News
Op-Ed: Toss Gascoigne (Executive Director, CHASS)
9 March 2005
| Byline: | Toss Gascoigne (Executive Director, CHASS) |
|---|---|
| Source: | . |
A report on current research by the Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences in Australia, on commercialisation - in the broadest sense of the word - in the humanities, arts and social sciences.
"The Council for Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences has argued that the contribution of the humanities, arts and social sciences to Australian commercial activity and to Australian business is under-recognised.
I have therefore asked the Council to review the many avenues pursued by researchers in the humanities, arts and social sciences to commercialise their work - including publishing, performance, licensing, and industry collaboration - and to identify specific examples of commercial impact."
These were the words of Dr Brendan Nelson, Australian Minister for Education, Science and Training, when he announced funding for a series of research projects in the humanities, arts and social sciences.
The announcement was at Parliament House in Canberra on June 16 last year, the day that CHASS was officially born, and the Minister went on to say:
"Knowledge is important but arguably of greater importance is how we adapt to new knowledge and understand its applications. This is why Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences are so important."
CHASS is on the verge of finishing the first in a series of three reports. This looks at commercialisation - in the broadest sense of the word - in the humanities, arts and social sciences. The purpose of this report and the two that will follow is to generate ideas that will inform the policy debate, and improve the capacity of researchers in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences to contribute to Australian innovation.
The second study has the task of identifying new measures to determine quality and impact of research, and could have major implications for the way academic work in this sector is evaluated and funded. It is already underway.
The third study will examine collaborations between science and technology and the HASS sector, and is scheduled to take place in the second half of this year.
One hundred and forty four researchers participated in the commercialisation report, either as participants in focus groups held in all capital cities (plus regional centres of Newcastle and Townsville), or by completing the online questionnaire.
The focus groups discussed broad issues related to commercial activities in the humanities, arts, and social science research. People were recruited from across a range of disciplines and institutions to talk about their experiences in commercial activities.
The report concludes with eight case studies. These stories illustrate the tangible contribution of the sector in cultural, social and economic terms, a contribution significantly underestimated and under-valued by the Australian community. They deal with a range of activities, from the organisation of the annual Bloomsday festival in Melbourne to AustLit - The Resource for Australian Literature, and Bruce Chapman's studies on Income Related Loans for Public Policy.
These examples, plucked almost at random from the people who participated in the study, represent just the tip of many other projects and studies, all of them based in the humanities, arts and social sciences, and all making an immense contribution to the rich fabric of life.
The first issue the project had to deal with was the definition of 'commercial'. We defined it as work which:
- has a market value - someone is willing to pay for it and/or the intellectual property it represents
- is useful - it has a potential or realised application
- may involve a partner from 'industry' (any group which might apply the results of the work, such as a government department, non-profit organisation, corporation or other commercial partner)
- is sold, performed or exhibited
There was resistance in some focus group discussions to a narrow and literal definition. Many participants were more comfortable with the notion of 'utility', that their work was useful and therefore had a value. For some participants, the word 'commercialisation' had negative connotations.
As people in the focus groups said:
"I don't find the commercialisation word dirty - but I have trouble using it with other people. I tend not to use it as it has negative connotation when attached to an art event like ours." (Newcastle)
"I like words like 'relevance' and 'social relevance' - I find myself pulling back from 'commercial' as this implies a specific definition of relevance. There is a risk that if we fall into one understanding of it [commercialisation] then we lose others." (Townsville)
For many researchers, money was not the driving factor in the commercial side of their work. They were attracted by the idea of being relevant, influential and connected to their communities. Such activities allowed them to become engaged with important social and community problems, and they reported enjoying these connections.
The economic rewards were not unimportant, and often these were ploughed back into their departments or faculties. Smaller amounts funded conference travel, equipment and publications; larger amounts enabled research units to expand and hire additional staff. In some cases it afforded people flexibility within a tightly-ordered university structure.
Commercial work enabled researchers to improve their teaching and research, because it gave them a better understanding of the needs of industry. It could lead to a higher profile and improved promotional prospects, although researchers were critical of the fact that these activities did not often gain the same recognition within universities as winning an ARC grant.
Respondents identified a range of impediments that limit or prevent them engaging in commercial activities. Many of these impediments are associated with an immature system working through a period of development, and in which structures, processes and funding systems have not caught up with modern expectations of commercial engagements.
Much of the discussion in the focus groups revolved around the challenges of wrestling with unresponsive university systems, funding mechanisms which rewarded only a narrow band of activities, trying to find the time and resources for commercial engagements, and coping with confusing policies. People cited their own lack of business skills as a compounding factor.
Respondents said that while the most productive research often came from multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional collaborations, these were not encouraged by existing systems of funding and administration. Current systems encouraged people "to stay as you are and do what you did".
The report now is in the final draft stages. We expect to present it to the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (the funding agency) in the next few weeks, and then to begin the political process of pressing for changes which will open new sources of funding and relevance to our sector.
Toss Gascoigne
Executive Director, CHASS
