coherently.  Once done, it must also align to the broader strategy of the University.
•    The Notable Achievements of the following Board members were recognized, with congratulations from the Board:
o    Professor Jodie Bradby of the Research School of Physics and Engineering on becoming President of the Australian Institute of Physics; and
o    Ms Anne Martin, Director of the Tjabal Centre on her Australia Day award.

ERA and EI Assessment Outcomes

The Board discussed ARC’s Excellence in Research for Australia, and Engagement and Impact Assessment results led by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research & Innovation. ANU has performed well in ERA metrics but has attained number one position only at the 4 digit level. The National Institutes Grant Funding and the per capita resource level for the University suggests that ANU should be number 1, unambiguously. 

Similarly, the Engagement and Impact (EI) Assessment ranking is not a true reflection of ANU’s research quality and the University has not been able to sufficiently promote its impact.  There is a proposal for a steering committee on impact engagement and establishment of a community of practice to share ideas and expertise, which is school specific but with overlays.

Academic Governance Review Report 

The Board noted that the University had received a report from Professor Hilary Winchester, who was engaged during 2018 by the Chair, Academic Board to evaluate academic governance at the University against the Higher Education Standards Framework. 
The Chair explained that this first examination of the Report should be supported by, and proposed the establishment of, an appointed Academic Board Working Group to consider the recommendations in further detail in due course.  
Academic Board then proceeded to note each of the 20 recommendations, with the following recommendations discussed in more detail:  
•    Recommendation 2(a): Chair, Academic Board becoming a member of the ANU Council 
•    Recommendation 4: Status of Academic Board as a Council Sub-committee.
•    Recommendation 5: Clarifying the distinction between Sub-committees: AQAC/TLDC.
•    Recommendation 6: The future of the Student Experience Committee (SEC)
•    Recommendation16: Delegations (they remain dynamic, and evolve).  
The Chair concluded by explaining that coordination will be required between the Academic Board Working Group and SMG to implement the recommendations ultimately adopted by the University. 

Hot Topics

Academic Board discussed the following hot topics:

The National Institutes Grant (NIG)

The NIG process is not very clear but there exists the long term goal to retain NIG and make its use more effective. There is a need to undertake significant as well as unique research to justify receiving such a grant, which cannot be achieved from ARC, NHMRC and category 3 funding. NIG funding allows ANU to meet national goals and is in contrast to the Grand Challenges scheme. 

In response to questions from the Board, the Provost advised:
•    Allocation of funding amongst schools has been historically inequitable and a redistribution of NIG is a necessary but slow process. 
•    NIG provides ANU staff considerable time to pursue nationalistic goals whilst still maintaining excellence.
•    The possibility of making all the NIG bids available to the University community will be considered, in a manner analogous to the bids for the grand challenges scheme.

Quality Management of Academic Staff

Current Performance Development Review (PDR) process at the University is not effective and considered only a tick box exercise. A review of the PDR process is under way with the goal to move away from a universal measurement process.

The Board agreed to form a working group to advise the Provost and HR on PDR from an academic and research perspective.

Steering the Decision Making of Academic Board

Academic Board discussed the steering of its decisions related to program approvals as per the papers presented to Board members, led by the DVCA.

The Board currently is placed in a vacuum when it comes to making decisions around programs. The shift from being a recruiting university to a selective university requires a reflective approach to University offerings, and it is appropriate to receive a ‘strategic’ case for each request.

Your Ideas 

Academic Board is keen to hear from the wider University. What are the big issues regarding academic governance that you want us to address? Chat to your College / Student representatives or email the Secretary. Members of the Board and I are also available to speak at College fora.

Professor Jacqueline Lo
Chair Academic Board