Oh Dear! My first day back and I'm already disagreeing with Ken (well
slightly).
I agree with Ken when he says:
> The role of academic research in the development of scientific,
> technological, and applied industrial advances is clear and visible in
> most
> nations that moved from primary to secondary and then tertiary
> economies
> from the late 1700s to the mid-1900s. As the quaternary and quinary
> sectors
> opened, this remained true.
But only up to a point. There are too many examples of important
research—from astronomy, biology, physics, linguistics and semiotics
(to mention just a few)—which occurred outside the academy and
sometimes despite the academy, for the contribution of the academy to
be quite so 'clear and visible'. Though to go through that history
would take us on a diversion. Suffice to say that academia has a mixed
record when it comes to sustaining original research, though, along
with museums, it has probably done a great deal to accumulate
knowledge. Needless to say, doing original research and accumulating
knowledge are not quite the same thing, even if they do overlap at some
points.
I also agree with Ken when he suggests that I might enjoy working with
Bob Horn or Sharon Poggenpohl. From time to time I get the
opportunity to do so and it's delightful and wonderfully stimulating. I
cannot, of course, speak for either Bob or Sharon, but in neither case
does their institutional affiliation provide the pivot around which I
enjoy working with them.
But I would disagree with Ken's general thrust when he suggests that
things would have been different if I was part of a well funded
University:
> Things would also be different if David worked at the Norwegian School
> of
> Management or Denmark's Design School. We'd have to look for money on
> projects that require major research funds, but we would not have to
> buy
> our research time. 50% of my time is dedicated to research by the
> terms of
> senior faculty contracts at both of these schools.
I used to work in such an environment when I was for ten years at
Flinders University. I was in the extraordinarily privileged position
of having a tenured position and 75% of my time dedicated to research.
And the University had one of the most well funded and active research
cultures of the then 'newer' Universities. It also happened to have, by
some quirks of history, a magnificent library, particularly in some
areas of my own research. I wanted for nothing when it came to these
types of facilities or funding (not to mention the good food and wine).
I was even generously funded to undertake the feasibility study into
setting up what eventually became CRIA. The irony of that, though, was
that I concluded at the end of that feasibility study that a
University, however well funded, was not the place to set up and run
such a research unit. We did, for a short period, align ourselves with
the University of Canberra, but that only lasted a couple of years.
Since then (18 years) we have been an independent body.
Funding never was the central issue. If it had been, I would never have
left Flinders University. As anyone familiar with our history at CRIA
knows, our funding is far from secure. Interestingly, my Board of
Governors at its last meeting asked me to look into CRIA having closer
affiliations with Universities in the future. I have spent the last few
months doing so and have concluded that in most areas CRIA is best to
remain independent. The one area where I think affiliation is
productive is in post-graduate teaching. Hence my affiliations with a
number of Universities and with this list.
In the end the well funded 'freedom' of which Ken speaks is a limited
kind of freedom. As I said in my earlier post:
> ...there are structural systemic features in academia that would
> inhibit our type of research, even if academia was well funded.
Those structural systemic features are well known and hardly
controversial in themself. Universities are inherently risk averse,
conservative institutions. Anyone who wants to do something that steps
outside the prevailing orthodoxy has to battle the institution to do
so. There comes a point in that battle when the effort involved in the
fight is simply not worth it.
None of this is an argument against Universities per se, merely an
observation of their limitations for certain kinds of research. I know
that my own experience is hardly unique, but I would be reluctant to
generalise it. However, I do see a danger in assuming that but for
funding we would all have the kinds of freedom we need. Money helps,
but it ain't everything.
David
|