Defining 'Early Career' in Research

In order to ensure the future of high qualityresearch in some disciplines it may benecessary to provide special consideration inprestigious research funding schemes for earlycareer researchers who will otherwise becomedisenchanted with academic research and leaveit behind in their search for a stable andfruitful future. Milestones in progressionthrough research studies and academic life toestablishment as an academic researcher areoutlined. Within this context, a range ofpotential criteria for determining promisingearly career status are reviewed. Thediscussion leads to derivation of thedefinition of early career which has beenadopted by the Australian Research Council forits prestigious Discovery – Projects grantsscheme.     

Continuing Research by PhD Graduates

A survey of Australian PhD graduates has revealed that they do not necessarily fit traditional stereotypes in terms of age, previous or concurrent work experience nor, perhaps most importantly, a prospective career in research. Two years after graduating with PhD, just 36 per cent of those who found employment in the non-academic workforce continued to be 'xtensively' involved in research, while only 56 per cent of those in academic employment (other than those with postdoctoral fellowships) were so involved. Many of those trained in research are frustrated in not being able to implement and extend that training through appropriate employment, others who have the opportunity do not have the desire. Factors predictive of and related to continuing involvement in research are examined, with some surprising results and policy implications regarding postgraduate research degrees.     

From Vocational College to New University: The Research Profile and Development Needs of Academic Staff in a Period of Transition

Prompted by the provision of special funding for research development from the Department of Employment, Education and Training, an analysis of the research status and development needs of staff one network member of a newly amalgamated University was undertaken. It was found that many staff were without research‐based qualifications and had limited research experience. Teaching and curriculum development were dominant activities, the latter being particularly so in some of the newer disciplines. It was felt by many that there was a lack of institutional support for research by senior management in general and in some faculties in particular, as people in those positions took time to adjust to the changing climate of expectations in the transition from College to University. Specific research skills needing development were identified, including submission writing, statistical data analysis and reporting research. The availability of time and money for research were, predictably, seen as critical. In a conclusion unanticipated at the commencement of the study, the emergence of a widely recognised and supported research ethos was perceived as perhaps the most significant element to contribute to the development of research in a new university.     

Sailing the Digital Seas: Charting a New Course with CONTENTdm

With the transition of government publications from print to digital over the last decade, the State Library of North Carolina saw the need to implement a content management system for the state’s digital publications. The State Library formed a Digital Information Management Program (DIMP) in 2006 to address the challenge of managing their digital collections. The library chose to utilize OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC)’s CONTENTdm software to manage their digital materials and associated metadata. The presentation described below outlined the processes and challenges in managing their collections with this software.     

Research dissemination in creative arts,humanities and the social sciences

An ethnographic case study of issues related to research performance and promotion of research was conducted within the Creative and Performing Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (AHSS) disciplines of a regional university. The purpose of the study was to explore a variety of ways in which the research work of those disciplines could be made more visible to others, both within and outside the university. In reviewing the research performance, concerns and orientation of academics in AHSS disciplines, this paper addresses the issue of disciplinary variations in research activity and research focus, with implications both for future programs of research performance assessment, and for the promotion of research activity among currently disenfranchised AHSS academics. In the context of current Australian debates about a research quality framework, the data considered address issues of impact, rather than quality.     

Peer review and panel decisions in the assessment of Australian Research Council project grant applicants: what counts in a highly competitive context?

Applications submitted to the Australian Research Council Large Grants Scheme in five discipline groups were examined with a view to determining the extent of influence of biographical and academic track record variables on ratings by independent assessors (peers) and on final outcomes as determined by the Council's discipline review panels. Variables considered included age, gender, type and status of position, institutional base, previous grants history and publication records of the applicants. Age and gender of the applicants did not have a significant impact on outcomes. Those in research only positions were rated more highly, and those in more prestigious institutions were more likely to win support, but these factors were partly accounted for by the more impressive publication records of these groups. The academic status of the applicant was, however, found to make a significant contribution to an explanation of the variance in independent assessor's ratings of the strength of the researcher, along with but additionally to that contributed by publication components of their track record. Assessor's ratings of the strength of the proposal were, as would be expected, the major influence on the final decisions made by review panels, although academic status of the applicant did, again, make a small but significant additional contribution to an explanation of variance in outcome. These results lend some support to the idea that the Matthew effect, or theory of accumulative advantage, has some impact on peer and panel review of applications within the highly competitive arena of Australian Research Council large grants.