National research infrastructure investment in
HASS – draft consultation report
Interviewees were selected for their expertise in the humanities and social sciences sector in Australia, including a mix of
representatives from universities and national institutions.
Stakeholders were sent a copy of the dandolo HASS NRI discussion and consultation paper, which included the draft
framework and several questions for consideration ahead of the consultations. While stakeholders were able to provide
any feedback they wished, they were al specifically asked for their views on:
• The categorisation of the problem.
• The definition of HASS NRI.
• The functional changes and outcomes that HASS NRI could generate.
• The evaluative criteria.
In addition, stakeholders were asked to identify any good examples of previous HASS NRI investment, or identify
proposals that may be worthy of future investment. These examples are summarised and supplemented with desktop
research into appendix 1 of the National Research Infrastructure Investments in Humanities and Social Sciences
discussion paper.
In general, the framework and the paper were strongly supported. No single stakeholder took significant issue with
either, but many did make suggestions for improvement, particularly around the definition of the problem and the
evaluative criteria. The discussion paper has been revised substantially in response to these suggestions, though not all
of them were supported.
This document summarises the themes arising from al consultations, but most importantly captures refinements to the
framework and strategic points to consider if investment in HASS NRI is progressed. The write-ups of al individual
consultations are also available. The HASS NRI stakeholders consulted and included in this report are:
s 47F
NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN HASS – CONSULTATION REPORT
| 1
Definition (p3)
•
Make the definition of HASS NRI as broad
• Agree. Dandolo to revise.
as possible. HASS is dif erent. The sector is
not curing cancer or developing new materials,
for example. Instead, it is about discovering
new, valuable things about ourselves and
society.
•
Stop using the term HASS interchangeably • Agree. Dandolo to revise.
through the document. HASS is a category,
Revised entire document. Removed
not a discipline, yet the document uses
several references to ‘HASS
interchangeably.
discipline’ (singular) and changed
these to ‘area’, which is consistent
with other parts of the document. Left
references to ‘HASS disciplines’
(plural) as is, because these seemed
fine.
•
Make the place of national gal eries,
• Agree. Dandolo to revise.
libraries and museums more explicit in the
Added “including gal eries, libraries
Venn diagram, probably through a more
and museums” to Venn diagram, right
expansive definition of the ‘national HASS
side box.
institutes’ circle.
•
Remove psychology and cognitive sciences • Agree. Dandolo removed.
from the list of HASS disciplines. This will
make the list consistent with Australian
Research Council and Academy of the
Humanities.
• Agree with including as a standalone.
•
Add Indigenous research as a standalone
Do not agree with listing it as
discipline in list of HASS disciplines. And
Indigenous control ed. Dandolo to
preferably make it Indigenous control ed.
revise.
Types of
•
While broadly supported by most, the
• Do not agree.
infrastructure being
inclusion of ‘people’ as a form of NRI was
sought (p4)
explicitly not supported by one stakeholder
and they suggested it be removed.
• Agree. Dandolo to revise.
NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN HASS – CONSULTATION REPORT
| 3
•
Better explain the scope of people (‘wet’)
Added ‘including capability building’ to
infrastructure, because it is not immediately
broaden people (‘wet’) infrastructure
clear.
in first box of ‘describing investments’
page.
•
Broaden digital to clearly include data,
• Agree. Dandolo to revise. Added ‘data
software and services. Data, in particular,
and software’ to broaden digital (soft)
should be far more prominent.
infrastructure in first box of ‘describing
investments’ page.
Kinds of functional •
Add other examples to direct functional
• Agree. Dandolo to revise. Added
change enabled (p4)
changes:
these to second box of ‘describing
o Increases in speed and ef iciency.
investments’ page, some explicitly
o Acceleration of discovery.
and some more broadly though
o Aggregation of effort.
consolidation of the existing list.
o Standardisation and convergence.
o Reduction in duplication of ef ort.
o Increase in interdisciplinary work and
collaboration.
o Discovery of new problem-solving
approaches and methods.
o Furthering of the ‘open science’
agenda.
Outcomes
•
Add other examples to outcomes listed:
• Agree. Dandolo to revise.
generated beyond
o Bet er government decision making.
Added to third box of ‘describing
social, economic or
o Stronger sector.
investments’ page.
cultural. Other
o Greater impact of investment.
examples? (p4)
•
Consider adding indirect, exploratory
• Agree. Dandolo to revise.
outcomes, such as:
Added to third box of ‘describing
o Discoveries through increased access
investments’ page.
and use (open source, hackathons,
etc).
o Leveraging of NRI into commercial
products and services.
NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN HASS – CONSULTATION REPORT
| 4
•
Consider adding ‘environmental’ as another
outcome area.
• Agree. Dandolo to revise. Added to
third box of ‘describing investments’
•
Consider adding ‘quality of life’ as another
page.
outcome area.
• Do not agree, already captured within
existing outcomes. No action
Envisage proposals •
Re-think the concept of ‘hurdle’ criteria, or • Partially agree. Keeping hurdle
that meet criteria
at least revise the existing criteria, because
criteria, with some revisions.
(p5)
it is highly unlikely any proposal would meet al
Revisions made.
Remove / add /
of the hurdle criteria as currently constituted.
changes to criteria •
Add criteria around track record of delivery, • Agree. Dandolo to revise.
(p5)
given how vital this is to delivering large-
Added to evaluative criteria.
scale, national y significant projects.
•
Add criteria (or amend the access criteria) • Agree. Dandolo to revise.
to include a commitment to common terms
Added to revised ‘access’ hurdle
and definitions.
criteria.
•
Add a point about governance to the
• Agree. Dandolo to revise.
criteria, because quality management is a key
Added to new ‘implementation plan’
to minimising risk and unlocking potential.
evaluative criteria
•
Add criteria – probably to the evaluative
• Agree. Dandolo to revise.
criteria – that considers whether a proposal
Added to re-worked
is linked to one of the national research
‘national y/international y significant’
priorities.
evaluative criteria.
•
Consider removing co-investment as a
• Do not agree.
criteria. It is far harder to secure co investment
in HASS than it is in STEM, for example. It is
reasonable to expect universities to contribute,
but there’s very lit le private investment and
limited ability to commercialise.
•
Consider softening the requirement for
• Agree. Dandolo to revise.
interdisciplinary applications in the hurdle
Revised first hurdle criteria to be
criteria, because there’s lots of things in other
‘and/or’.
NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN HASS – CONSULTATION REPORT
| 5
• These seed projects could be a first step to
proving the outcomes of HASS NRI investment.
They could be followed by larger scale projects.
Assessment process • There has always been an issue of people from Department to consider as part of scoping
the STEM disciplines not readily being able to paper and development of application
understand proposals from the HASS
process.
disciplines. Assessment panels of hard
scientists don’t recognise or understand HASS
proposals, and HASS proposals are competing
with proposals containing things they do
understand.
• STEM proposals general y fit a standard
template bet er and, because of this, can be
compared against one another more readily. It
is very difficult to present compelling HASS
proposals within a STEM or medical style
evaluation process/criteria and come out on
top.
• One solution is including some powerful HASS
advocates on decision making body, or creating
a completely standalone sub-commit ee of
HASS experts tasked with making
recommendations to the ultimate decision-
making body.
Sector capacity and • The ‘kit’ is important, but the sector also lacks Noted. Scope question. Discussed with
human capability
capacity and individuals lack capability to take Department on 23 May 2019.
advantage of HASS NRI.
Capacity/capability building on pieces of
• Because there’s been very lit le investment in infrastructure can be in scope, but basic
infrastructure in HASS disciplines aside from
workforce skills building is a sector
libraries, the sector is starting from a very low responsibility. Dandolo to revise.
base.
Added discussion of sector capability in
• The sector isn’t ready to do the same kind of
the up-front narrative / problem definition
things the hard sciences can do in an open call and also made clearer the distinction of
for bids for significant amounts of funding.
‘wet’ infrastructure.
NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN HASS – CONSULTATION REPORT
| 7
• When government has asked, the sector has
thrown up small-dol ar, single-discipline
proposals that general y governments aren’t
interested in funding.
• To ful y realise benefits/outcomes of HASS
NRI, need investment in sector capacity and
human capability.
• Issues:
o Enormous size of sector
o Disparate views of what is needed.
o Lack of organisation.
o Lack of overal human capability.
o Lack of col aborative culture. HASS
researchers are more typical y `lone
wolves’ than scientists due to dif erent
nature of the work
o Lack of shared tools and data
standards.
o Small scale, single discipline mindset.
• The issues don’t apply uniformly. There are
dif erences between humanities and social
sciences.
• Sector needs to put this work in, with help and
investment of government. Without this,
impossible to ful y leverage NRI.
• This change wil also take time. It’s reasonable
to expect sector to ‘gets its act together’ but
also need to be patient.
Investment in new • There wil be a balance between the two and Noted. Scope question. Discussed with
versus expanding,
the framework needs to be able to
Department on 23 May 2019. Process to
consolidating or
accommodate both.
take an agnostic approach to new versus
retaining existing.
• When considering existing NRI, value and
existing, with any HASS NRI investment
significance is the key. Not all collections are
required to demonstrate value. Dandolo to
important enough to invest in.
revise.
Included assumptions in footnotes of
evaluation criteria that included that
NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN HASS – CONSULTATION REPORT
| 8
• The HASS sector is also quite poor at auditing existing investments will be periodically re-
its existing investment and stocks of research assessed in competition with new
infrastructure.
investments.
• Some key principles for investing in existing:
o Institutions are unwil ing or unable
to maintain something of value,
and of national significance.
o Institutions are unable to
scale/combine ephemera that,
when combined, has value as
NRI.
Open access or high • It is vital to set expectations and policy about Noted. Scope question. Discussed with
achievers in field.
government’s access expectations in the event Department on 23 May 2019. Level of
of HASS NRI funding.
access to be considered on a case by
• Researchers often work alone, are protective of case basis.
data, make access needlessly dif icult, and
poor at col aborating.
Indigenous research • There was significant discussion that
Noted. Scope question. Discussed with
as an integrated or
Indigenous research should be listed as its own Department on 23 May 2019. Fine to list
standalone
standalone discipline, or otherwise have its own Indigenous as a standalone discipline, but
discipline and/or
application stream, and that either should be
Indigenous control ed is not supported.
application stream
Indigenous control ed.
• There was a view that, currently, Indigenous
data and research is buried or subsumed by
non-Indigenous dominated HASS as a whole,
and potential y the same would happen when it
comes to HASS NRI investment.
• This stifles the potential to do good work,
develop tangible outcomes, and develop and
nurture specific expertise and young talent is
lost to the broader sector.
• Indigenous stakeholders also have very
dif erent ideas about priorities and potential
investments as opposed to the broader HASS
sector.
NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN HASS – CONSULTATION REPORT
| 9
NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN HASS – CONSULTATION REPORT
| 10
