annual research report to academic … · annual research report to academic senate ... training)...

Meeting of: Academic Senate

Meeting date: 13 September 2017

Item No.

Attachment: A (42 pages)

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research, Development & Industry)

Annual Research Report to Academic Senate

for the period

1 September 2016 – 31 August 2017

Professor Mary Kelly

Table of Contents

1 Strategic Funding of Research ............................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Leveraging ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) .................................................................................... 3 1.3 Boosting Business Innovation Program (BBIP) ......................................................................... 3 1.4 Research Partnerships ............................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Grains Research Development Corporation (GRDC) ............................................................... 4 1.6 Compacts ..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.6.1 2016 Compacts ....................................................................................... 4

1.6.2 2017 Compacts ....................................................................................... 5

2 Research Performance ........................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 HERDC Income ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Research Outputs ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Creative Works Assessment ...................................................................................................... 8

3 Staffing Profile and Research Active Status .......................................................................................... 9

4 Ethics & Compliance Improvement Program ..................................................................................... 10

5 University Research Centres ............................................................................................................... 11

5.1 Outcome of the 2015/2016 Centre Review and Reaccreditation Process ........................... 11 5.2 Investment Plans and Accountability ...................................................................................... 12

6 Commercialisation Pathways .............................................................................................................. 12

6.1 IP Policy .................................................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Discovery Translation Fund (DTF 2.0) .................................................................................... 12 6.3 Building Commercialisation Capability .................................................................................... 12

7 Indigenous Research ........................................................................................................................... 12

8 Research Narrative .............................................................................................................................. 13

9 Research Impact .................................................................................................................................. 13

9.1 Impact Case Studies ................................................................................................................ 13 9.2 The Conversation ..................................................................................................................... 13 9.3 Engagement and Impact Assessment Pilot (EIAP) ................................................................ 14

10 ERA and EI 2018 ................................................................................................................................. 15

11 New Funding Models for the Future .................................................................................................... 16

11.1 Compacts 2017 (Part 2) ........................................................................................................... 16 11.2 Capacity Building Stream......................................................................................................... 16 11.3 Research Fellowships .............................................................................................................. 17

12 Higher Degree Research Students (HDR) ......................................................................................... 17

12.1 Load data .................................................................................................................................. 17 12.2 Completions .............................................................................................................................. 19 12.3 Fields of Research ................................................................................................................... 20 12.4 HDR Candidate Profile ............................................................................................................. 21

13 HDR Scholarships ................................................................................................................................ 23

14 Policy Initiatives .................................................................................................................................... 25

14.1 HDR .......................................................................................................................................... 25 14.2 Scholarships ............................................................................................................................. 25 14.3 Data Management .................................................................................................................... 25

15 HDR Future Outlook ............................................................................................................................ 25

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research, Development & Industry) Annual Research Report to Academic Senate | 1 Sept 2016 – 31 Aug 2017

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................... 27

A. Engagement in External Reviews and Inquiries ................................................................................. 27

B. Staffing Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 28

C. Indigenous Research ........................................................................................................................... 30

D. Research Narrative .............................................................................................................................. 31

E. Research Impact Case Studies ........................................................................................................... 33

F. ERA/EI 2018 CSU Governance Structure .......................................................................................... 34

G. HDR Load ............................................................................................................................................. 36

H. Faculty Trends: HDR Commencements, Load and Completions ..................................................... 38

Introduction

Page 1 of 39

Over the last 12 months, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research, Development and Industry) (DVC RDI) has been driving a reformed approach to research and research planning within the University through a number of key enhancements. These are outlined within this Report, and are in part the result of prior work intended to increase the level of performance-driven behaviours, improve the university’s return on investment in research and maximise the impact of CSU research. This is underpinned by ongoing utilisation of the Research Active Definition as an indication of past performance and an indication of future potential within the academic workforce. This Report for the first time combines the previous Annual Research Report to Academic Senate and the Annual Higher Degree by Research (HDR) Report.

Increased engagement in the national research debate ensures that CSU is influencing research policy in a proactive manner. Over the last 12 months through the Office of the DVC RDI, CSU has contributed to approximately a dozen consultations (Appendix A), in addition to those organized through the Office of the Vice-Chancellor.

A reconstituted Research Committee of the Academic Senate came into effect in January 2017 with greater representation in the membership and a refocused agenda. The first challenges tackled by Working Groups of the Research Committee have included research infrastructure funding, research levies and crowd-funding. The Working Group on crowd-funding have completed their work. As noted in the Minutes of the Research Committee meeting held on 21 June 2017, the agreed conclusion of the Working Group was that crowd funding was not a viable source of research funding for the University at this time. The majority of institutions that attempt crowd funding achieve significantly poor outcomes (less than $5000) compared to the effort put in (effort versus gain is poor). The Working Group recommended that the University explore other streams for research funding at this time, but that this topic could be revisited in future, if the possibilities of crowdfunding change. It was also noted that the University does not have a current Crowdfunding Policy and therefore concluded no crowdfunding was permitted to occur.

A restructure within the DVC RDI Portfolio, that coincided with other changes within the Vice-Chancellor’s Leadership Team in mid 2017, repositioned the Research Office alongside the Office of Global Engagement and Partnerships under the new Pro Vice-Chancellor Global Engagement (Research and Partnerships). This change to the PVC role is intended to maximise leverage of partnership capability for the purposes of research and complements the new role of the Research Partnerships Manager in the Office of the DVC RDI which commenced in January.

Under the previous University Strategy, the Research Sub Plan directed research performance. The 2017-22 University Strategy places research within the ‘Our Communities’ component of the strategy. This is appropriate given the national research agenda in Australia which increasingly focuses on the impact of research and the need for outcomes to be translated into real world solutions. The detailed development of this component of the Strategy is ongoing but the work to date has drafted the research-related outputs as follows:

A sustainable portfolio of research (income, oucomes, impact, training) aligned to the Research Narrative;

An increase in research performance (including but not limited to return on investment, ERA, EI, national rankings etc.);

Successful realisation of research benefits through an innovation and commercialisation agenda; and

An accomplished, research-active workforce recognised internationally and balanced in expertise and career stage.

As this work continues to develop, the activities and inputs needed to achieve these outputs will be more clearly identified and defined. These will include, but are not limited to, the following (in the current drafting):

Revision of research funding models to underpin the Research Narrative - fellowships, capacity building, large scale initiatives and all performance-driven

Creating/strengthening a culture of research delivery, return on investment, and fast fail exit decisions

Maximising research opportunities through wider national and international partnership, and longer term partnerships

Creation of commercialisation capability and pipeline

Reinventing HDR training

Securing and attracting a modern, focused research workforce

The Report presented here provides an insight into the progress already made in some of these areas and celebrates successes already achieved.

http://www.csu.edu.au/division/deputyvc/rdi/portfolio


Page 2 of 39

1 STRATEGIC FUNDING OF RESEARCH The Office of the DVC RDI budget includes operational funding and research funding for University Research Centres, Compacts, Strategic and Project Positions, institutional investment and the Research Office. In 2017 budget considerations have needed to be refocused on key priorities. Above the business as usual components, some notable inclusions are listed in the table below1 which respond to existing commitments for leverage funding, management of ethics and participation in external assessments. Where eligible, costs are offset against the Research Support Program and the Research Training Program funding (i.e. new Research Block Grants).

Estimated costs

Description

$790K Salaries for academic staff, postdoctoral researchers and research fellows previously funded within CAPPE and RIPPLE agreed as part of the closure of the Centres. These costs are for 18 months from January 2017 (figure quoted is 12 month figure for 2017)

$250K Honouring grant leverage commitments from CAPPE and RIPPLE

$120K Senior Project Officer for Compliance Improvement Project plus costs of implementation

$87K ERA Project Officer – advance planning project

$50K Engagement and Impact Assessment Pilot (EIAP) Support Officer

$100K AgriPark

$300K Upgrade costs (50%) of Research Master

1.1 Leveraging

The DVC RDI introduced mid-2016 a reformed model for leverage of external funding applications and grants. DVC RDI funding can only be requested if and when leverage support (cash and/or in-kind) has been secured from the host School, Faculty and/or University Research Centre. This has resulted in a more selective approach to commitments from the Faculties using Compacts funding and the University Research Centres, and shown evidence of greater consideration of opportunities.

As at 30 June 2017, the DVC RDI had committed to leveraging external funding applications and grants to the levels estimated in the table below (excluding the CyberSecurity CRC and the BJBS Professor in Policing and Law Enforcement strategic appointment recently finalised). In the past 5-7 years DVC RDI leverage funding was the primary source internally. The reformed model for leverage has created space within which the DVC RDI can focus on those applications with high likelihood of success and those which are potentially high risk; institutional and/or Research Narrative priorities; and exploratory funding where justified.

$* 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Confirmed 1,427,195 972,767 828,485 512,500 460,000 400,000

Pending 585,000 151,233 101,233 76,733 23,900 23,900

Seed 16,836

Other 33,600 33,600 33,600 28,000

HDR 56,000 56,000

1 This list is not exhaustive


Page 3 of 39

1.2 Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs)

Funding outcomes for the 18th CRC selection round in early 2017 positioned CSU as a significant partner in two of the four CRCs funded. The CSU teams involved are from across the university bringing a diversity of skills and expertise. This success has been achieved by taking an institutional approach to the opportunities and identifying the most appropriate researchers within CSU regardless of home Faculty or University Research Centre. The CSU commitments to the CRCs will be funded annually prior to the determination of available Compacts funding.

CRC for High Performance Soils ($39.5 million over 10 years with $136.8 million cash and in-kind participant contributions) to help farmers bridge the gap between soil science and farm management giving them the tools and knowledge to make decisions on complex soil management issues. These will help them optimise productivity, yield and profitability and ensure long-term sustainability of their farming businesses. CSU is leading Program 1.

Food Agility CRC ($50 million over 10 years matched with almost $162 million in cash and in-kind participant contributions) to help Australia’s food industry grow its comparative advantage through digital transformation. It will develop ways of applying the agile culture and processes of the digital economy along the whole value chain for fresh and processed food. CSU is a Strategic Partner, one of only 15 amongst the 54 partners in this CRC. The CSU Chancellor, Prof. Allan, is on the Food Agility CRC Board.

CSU is also part of a re-worked bid for a CRC in Cyber Security. It is expected that an outcome on this proposal will be made before the end of 2017. A Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre would develop new approaches, tools and technologies to enable Australian organisations to prosper from opportunities presented in the global cyber security industry and strengthen Australia’s national security.

In the current 19th CRC selection round, CSU is part of a current Expression of Interest bid for the Farming Smarter CRC which is being led by University of New England. The farming smarter goal is to drive agricultural sector productivity growth to 4% per annum for 20 years.

1.3 Boosting Business Innovation Program (BBIP)

In the second half of 2016, the University received a $1M grant from the NSW Government under the Boosting Business Innovation Program to support the development of regional entrepreneurship and the innovation ecosystem in the Central West and Southern regions of NSW. With a focus on regional small to medium sized businesses, the Program will deliver demonstrably better networked innovation communities across the CSU footprint leading to enhanced innovation-based collaborations, increased entrepreneurial skills, and improvement in innovation-based enterprise formation.

CSU distinguished itself amongst the NSW universities in this program (all of whom received funding) by taking full advantage of our footprint to deliver three incubators.

CenWest Innovate, the Digital Showcase and Start Up Hub in Bathurst. CenWest Innovate offers access to technology, training and mentoring. A number of workshops and masterclasses have already been conducted in 2017.

Walan Mayinygu, the Indigenous Entrepreneurial Pop Up Hub in partnership with Indigenous Business Australia, will visit various locations across NSW to work with Indigenous communities to develop technology, business and innovation ideas, skills and potential. The first Pop Up workshop was conducted in Dubbo from 28 August 2017, with others planned for Lismore, Port Macquarie and Albury.

the AgriTech Incubator Hub in Wagga aims to facilitate innovation between regional SMEs. The first incubator program commenced on 31 July, and the first cohort will complete the program by mid-September with a pitch night.

CSU welcomed the announcement by the NSW Government in June 2017 of an extended time period and increased funding for the BBIP. Guidelines for the planning for the expansion and extension of the CSU projects are expected from the Department over coming weeks.

http://innovate.csu.edu.au/incubators


Page 4 of 39

1.4 Research Partnerships

The Research Partnerships Manager positon within the Office of the DVC RDI was created in January 2017. The role is to facilitate and assistant with research partnerships, at the institutional level, to provide advice, support and to identify new opportunities. This role provides the conduit between researchers, research leaders, the Director Strategic Collaborations and the PVC Global Engagement and Partnerships and provides a genuine capacity to operate more collaboratively, at an institutional level and at scale.

The Graham Centre has actively developed a partnership with Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University (FAFU), China, through collaboration activities, including but not limited to:

Hosting a delegation in October 2016, including the Dean of Crop Science, Prof. Rensen Zeng and the Chancellor of the University;

Hosting both Assistant Prof. Linkun Wu and PhD student Mr. Bao Zhang, until early 2018, to work with Prof. Leslie Weston on metabolomics of Rehamania glutinosa, one of the top 10 biomedicinal crops in China;

Prof. Zeng included Prof. Weston as a key co-investigator on a Chinese National 111 research grant seeking funding for establishment of a global research centre focused on allelopathy and plant interactions research;

Prof. Gurr and FAFU colleagues have received national funding from a Chinese National 111 research grant for plant-insect interactions research; and

Dr. Xiaocheng Zhu from CSU has been appointed as adjunct Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Science Crop Science at FAFU.

In the near future, two significant collaborations will be developing further:

Prof Jade Forwood has been successful in obtaining an ATSE 2017 Australia China Young Scientist Exchange Program award, and will visit various Chinese institutions in late October this year; and

A workshop is planned for late November at Yangzhou University, where Profs Friend, Weston, Gurr, Forwood and Dr Marta Hernandez-Jover will meet with researchers to scope out new joint research programs.

1.5 Grains Research Development Corporation (GRDC)

In June 2017, CSU was successful in a competitive process to obtain funding of $2.743M from the GRDC for infrastructure comprising a glasshouse facility and growth chambers at the Wagga campus. The infrastructure will allow researchers to conduct detailed studies of crop and weed growth, developmental processes and responses. It will also serve as a node that supports farming systems, resulting in improved practices and adoption of national research outcomes. It is anticipated the infrastructure will be installed and ready for use in March 2018.

1.6 Compacts 1.6.1 2016 Compacts

The full complement of Compacts funding in 2016 was not fully utilised and unspent funding was not carried forward. This has been a pattern over a number of years and triggered re-assessment of the Compacts model for 2017. This provided the opportunity to review the need for multi-year planning, to identify where research support could be supported centrally and not duplicated, to identify cross-unit collaborations and to align with the new Research Narrative under the three research spheres.

The end of year balances on 2016 Compacts funding were as follows:

Allocation $’000 Expended $’000 % Expended

Arts and Education 2,214 812 37

BJBS 1,691 1,212 72

Science 3,660 709 19


Page 5 of 39

1.6.2 2017 Compacts

In March 2017, a revised Compacts funding model was implemented. Expenses on existing commitments were taken into account and essential expenditure undertaken in the interim with the approval of the DVC RDI and then accounted for within the respective allocation.

From the $8M initially allocated under the annual budget, $5,390,146 was potentially available for allocation to the Faculties as Compacts funding after the following funding had been reserved:

Faculty Liaison Officers and Team Leader salaries;

CRC and CRC-P commitments pending funding announcements;

Existing ITP Scholarships to international HDR students, not eligible for ongoing funding under the new Research Block Grant model; and

DVC RDI discretionary fund top up to supplement $0.5M reduction.

Only 50% of the available funding was allocated to the Faculties in March 2017, and this was made available based on performance in the previous 3 years based on verified research data (2013-2015) at a 50:50 ratio of publications: income, as was used in 2016.

As at end of June (3 months into a 6 month funding period), the balances on Compacts funding were as follows:

Faculty Allocation Mar’17

Expenditure Jun’17

Expenditure Jun’17

Unspent Jun’17

Arts & Education $747,744 $228,382 30.6% $519,362

Business, Justice and Behavioural Science

$520,080 $288,745 55.5% $231,334

Science $1,279,410 $689,299 53.7% $590,110

Closer scrutiny to remove duplication of effort between Faculties and the Research Office, stricter management of year-on-year allocation against multi-year grants, prioritisation and selectivity prior to expenditure, greater levels of accountability and a more limited availability of funding within a shorter timeframe have resulted in better management of funds. The shorter timeframe is not necessarily sustainable in the longer-term. It runs the risk of enabling a stop-start culture once again and reintroducing uncertainty which was a notable contributing factor to accumulated underspend in previous years.

The Faculty of Arts & Education has a lower level of expenditure at that point in time but has submitted to the DVC RDI a revised and detailed plan for the funding allocation. However, the expenditure by the other two Faculties carries a note of caution. In both cases there is an existing predominance of salaries being funded using Compacts for staff engaged in strategic research leadership roles and in the Faculty of Science there has been a successful postdoctoral recruitment process. Therefore one would expect expenditure to be on schedule, though both Faculties do also have non-salary initiatives and commitments. The discussion is ongoing ahead of the next period of funding around the use of Compacts funding to support a significant component of salaries and the explicit expectation that there should then be a correlating increase in research activity. This is discussed further in Section 11 of this Report.


Page 6 of 39

2 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE 2.1 HERDC Income

In June 2017, CSU made the annual submission to the Department of Education and Training of annual reportable research income for the 2016 calendar year. This is the second year that the annual submission is focused on research income only. HDR completion data is collected separately and, as advised in 2016, HDR load and publications are no longer considered as part of this reporting mechanism. This reporting then influences the level of funding received under the two new Research Block Grants (introduced in January 2017): the Research Support Program (RSP) and the Research Training Program (RTP).

Reportable income in the 2016 calendar year has dropped by $2.076M or 15% on the previous year. The trends since 2011 for CSU have continued and as expected reemphasise that what stability we have continues to lie in Category 2 and 3 funding streams at this stage (Figure 1). For the 2016 calendar year, the breakdown within funding categories is detailed in the table below.

2016 Reportable Research Income as submitted in June 2017

2016

($M)

Movement on 2015

($M)

Movement on 2015

(%)

Category 1

Australian Competitive Research Grants 4.545 - 1.694 - 27%

Category 2

Other Public Sector Research Funding 3.389 + 0.389 + 1%

Category 3

Industry and Other Funding for Research 3.844 - 0.433 - 11%

Category 4

CRC Funding 0.011 + 0.011 + 100%

Total Research Income Reported 11.789 - 2.076 - 15%

As in previous years these numbers highlight the fragility of the external research income streams to CSU. A small number of projects starting or finishing can result in significant fluctuation in income year on year.

In Category 1, the reduction in income can be attributed to

ARC income reducing by $500K as seven Discovery Projects finished at the end of 2015;

ACIAR reportable income reduced by $700K as two major programs ended in 2015;

an increase in collaborator payments by $640K including $600K to one collaborating organisation; and

a reduction in NHMRC reportable income by $180K.

In Category 3 the reduced overall result can be attributed primarily to

a reduction in Australian contracts by seven projects;

an increase in Australian grants by 4 projects;

an increase in HDR fees with gross domestic income up by $300K as CSU funded scholarship places dropped by $500K equating to more fee paying students; and

in the international space, two large Fonterra agreements fluctuated in 2015 causing net $0 income in 2016.

Another contributing factor which has been identified, as a result of having dedicated finance and contract expertise within the Research Office over the past year is the apparent limited understanding of the influence of contract design in reportable income amongst some research teams. For example: when a CSU-led research program negotiates a subcontract with an external research collaborator, the income under this subcontract which is paid to the collaborator is not reportable research income for CSU. This is of benefit to the collaborator if it is another university as it becomes reportable income for that university, but a lost opportunity if it is a non-university collaborator. We do benefit when the former situation is


Page 7 of 39

reversed and we are the collaborator with another university-led program, but nonetheless we need to work with the research teams to ensure that a subcontract arrangement is the most appropriate rather than the default. In cases where a collaborator’s contribution can in fact be managed under a fee for service arrangement the full value of the work remains as reportable research income for CSU.

Early indicators of future reportable income are being reviewed and this includes the manner in which research income figures are reported internally within CSU. There also needs to be greater transparency to the reporting to reinforce the importance of understanding return on investment and power of collaboration across the university. While the research strategy has moved to a more institutional approach in recent times, the mindset of individual researchers and research teams remains more siloed, with a small but growing number of exceptions.

Figure 1: HERDC Reportable Income Trend Data 2011-2016

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

14000000

16000000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

HERDC INCOME (2016 unverified)

CAT 1 CAT2 CAT3 CAT4


Page 8 of 39

2.2 Research Outputs

Since 2012 CSU has shown a 20% increase in research outputs with a peak in 2015 reflecting the strong focus on collection of research outputs for the ERA2015 submission (Figure 2). The relative contribution of different types of research outputs to the overall total has not shown a consistent trend. The only major change was the establishment of CSU's Research Output Collection (ROC) in 2015. A wider range of publication categories are eligible for ROC than were previously eligible for the traditional HERDC. These changes were driven by changes in ERA 2015 reporting. These new categories included:

Research Reports;

Genome sequence published in a genetic sequence database and

Other public media (Newspapers / Magazines).

Figure 2: Research Outputs 2012-2016

2.3 Creative Works Assessment

A review of creative works assessment guidelines has been conducted in 2017, with the aim of producing more detailed eligibility requirements for outputs being assessed across the various sub-categories. The Terms of Reference and Membership of the Creative Works Assessment Advisory Panel membership was also reviewed and updated to ensure appropriate representation from relevant schools within the Faculty of Arts and Education. An additional outcome of the review was to increase the frequency of assessment for creative works from annually to bi-annually. This will ensure greater visibility and immediacy of outcomes for academic staff for internal performance management purposes. Following the first meeting of the restructured Creative Works Assessment Advisory Panel in June 2017 several remaining issues were identified to further refine the assessment process and improve clarity and transparency in assigning weighting to creative works. Revised guidelines for the assessment process are currently being developed and will be available via the Research Office website once the review has been finalised.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Po

ints

HERDC/ROC Year

Research Report Other Public Media Journal Articles

Genome Sequence Creative Works Conference Publications

Book Chapters Books


Page 9 of 39

3 STAFFING PROFILE AND RESEARCH ACTIVE STATUS The staffing profile for Research Focussed and Teaching and Research staff for 2012 to 2017 is attached as Appendix B. These charts show an overall decline in FTE of staff with a work function of research.

Academic Senate approved a Definition of Research Active for the Purposes of Higher Degree by Research Supervision in November 2014. Based on past performance, staff can also align themselves to this definition as an indicator of research performance and competitiveness. The definition is provided in the table below for ease of reference.

Staff Category Measure

Inactive

Tier 1 (Default) Staff are allocated Tier 1 status by default if they:

had a career break (e.g. health or maternity leave) of six months or more during the period;

were not employed for the full three year output period;

were within five years of PhD completion and averaged one HERDC-eligible publication per year.

Tier 1 Three or more HERDC-eligible publications or a minimum of 1.5 HERDC points and at least one of the following

$5,000 or more in HERDC income to CSU, or

An additional 3 HERDC-eligible publications or 1.5 HERDC points or

Chief Investigator on an external research grant or

Supervision of an HDR student to completion within the three year output period.

Tier 2 Three or more HERDC-eligible publications or a minimum of 1.5 HERDC points and at least two of the following

$5,000 or more in HERDC income to CSU, or

An additional 4 HERDC-eligible publications or 2 HERDC points or

Chief Investigator on an external research grant administered by CSU or

Supervision of an HDR student to completion within the three year output period.

HDR Student Staff undertaking HDR degrees formally approved within CSU workload

Research Active Status is defined over a three year period. The most recent data which has been released to the Executive Deans in September 2017, is based on the 2014-2016 reference period (Figure 3). Compared to the previous reference period (2013-2015) this shows notable increases in the number of individuals in the HDR student and Tier 2 categories, and decreases in the Inactive and Tier 1 categories.


Page 10 of 39

Figure 3: Research Active Status by Tier as at September 2017 for the period 2014-2016 (Research Focussed and Teaching and Research only)

This data will be analysed further at an individual level over the coming weeks including the level of risk carried by each Faculty (Figure 4). The Faculty of Arts and Education have 52% of their staff confirmed as Tier 1 or 2, compared to the Faculty of Business, Justice and Behavioural Science at 45% and Faculty of Science at 46%.

While there is evidence of improvement on the previous year with regard to some categories of Research Active Status, the university should be aiming for a significantly higher proportions of academic staff (Research focussed and Teaching & Research) to be identified as Research Active.

Figure 4: Research Active Status Tier by Faculty as at September 2017 for the period 2014-2016 (Research Focussed and Teaching and Research only)

4 ETHICS & COMPLIANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM In 2016 an external review of Animal Ethics Management at Charles Sturt University was conducted resulting in a decision to review ethics and compliance at CSU more broadly. In January 2017 the appointment of a Senior Project Officer to a new Compliance Improvement Project (CIP) saw the commencement of this two year project. The sponsors for CIP are the DVC RDI and the Director, Governance and Corporate Affairs.

The project is tasked with identifying and implementing efficiencies and improvements in ethics and compliance support, management and process across the institution. This includes enhancing

Faculty of Arts andEducation

Faculty of Business,Justice & Behavioural

ScienceFaculty of Science

TIER 2 33 30 75

TIER 1 32 23 28

TIER 1(D) 18 31 66

INACTIVE 30 29 37

HDR STUDENT 13 6 20

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

HDR STUDENT INACTIVE TIER 1(D) TIER 1 TIER 2


Page 11 of 39

institutional understanding of, participation in and commitment to, ethics and safety best practice in research and teaching and legislative compliance.

The project includes the Animal Care and Ethic Committee (ACEC); Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC); Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC); Chemical Safety Committee (CSC); Radiation Safety Committee (RSC); and, the Defence Trade Control Committee (DTCC).

Initial consultation has allowed the identification of short and long term goals with implementation priority given to the ACEC and HREC in the first instance with subsequent committees following. Short and long term goals have been identified as:

Short term Long Term

1. Implementation of the Research Master Ethics Module.

2. Review and update of the HREC and ACEC websites and roll out to all committees.

3. Implementation of ELMO training packages. 4. Investigate application to allow time tracking of

committee members

1. Consideration of the long term structure and management of compliance and ethics.

2. Long term cultural change initiatives 3. Investigation of the establishment of an

Animal Welfare Officer position.

Progress on short term goals is well underway and a 6 month progress report was recently endorsed by the Vice-Chancellor’s Leadership Team for submission to Finance, Audit and Risk Committee of University Council. Achievements to date include updates to content and the layout of the ACEC and HREC websites with work on both of these sites ongoing; current review of ELMO compliance modules suitability for CSU purposes and the commencement of the Research Master version 6 upgrade project that will include the implementation of the Ethics Module for use.

5 UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTRES

5.1 Outcome of the 2015/2016 Centre Review and Reaccreditation Process

As reported in the 2016 Annual Research Report, the Report of the 2015 Review of the University Research Centres was endorsed by the SEC and approved by the Vice-Chancellor in November 2015. As a result of the 2015 Review, all six University Research Centres had an extended accreditation period until December 2016. During this period all six Centres were required to prepare a reaccreditation submission to seek a further 5 years accreditation as a University Research Centre.

The Review Panel was reconvened to consider the reaccreditation submissions in August 2016. In September 2016, the Report of the 2016 Reaccreditation Review of University Research Centres and an Implementation Plan were endorsed by the SEC and approved by the Vice-Chancellor. As a result, two University Research Centres were closed on 31 December 2016: the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), and the Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education (RIPPLE). Academic staff from these Centres were transferred to the Faculty of Arts and Education from 1 January 2017 and ongoing leverage funding commitments, fellowships including postdoctoral researchers, and salaries are being honoured through the DVC RDI budget for an agreed period of time.

Further to the new Alliance Agreement executed in May 2016 for the Graham Centre, the new Alliance Agreement for NWGIC is close to finalisation. Renegotiation of this Alliance Agreement (final agreement execution pending) includes a sea-change in the NSW DPI investment model from an in-kind and facilities fee model to a cash investment of up to $400K per annum. The 2017 commitment has been received by CSU in anticipation of signing the agreement. These negotiations are also closely linked to bilateral negotiations with Wine Australia. The advertisement for the substantive Director of NWGIC position will be released in September 2017.


Page 12 of 39

5.2 Investment Plans and Accountability

As an outcome of the University Research Centre reaccreditation process, the successful Centres were permitted access to 80% of their carry forward budget (as at 31 Dec 2015) upon the presentation of a 3 year investment plan, to be aligned with their new strategic plans. Detailed budgets were scrutinized by the DVC-RDI and the CFO. There will be ongoing monitoring of the expenditure of these funds, which will only be released upon annual acquittal. This process provides a high level of accountability, but will also permit Centres to plan and invest for greater returns in future years. It is expected that this funding will also facilitate strong leverage under the Research Narrative.

6 COMMERCIALISATION PATHWAYS 6.1 IP Policy

The CSU IP policy has undergone a substantial review. The purpose of this policy is to set out the principles and practices of the University relating to ownership, management and development of intellectual property created by staff and students of, and visitors to, Charles Sturt University. It is anticipated the Policy will receive final approval and become available in September 2017.

6.2 Discovery Translation Fund (DTF 2.0)

CSU has joined forces with the Australian National University (ANU) and the University of Canberra (UC) in the Discovery Translation Fund (DTF) which provides translational grant funding for projects from ANU, UC and CSU. The grant helps assess whether an idea, invention or discovery has commercial potential. Grants can be awarded up to $50,000 per project, with funding above $50,000 considered for projects of exceptional commercial potential. This development provides a great opportunity for CSU researchers to bridge the critical funding gap between discovery research and the commercial development of new technologies or the establishment of new ventures. Projects originating from CSU will be funded by the ODVC RDI research budget. The universities do not cross-fund projects, but instead each university funds work which originates within its own organisation. The power of the DTF is the opportunity for the universities to benefit from shared expertise and review prior to investment.

It is anticipated the first submission of an Expression of Interest will be considered at the October DTF meeting, which will be held at the Wagga campus.

6.3 Building Commercialisation Capability

CSU has had successful activities in the commercialisation space in the past but on an ad hoc basis. In addition to the initiatives above, through the ODVC RDI a proposal was approved by the University Council which would see CSU become a founding partner to a new venture capital fund which is focused on university-derived research in the areas of AgTech & Food Security, ICT, Life Sciences with a fast path to market, Physical Sciences, Instrument Design, Software (Web/Mobile/Cloud/Saas/Enterprise) and Advanced Manufacturing. CSU’s partners in this initiative have significant experience in both the sciences and the arts and humanities to ensure we might have opportunity across the entire university. The details of this discussions remain confidential at this stage pending execution of final legal agreements.

A framework within which maximise advantage can be taken of these new avenues and within which there will be appropriate expert support for researchers is in development. This will include enhancing our technology transfer capabilities, identifying opportunities significantly earlier in the research process, and establishing a clear decision-making pathway with appropriate risk assessment and consideration of return on investment.

7 INDIGENOUS RESEARCH In the last 12-18 months with the establishment of the Office of Indigenous Affairs as an ongoing Division of the University (not funded as a strategic initiative), a new level of security and sustainability has enhanced activities in the Indigenous research space. The term ‘Indigenous Research’ in this context is inclusive of Indigenous staff and students undertaking research and staff and students undertaking research on Indigenous topics and concepts.


Page 13 of 39

As work continues to progress under the guidance of the PVC Indigenous Education, to establish the foundations for successful Indigenous Research, some recent developments include:

Review of the Indigenous Academic Fellows program, a proposal for a new culturally appropriate and effective mentoring and support scheme and the recent appointment of two new Fellows;

Continued use of Collaborative Conversations in remote NSW communities to identify Indigenous educational & research needs and explore positive aspects associated with studying at CSU with potential students & families;

Appointment of a Postdoctoral Researcher and a Senior Research Fellow within the Office of Indigenous Affairs to advance dedicated research agendas (Appendix C).

Explicit identification of Indigenous Research within the Research Narrative; and

A current proposal to provide dedicated research funding and support to Indigenous PhD students to grow this cohort within CSU.

8 RESEARCH NARRATIVE Broad consultation on the development of a new Research Narrative occurred in early 2017, attracting 37 written responses from individuals, discipline groups, Schools and Faculties. This input was welcomed and very constructive in shaping the final version of the Research Narrative, which was released on 7 April 2017.

The Research Narrative (Appendix D) is an institutional document to drive impactful research that reflects our existing areas of strength and challenges. It is designed to be externally facing while driving internal decision making. It has emphasised thematically-driven research, to impact upon people, communities and environments, to create a world worth living in. This will happen in the context of our CSU values, which have been encapsulated in the Research Narrative in a way that is relevant to the research community.

9 RESEARCH IMPACT 9.1 Impact Case Studies

Capturing CSU research strengths and potential, and clearly articulating the impact CSU research has on its diverse communities is vital. In June 2017, the innovate.csu.edu.au website went live. This long overdue development provides information on CSU research in an accessible form, and demonstrates how we create meaningful impact on our local and global communities. There are currently six Research Impact Case Studies on the site, highlighting the breadth of our research, for this initial launch (Appendix E). Four of the case studies also feature a short video which is a great medium to share our research stories. This work is the result of a project with Western Research Institute and the generous contribution of the research teams who engaged with this project. These case studies are just the start - over time, we anticipate preparing more research impact case studies. CSU must develop a profile that is attractive to all types of end-users, and must be positioned to work with end-users and find opportunities to create impact in our communities.

9.2 The Conversation

CSU became an official member of the independent news and opinion news site The Conversation in late 2016 and has encouraged academic staff to contribute articles and commentary on their areas of expertise and about their research. Monthly readership of The Conversation is 3.3 million users onsite, with a reach of 35 million through creative commons republication. News media also frequently use The Conversation as a source of ideas and talent. The benefits for academics of publishing on The Conversation are not just in media engagement, but also include conference invitations, research collaboration, book publications, and invitations to submit to journals.

An hour-long information session for academics, was hosted by The Conversation’s NSW Bureau Chief, on 7 December 2016, and repeated on 7 June 2017 as a joint initiative between the ODVC RDI and CSU Media. These sessions were delivered in parallel with two new Promoting Your Research workshops conducted by Prof. Clive Hamilton.

http://www.csu.edu.au/division/deputyvc/rdi/university-strategy

http://innovate.csu.edu.au/

http://innovate.csu.edu.au/impact


https://theconversation.com/au


Page 14 of 39

The most recent monthly report (2 August 2017) from The Conversation reported the following statistics for CSU:

This month:

36,884 reads

5 articles

321 comments

All time:

2,155,819 reads

237 published articles

12,581 comments

Top republishers this month:

29,742 The Conversation

1,688 SBS

487 ABC

241 Phys.org

180 Business Standard (India)

Islamophobia is still raising its ugly head in Australia

By Mehmet Ozalp (9/7/17)

9,439 reads this month

We need more than just extra water to save the Murray-Darling Basin

By Max Finlayson, Lee Baumgartner and Peter Gell (30/06/17)


Why it matters to transform parent involvement from early childhood to primary school

By Laura MacFarland and Angela Fenton (12/07/17)


Australia doesn't have a constitutional right protecting freedom of the person – it needs one

By Bede Harris (16/07/17)


Are Australia's native pigeons sitting ducks?

By Andrew Peters (13/07/17)


Top authors this month:

12,006 reads – Mehmet Ozalp

3,577 reads – Laura MacFarland

3,501 reads - Max Finlayson

9.3 Engagement and Impact Assessment Pilot (EIAP)

The Engagement and Impact Assessment Pilot (EIAP) conducted by the Australian Research Council (ARC) in early 2017 included an engagement pilot and an impact pilot with the two components being assessed and rated separately. The engagement pilot primarily involved quantitative information supplemented by qualitative information. The impact pilot primarily involved qualitative information that could be supplemented by quantitative information if available. All data was submitted by the required deadline of the 17th May 2017.

The following definitions were used in the Pilot;

Engagement Research engagement is the interaction between researchers and research end-users (including industry, government, non-governmental organisations, communities and community organisations), for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge, technologies and methods, and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity.

Impact Research impact is the contribution that research makes to the economy, society and environment, beyond the contribution to academic research.

Research Consistent with the definition used in ERA, research is defined as the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts, methodologies, inventions and understandings. This could include synthesis and analysis of previous research to the extent that it is new and creative.

The reference periods for the pilot were as follows:

Impact Jan 2011 – Dec 2016 6 years

Impact evidence Jan 2002 – Dec 2016 15 years

Engagement Jan 2008 – Dec 2013 6 years

https://theconversation.cmail19.com/t/r-l-jljritz-hilhklykuh-o/

https://theconversation.cmail19.com/t/r-l-jljritz-hilhklykuh-o/

https://theconversation.cmail19.com/t/r-l-jljritz-hilhklykuh-n/

https://theconversation.cmail19.com/t/r-l-jljritz-hilhklykuh-n/

https://theconversation.cmail19.com/t/r-l-jljritz-hilhklykuh-x/



https://theconversation.cmail19.com/t/r-l-jljritz-hilhklykuh-c/



https://theconversation.cmail19.com/t/r-l-jljritz-hilhklykuh-a/

https://theconversation.cmail19.com/t/r-l-jljritz-hilhklykuh-a/


Page 15 of 39

An engagement narrative was required for each FoR code reported as part of the engagement data and the data had not been collected previously. CSU submitted under FoR 11 Medical and Health Sciences and FoR 22 Philosophy and Religious Studies. The engagement narratives were required to be under 500 words, which was insufficient to describe activities in detail or provide substantial context, particularly for broad fields such as FoR 22 which encompassed the fields of Philosophy/Ethics and Religion. This and other feedback was formally provided back to the ARC.

Each University was permitted to submit one impact case study per selected FoR code. CSU selected a small sample to submit against:

FoR 5 Environmental Sciences Environmental flows research provides beneficial outcomes for the environment, water managers and the community – Robyn Watts and Skye Wassens

FoR 07 Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences

EverGraze – more livestock from perennials – Michael Friend

FoR 13 Education Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia – Jennifer Sumsion

Indigenous Building Nations: The Wiradjuri Language, Culture and Heritage Graduate Certificate Initiative – Jeannie Herbert

Interdisciplinary Assessment of preschool children’s intelligibility – Sharynne McLeod and Linda Harrison

It was estimated that, including the author’s time plus Research Office and Library support, the average time to create a single case study was 75 hours. Overall the process was positive with authors reporting that the case studies were a valuable resource. The Research Office has already used parts of the case studies in other documentation.

10 ERA AND EI 2018 Preparations have commenced for the ERA 2018 assessment. These preliminary preparations involve ensuring all research-associated staff are correctly identified in the HR system, and CSU has also submitted 120 journals for inclusion in the ERA Journal list. These are journals CSU researchers publish in, or plan to, that are not currently recognised by the ARC for inclusion in the ERA assessment. The final journals list was released on 23 August 2017.

The reference periods for the ERA2018 assessment are:

Outputs Jan 2011 – Dec 2016

Income Jan 2014 – Dec 2016

Applied Jan 2014 – Dec 2016

Staff census date 31 March 2017

For the EI2018 assessment Reference Periods have yet to be defined. Final dates for submission timelines for both ERA2018 and EI2018 have yet to be confirmed.

The Research Office is currently finalising the CSU ERA/EI 2018 Governance Structure incorporating a Steering Group, Academic Delivery Groups and a Technical Group (Appendix F).


Page 16 of 39

11 NEW FUNDING MODELS FOR THE FUTURE The new Research Narrative when it was announced in April 2017, identified three potential funding streams:

1. Compacts 2017 (Part 2) 2. Capacity Building Stream 3. Research Fellowships

The funding for the new streams (#2 and #3) will be provided as a result of accessing carry-forward funds which have accumulated as a result of underspend in Compacts and DVC R funding in the past. The University Research Centres are funded separately and from January 2017 in addition to operational funds, have access to 80% of their accumulated carry-forward from unspent funds on a year by year acquittal and review basis. This was a condition of reaccreditation. (Refer section 5.2 above).

The design of these funding streams, as outlined in more detail below, was driven by consideration of the need for:

Enhanced internal & external peer review (assessment & monitoring) towards higher success and performance rates;

Simplified flow of funding and minimised administration to enable greater focus amongst academic and research support staff on research activity and leadership;

Enhanced accountability for all parties and individuals; and

Prioritisation of RN17 research spheres.

11.1 Compacts 2017 (Part 2)

The DVC RDI will call for 15-18 month research plans from the Faculties in September 2017. As in Compacts 2017 Part 1 there will be criteria in place and, as discussed above, increase in research excellence and research performance as well as alignment to the Research Narrative will be paramount.

Funding available will be up to the value of the remaining 50% of 2017 Compacts. However, there will be new additional aspects of the roll-out to ensure the most successful use of these funds:

Payments will be in 6 month instalments upon acquittal of existing funds.

There will be a payment release threshold of 75% i.e. if less than 75% of existing funds have not been used or strongly justified for use in the following 2 months, the next instalment will be delayed.

A leverage multiplier will be permitted. With a very small number of exceptions, national funding schemes have a success rate of less than 20%. In the past funding within CSU has been ear-marked against a particular proposal and then left unused for up to 10 months awaiting an outcome. If unsuccessful only then would the funding be repurposed. With careful management, we should instead be able to leverage the same funding against multiple proposals in parallel knowing the success rates and therefore not have funding sitting unused for extended periods but instead being actively used to increase our chances of success (more quality proposals) and increase our chances of return on investment (smarter leveraging).

Prioritisation must be given to thematic strategies under the Research Narrative and significantly fewer smaller independent projects will be supported. We have a history of large numbers of small projects (even when Discipline differences are taken into account) which individually are actually not always viable in terms of growing into significant research projects and outcomes.

Active research projects and activities that ensure growth in research capacity will be prioritised.

11.2 Capacity Building Stream

Due to commence in January 2018, this will be a competitive internal funding scheme which seeks to support projects of 18-24 months in duration, aligned to the Research Narrative and designed against a 6 month schedule of key research deliverables and acquittal of expenditure. Critically, this funding can only be accessed once in three years by any individual.

The focus for this funding will include:


Page 17 of 39

Early and mid-career researchers in an environment which can provide mentorship;

Emerging research areas not yet aligned to the Research Narrative but with the potential to align in the future: and

Commencement research funding for new staff with a substantive teaching/research appointment.

11.3 Research Fellowships

We are extremely fortunate to be able to name these Fellowships in a manner which gives them a distinct identify for CSU, and this has been achieved with valuable input from Uncle Stan Grant.

Fellowships in the Resilient People research sphere will be entitled Walanbang mayiny which means very strong people.

Fellowships in the Flourishing Communities research sphere will be entitled Ngumbadal-ngilanha which translates as united.

Fellowships in the Sustainable Environments research sphere will be entitled Gulbali ngurambang meaning to understand country.

The internal call for Round 1 applications for Fellowships will occur in September 2017. Fellowships will be available for up to two years and will have in-built research performance and financial acquittal milestones every 6 months. The home School of the Fellowship recipient will be reimbursed in full and at level for the percentage of workload allocation covered by the Fellowship, and all applicants must have Head of School approval to submit an application. This approval also includes a certification from the Head of School that the current (30%) research allocation is fully committed. This will be reinforced by use of Research Active status as an eligibility criterion and only those individuals who have a Tier 2 Research Active status (based on 2014-2016 performance) will be eligible to apply in Round 1. Prioritisation will be given to those individuals or groups of individuals who have the potential to generate significant research advancement and propose to do so in a cross-collaborative & multi-disciplinary manner.

TYPE 1 Fellowships, of which there will be up to 10 in Round 1, have no fixed research sphere quotas, and will fund up to an additional 30% of research-focused time (total of up to 60%).

TYPE 2 Fellowships, of which there will only be 1-2 per research sphere, will fund up to an additional 70% time (total of up to 100%). It will be a requirement of these Fellowships that where 100% total workload commitment to research is awarded, up to 30% of the individuals total time will be used in a research leadership role within their respective research sphere. This leadership component will potentially be pro rata for Type 2 Fellowship recipients with between 60-100% research-committed time.

12 HIGHER DEGREE RESEARCH STUDENTS (HDR) This section of the report provides an overview of HDR matters for the Academic Senate. The report is largely data driven and may provide a valuable tool for reflection and refinement of many aspects of HDR candidates’ recruitment and management. Data sources utilised include internal records from the Office of Strategic Planning & Information and the Research Office, as well as publically available sectoral data accessible through various Department websites.

12.1 Load data

In 2016 we have continued to see a steady decline in both headcount (HC) and EFTSL from a 2013 peak (Figure 5). In each year since 2013 we have seen an 8-9% drop in HDR load in both HC and EFTSL. The 2013 peak was driven by investment of Faculty Compacts funding into HDR scholarships during 2011-2012. Subsequently Compacts funding has been utilised to support more diverse research initiatives within the Faculties with Compacts funding predominantly supporting strategic scholarships attached to specific funding schemes or partner opportunities.


Page 18 of 39

127.375

90.75

71.62578.625 80.125

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

EFT

SL

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

The continued drop in load is due to the 2011-2012 influx of students completing their studies rather than a drop in commencements (Figure 6). Commencements have remained stable over the past three years. For all the data presented in this report HC and EFTSL data show very similar patterns and thus from Figure 6 onwards only EFTSL data is presented unless otherwise indicated.

Figure 5: HDR Load and Headcount 2012-2016

Figure 6: HDR Commencements 2012-2016

720

462.25

747

479.75

680

442.75

620

399

572

362.625

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Headcount EFTSL

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Page 19 of 39

With the CSU’s slight drop in HDR load we have also slipped down two places in the Higher Education sector rankings moving from 28th in 2015 to 30th in 2016 (Appendix G) Edith Cowan University, currently sitting in 28th place has only 20 more HDR students than CSU, however to reach our previously highest recent ranking (27th in 2013) we would need a 20% increase in load. Above 28th place there is a marked increase in HDR cohort size with 25th place (James Cook University) having >900 HDR students.

Across the sector there has been a continued gradual upward trend in HDR load mostly driven by International students. There is a marked slowdown in load increases since the peak acceleration from 2008-2011. For CSU although our domestic load has been stable over the previous two years, our international load has continued to decline with currently 18% of our HDR load coming from overseas. This is due to increased domestic commencements offsetting completing students from the 2013 peak but flat international commencements failing to compensate for completing students with 20% of our commencing students being International. Appendix G provides this data.

12.2 Completions

Reflecting the peak HDR load seen in 2012-13, completions have been increasing over the subsequent year with over 100 completions seen in both 2015 and 2016 (Figure 7). This matches the expected peak completion rates between 3-4yrs after commencing a doctoral HDR. Although our HDR load numbers have dropped since 2013 we are focusing strongly on working with students and supervisors to enable students to complete their HDR studies. Comparison with the sector places our completion numbers 29th (Department of Education and Training, UCube Statistical Database), however if we normalise completion rates to EFTSL we have a 19% completion rate which is 24th in the sector.

Anecdotally we are seeing a number of HDR students who commenced their studies more than 5 years

ago now graduating and we are attributing this to a greater focus on student progression. Such an

approach should help to at least partially offset decreased completions due to decreasing lower HDR

load, though this is not a solution. With the change in emphasis for Research Block Grant funding

switching from HDR enrolments to completions this an area we will continue to focus on. CSU is

fortunate and somewhat unique in the sector to have 6-monthly rather than annual progress reporting

for our HDR students. In the last 12-18-months we have started monitoring progress reporting more

closely. This enables us to identify progression issues earlier and apply remedial interventions to

increase the chances of students completing. Faculty trends for HDR load and completions is provided

in Appendix H.

Figure 7: HDR Completions 2012-2016

55

73

83

106 108

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Page 20 of 39

12.3 Fields of Research

Fields of Education (FoE) is the categorisation system through which all Universities report both their HDR and coursework load data. Although it is not as granular as the Field of Research (FoR) classification system it does allow comparisons of student load across the different areas.

Examining the distribution of CSU’s HDR population by Field of Education shows 32 per cent of HDR load is within the Society and Culture field, 23% in Agriculture Environmental & Related Studies and 12% in Education (Figure 8). The remainder of HDR load largely sits within the Health and Information Technology areas. These HDR load patterns are evenly spread over the three research spheres compromising the CSU Research Narrative; Resilient People, Flourishing Communities, Sustainable Environments. They also align with the broad fields in which CSU was ranked ‘at world standard’ or above (a score of 3 or above) in the 2015 Excellence in Research for Australia assessment (ERA2015), which were Environmental Sciences, Agriculture & Veterinary Sciences, Engineering (specifically Food Sciences), Education and Philosophy & Religious Studies.

Figure 8: Percentage of CSU HDR Load by Field of Education (FoE). Source: SPI


Page 21 of 39

Figure 9: Percentage of CSU HDR Load and total student load by Field of Education (FoE)

However, an overlay of the HDR load data onto the total student load data for CSU (including coursework and research students) shows a marked disparity (Figure 9). This highlights a potential issue concerning research supervision capacity and our ability to significantly increase our HDR load in the future.

The majority of academic staff at CSU are employed in the areas of coursework student load. Although many of these academics have a Teaching and Research workload function those who are not research active cannot be primary supervisors for HDR students. To expand HDR load in these areas could therefore place an additional burden on senior research active academics in those areas which is not tenable. Conversely in the areas of research strength, coursework student load may not be sufficient to recruit new Teaching and Research academics to boost supervisory capacity. These areas thus need to rely on increasing research funding income to recruit research staff to supervise students. In an increasingly competitive funding environment such funding sources cannot be considered reliable and CSU strategic research funds are limited.

12.4 HDR Candidate Profile

CSU’s overall HDR gender balance is very similar to the sector maintaining a near 50/50 balance over the previous five years (based on SPI data). Although overall HDR load is close to 50/50 there are significant differences between faculties. In BJBS, a large proportion of the HDR students are in the School of Computing and Mathematics and these disciplines traditionally have very low female student numbers. This has resulted in a 70/30 Male/Female ratio in BJBS. Currently FoS has approximately 60% female HDR students and FA&E approximately 55% female HDR students.

For the approximately 70% of HDR students where we have data on their socioeconomic status (SES) we can see that our proportions of low SES HDRs have remained constant over the last 5 years (Figure 10). The slight increase in low SES students in 2016 was driven by increased numbers in FA&E and BJBS offsetting a small decrease in FoS.


Page 22 of 39

Figure 10: CSU HDR Load by Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Our Indigenous HDR load has remained steady since 2013 (Figure 11) although we have seen a steady increase in Indigenous HDR students as a percentage of total load over this time (Figure 12). These numbers are still very low (~2% of the total HDR load) and our current commencement rate of 1.5% is not significantly different to the sector. CSU has one of the highest sectoral levels of Indigenous student participation in the coursework space. A key challenge in the HDR space is the availability of Indigenous mentors and peers to form a cohort of potential supervisors for Indigenous HDR students. The Pro Vice Chancellor Indigenous Education is working with the Research Office to try and develop a cohort of Indigenous researchers who can help train Indigenous students in the future.

Figure 11: CSU Indigenous HDR Load


Page 23 of 39

Figure 12: CSU Indigenous HDR Load as % of Total HDR Load

To further encourage institutions to train more Indigenous HDR students the Commonwealth has doubled the weighting accorded to Indigenous HDR completions in Research Block Grant calculations. With such low numbers of Indigenous students in the HDR system at the moment we will need to see a dramatic increase in numbers to make a tangible contribution to Research Block Grant funding. However it is gratifying to see that the Government recognises the low Indigenous numbers in this space as an issue and is supporting measures to increase participation rates. Increasing Indigenous HDR student numbers is a key priority and with initiatives such as dedicated scholarships, and the Indigenous Academic Fellows Program we hope to see gains in this area.

Finally, over 50% of CSU HDR students are aged over 40 with only 18% under 30 and this has not varied significantly over the last 5 years (based on SPI data). This is quite different to the sector averages with only 35% of HDR students over 40 years old and 34% under 30 (2013 data latest available). This likely reflects at least in part the high proportion of our HDR students coming from professional backgrounds.

13 HDR SCHOLARSHIPS From 1 January 2017 the six previous Commonwealth Research Block Grant programs were replaced with two simpler streamlined programs: the Research Support Program (RSP) and the Research Training Program (RTP).

RSP combines the previous Joint Research Excellence (JRE), Research Infrastructure Block Grants (RIBG) and Sustainable Research Excellence (SRE) schemes. RTP combines the previous Australian Postgraduate Awards (APA), International Postgraduate Research Scholarships (IPRS) and Research Training Scheme (RTS) schemes.

The purpose of this reorganisation was to provide greater flexibility for institutions to support their research and research training. RTP funds are specifically to support HDR students and can be used for:

Fees offsets

Stipend for general living costs

Allowances for ancillary costs

A key aspect of the new regulations is that there are now no formal academic requirements for students to receive support under the new RTP scheme (for instance previously APA recipients had to be Honours Class I equivalent). The Commonwealth has recognised that institutions should be able to support those students who best fit their priorities and the standard of excellence for commencing students should be determined by the university.


Page 24 of 39

For CSU this means that we can place more weight on non-academic measures of achievement for those students coming from professional, low SES or Indigenous backgrounds. The only criteria which is now required is that students are given scholarships through a competitive process. CSU very much supports these new measures. One less favourable aspect of the new funding is that the support for international students is restricted to 10% of the total RTP funding. This currently means we are not able to significantly increase our international student recruitment from RTP funds.

The final details surrounding the new funding models were not released until late 2016 which fell after all universities had already completed the 2016 call for scholarship applications. The 2016 Scholarship Round was therefore run using the same criteria as in previous years. All RTP-funded scholarships were badged as Australian Research Training Program (ARTP) scholarships which is a requirement.

As was previously reported to the Research Committee, and as is detailed in the tables below, in addition to 38 new Scholarships, six University Research Centre Scholarships were also awarded plus a scholarship to the Australian Research Council (ARC) - Linkage Study "Exemplary Early Childhood Educators at Work".

2016 Scholarship Round – outcomes

ARTP Domestic, Full time 19

ARTP International, Full time 7

ARTP Domestic, Part time, (no stipend) 5

University Research Centre Scholarship - ILWS 2

University Research Centre Scholarship – Graham Centre 2

University Research Centre Scholarship - PACT 1

University Research Centre Scholarship – PACT, Part time, (no stipend) 1

ARTP Domestic, Full time – linked to ARC Linkage project 1

Total 38

2016 Scholarship Round – outcomes by Faculty (excluding University Research Centre and additional award)

Applications Successful % Success rates

CSU Domestic scholarships

All 101 22 22

FA&E 48 9 19

FBJBS 28 7 25

FoS 25 6 24

International Scholarships

All 106 10 9

FA&E 11 3 27

FBJBS 41 3 7

FoS 54 4 7

2016 Scholarship Round – outcomes by Research Narrative

% of scholarship in this Theme

Resilient People 34

Flourishing Communities 37

Sustainable Environments 29


Page 25 of 39

14 POLICY INITIATIVES 14.1 HDR

On 4 August 2017, the new Higher Degree by Research Policy became available in the CSU Policy. This new policy was approved by the Academic Senate under AS 17/78 at the meeting held on 12 July 2017. It incorporates the following four separate policies:

Higher Degree by Research Policy – Examinable Works and Examination

Higher Degree by Research Policy – Examinable Works (Presentation of Printed Components)

Higher Degree Research Policy – Supervision

Higher Degree by Research Policy – Enrolment and Progress

The new policy is available here and has been rolled out across the university in a communication plan enabled by the Faculty Liaison Officers, the Research Office Roadshow, Yammer and other channels.

14.2 Scholarships

On 30 June 2017, the new Higher Degree by Research Scholarships Policy – Research Training Program Funded Scholarships policy became available in the CSU Policy Library. This new policy was approved by the Standing Committee of Academic Senate under SCAS 17/12 on 16 June 2017. This is a separate policy required by the Department of Education and Training and cannot be integrated into the new single Higher Degree by Research Policy.

The new policy is available here and will be introduced to those HDR students, and their supervisors, in receipt of this funding.

14.3 Data Management

Research Data Management (RDM) is a crucial part of maximising research investment and leveraging research efforts. RDM includes but is not limited to data retention, accessibility, storage, and security. It is a recommendation of the Australian Code for Responsible Conduct of Research as well as being required by many funding bodies. Many funding bodies require RDM to be specifically addressed in all applications. To ensure CSU researchers follow good RDM practice CSU has established a RDM policy which requires all active research projects (whether funded externally or not) to have a RDM Plan. Comprehensive implementation of this policy commenced 1 June 2017. All researchers and HDR students are expected to undertake RDM training and assessment in the form of an ELMO module. The implementation is being enabled by the Research Office.

15 HDR FUTURE OUTLOOK In 2016 the Commonwealth Government’s released the ACOLA review of the Research Training System and the new model for Research Block Grant funding followed. Both of these events have led to significant scrutiny of the research training system particularly in terms of the quality of training being provided to students, their work readiness and how we can best use and attract funding to achieve the best outcomes. In response, universities are examining their training programs and looking to enhance links with end-users and industry to provide students with more consistent and high quality “real-world” experience.

These two events have identified an urgent need for significant transformative change both in the way we fund HDR study at CSU and the structure, nature and attractiveness of our HDR training program. With greater flexibility within the funding models, increased competitiveness between the universities and the ability of universities to offer tailor-made HDR programs, CSU needs to ensure our HDR training program is unique and aligns with our strategy and mission. We therefore prioritised two key projects that will underpin our development of a unique CSU HDR training program.

The first project is a revision of our scholarship program to best leverage the new funding rules. With the release of the 2017 Research Narrative, a stronger emphasis will be placed on orientating our research efforts around the Research Narrative including recruitment of HDR students into aligned research areas. By targeting scholarships and research support to the Research Narrative we hope to boost research capacity and critical mass in these areas to ensure strong and viable research programs. As a university we are also seeking growth in the number of international and Indigenous HDR students within our cohort and this project will also look at options to achieve this aim.

https://policy.csu.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=433&version=1

https://policy.csu.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=431&version=1

https://www.csu.edu.au/research/institutes-centres/research-support-services/data

http://acola.org.au/wp/saf13-rts-review/

https://www.education.gov.au/research-block-grants


Page 26 of 39

Secondly, with >50% HDR graduates working outside of traditional academic research after graduation it is clear that we need to develop our HDR training program. This redevelopment will ensure we are providing both transferrable skills training and relevant research end-user interactions to prepare HDR graduates for a wide-range of career options beyond academia.

To help achieve both these outcomes we have appointed a HDR Strategic Project Advisor for the remainder of this year. The Project Advisor is working closely with the Director, Research on development and implementation of new programs and offerings to meet the future needs of our HDR students and to define the type of HDR students that CSU wants. These changes will ensure our HDR graduates will have the best and widest future career path options.

We do not anticipate further Commonwealth–driven major changes in HDR training in the next year. Universities will need time to implement the recent funding changes and redevelop their training programs. Additional reporting measures may be required as the government looks to monitor institutions’ responses to the ACOLA Review and funding model changes. Just recently, new impact measures for HDR students effective from 2018 have been introduced.

Over the next 12-18 months we plan to develop a CSU HDR training model that will provide a “point-of-difference” to other universities and provide attractive options for students wishing to undertake research training in the areas where we are seeking to continue to build strength. We hope that our HDR graduates will then provide a valuable highly skilled workforce with skills eminently applicable to the needs of our regions and further afield.

APPENDICES

Page 27 of 39

A. Engagement in External Reviews and Inquiries http://www.csu.edu.au/division/deputyvc/rdi/reviews-and-submissions

The Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research, Development and Industry) regularly engages in and provides submissions to external reviews and inquiries relevant to research, research training, Indigenous education and international education. Recent submissions that the Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor has authored or contributed to include: July 2017 CSU made a submission to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Public Consultation Review of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research Ethics Guidelines. June 2017 CSU submitted comments to the Department of Education and Training on the Draft 2018 HERDC Specifications which will determine how HERDC income for the 2017 calendar year will be collected and assessed. Dr Michelle Evans led a CSU submission to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Consultation Paper: Indigenous Business Sector Strategy – Supercharging Indigenous Business Start-Up And Growth. May 2017 CSU submitted commentary to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on the draft Open Access Policy which was released for comment. This was prepared for submission in consultation with the Research Office, Faculties, University Research Centres and Division of Library Services. March 2017 CSU provided a submission to the Department of Education and Training consultation on the New Research Block Grant Data Requirements. February 2017 CSU provided a submission to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science's Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Programme priority area consultation. CSU provided a submission to the National Health and Medical Research Council's (NHMRC) Review of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. January 2017 CSU provided a submission to the Department of Education and Training's Draft 2016 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap. The Roadmap sets out Australia's national research infrastructure priority areas for the coming decade. December 2016 CSU Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) Chair, Associate Prof. Catherine Allan provided a submission to the NHMRC public consultation on Section 3 of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (the National Statement). Pro-Vice Chancellor, Indigenous Education, Professor Jeannie Herbert AM, prepared a CSU submission to the Universities Australia (UA) Indigenous Strategy Consultation. September 2016 The CSU Animal Care and Ethics Committee, through the DVC RDI, made a submission to the National Health and Medical Research Council's best practice methodology in research involving animals targeted consultation CSU provided a submission to the 2016 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap Capability Issues Paper

http://www.csu.edu.au/division/deputyvc/rdi/reviews-and-submissions


Page 28 of 39

B. Staffing Profile

FTE Academic Staff (Research Focussed) 2012-2017

FTE Academic Staff (Teaching and Research) 2012-2017

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Level E 16.16 14.25 12.93 16.80 14.55 9.35

Level D 1.25 3.00 2.81 1.60 2.70 3.20

Level C 11.46 7.60 6.55 4.12 2.00 3.32

Level B 20.93 20.33 13.26 10.51 10.10 8.66

Level A 10.00 10.72 17.17 18.35 16.80 14.63

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Research Focussed

Level A Level B Level C Level D Level E

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Level E 46.240 53.000 47.460 33.740 31.800 29.700

Level D 56.350 54.800 55.000 47.100 46.200 47.210

Level C 121.490 120.730 121.790 119.700 123.900 124.500

Level B 354.740 427.930 376.020 257.650 245.850 213.700

Level A 34.900 30.000 24.200 17.200 12.600 13.130

0.000

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

Teaching and Research



Page 29 of 39

2017 Academic staff (Research Focussed and Teaching & Research) with a Doctorate

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


staff with doctorate


Page 30 of 39

C. Indigenous Research Pilot Research Project: Nature of Successful Education Leadership in Rural Remote Education Locations (Felicity Taylor-Edwards) Approximately one in four students in New South Wales attend non-metropolitan schools. There is a gap between metropolitan and rural and remote education outcomes nationally. There is strong evidence of declining achievement levels broadly in Australian schools. This is the broad focus for a capacity building and research partnership jointly funded by CSU and 4 NSW remote Schools. It seeks to identify the nature of successful educational leadership and to better understand how it can be tailored specifically to rural remote education conditions inclusive of high Indigenous, high low socio-economic and rural regional to improve educational practices and impact student learning. Leading teacher learning and development has been found to be twice as powerful as any other factor in affecting student outcomes with leaders affecting student learning indirectly through teachers, but nonetheless explicitly. (The New Zealand Ministry of Education, Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd, 2015). This pilot co-develops and supports 4 western NSW School Principals, Executive and head teachers to practice, reflect and embed sustainable leadership throughout all levels of the school. It is led by experienced executive education leaders who have extensive remote and Indigenous education capability. It is supported by CSU research. The partnership will document the impact the project has had on the capacity of the school leaders to improve student learning. It will create an applicable, accessible and affordable capacity building program, directly related to rural remote education leadership’s impact on improved student outcomes that in time may be expanded to other industry sectors in rural remote areas as well as a suit of rural remote teacher education specialist instruction and accreditation. The State has a mandatory requirement for 50 hours of educator professional development annually. There is a need for it to be relevant to the situations in which the school leaders find themselves. Rural remote schools are actively seeking cost effective, in situ sustained support, delivered by those with the experience that they can have confidence in. There is a clear commercial opportunity for CSU in this current work. The initial External Eye pilot process (EEP) revealed significant commonality across staff in all four schools about the critical need for such work. Existing professional development opportunities are ad hoc and perpetuate the inequity of rural /remote education locations. A testimonial from on the Principals stated that “Even at this early stage, it is apparent that this is probably the best leadership development program any executive member has participated in. To have regular, intensive and ongoing support, both individually and in teams, from experienced school leaders is absolutely invaluable, and previously unheard of.” Project B: Revitalising First Nations Communities through Collaborative Creative Practice (Bernard Sullivan) Working on an ongoing basis with local Wagga Elders the new ‘Revitalising First Nations communities through Collaborative Creative Practice’ project is still moving through the ethics approval process, as it is fairly unique in its nature. Outcomes of the research will include books, films and a one stop website/digital keeping place which would include videos, photos and other forms of publication, such as blogs with Elders’ involvement which all focus on telling significant stories from Wiradjuri Elders. Other outcomes will be academic papers based not only on the research outcomes, but also with investigation of processes and development of methodology as a layer of research. The Burambabali Gulbali Association, a strong community-minded committee, has been formed by the community as a vehicle for their work with Dr Sullivan. This Association will be involved in the publication of creative works emerging from the project. It is hoped that there will be a possible formal agreement between CSU and the Association. A CSU Green Sustainability grant awarded to Dr Sullivan will be utilised in Documenting Wiradjuri Knowledge of the Murrumbidgee River. Film screenings and book launch of Yindyamarra Yambuwan were held in Wagga and Forbes in June, coinciding with NAIDOC celebrations. The film was also screened in Colombia at the World Congress for Action Research and the Global Assembly for Knowledge Democracy in June, along with a presentation made by Professor Jeannie Herbert AM and Dr Christine Edwards-Groves.


Page 31 of 39

D. Research Narrative


Page 32 of 39


Page 33 of 39

E. Research Impact Case Studies http://innovate.csu.edu.au/impact



Page 34 of 39

F. ERA/EI 2018 CSU Governance Structure Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) is the Australian Research Council (ARC) led evaluation of research quality. Engagement and Impact Assessment (EI) is the ARC led national engagement and impact assessment which will examine how universities are translating their research into economic, social and other benefits. ERA and EI are independent (but related) assessments due in early 2018, with data collection and processing currently underway.

As ERA and EI will operate simultaneously, the structure for governance and delivery of both assessments will be common. Three groups within the CSU model will be responsible for enabling delivery of ERA and EI assessments in 2018 (Figure A). The Steering Group is responsible for the overarching strategic direction of the ERA and EI processes and the timely delivery of the final submissions. This Group guides and informs the work of the Academic Delivery Group and the Technical Group. Two Academic Delivery Groups (ERA and EI) are tasked with assuring the completeness, quality and integrity of submission content and assisting with optimisation of ERA and EI submissions respectively to best represent CSU’s research activity. A single Technical Group is responsible for technical and data aspects of the both the ERA and EI submissions, assuring compliance with reporting requirements, as well as data collection, systems preparation, testing and uploading of various submission stages. In support of these Groups will be an ERA Coordinator and an EI Coordinator based within the Research Office who are responsible for ensuring coordination and communication among groups and communicating direction from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research, Development and Industry) (DVC (RDI)), Pro-Vice Chancellor, Global Engagement (Research and Partnerships)1 (PVC GE(R&P)) and the Director Research as appropriate. Fields of Research (FoR) Champions will provide discipline-specific knowledge and guidance representing each of the 22 FoR included in the assessments.

Figure A: Governance and delivery structure for ERA 2018 and EI 2018.

Steering Group The Steering Group will be responsible for strategic direction of the ERA and EI processes and the timely delivery of the final submissions. They will guide and inform the work of the Technical Group and the Academic Delivery Group. The Steering Group will be supported from the Research Office by the Research Impact Officer and ERA Coordinator, as well as the Director, Research.

Academic Delivery Groups Members of these two Groups will be tasked with assuring the completeness, quality and integrity of submission content and assisting with optimisation of the ERA and EI submissions to best represent CSU’s research activity. The separate ERA and EI groups will be co-chaired by the PVC GE(R&P) and the Director, Research. Specific actions of the Academic Delivery Group are to:

ERA Coordinator

EI Coordinator

Steering Group

Chair: DVC (RDI)

Technical Group

Chair: Director, Research

ERA and EI Academic Delivery GroupsCo-Chairs: PVC

GE(R&P) and Director, Research

FoR Champions


Page 35 of 39

Verify the appropriate categorisation of publications, creative works, research income, and research application measures by field of research, to ensure the best outcome for the University.

Confirm selection of items for ERA expert peer review or the selected content for the EI narrative statements including identification of authors for impact case studies and engagement narratives.

Operate independent of own research area and be focused on achieving the highest quality CSU submissions across all research areas.

Workload expectation – Although we cannot estimate workload in hours at this stage we can provide estimates of when we expect the workload to be highest. Peak workload is estimated to be around Oct/Nov and Feb/Mar.

FoR Champions FoR Champions are an important addition to the governance structure from previous ERA submissions, and their inclusion allows the Academic Delivery Groups to better focus on the quality of ERA and EI submissions. The FoR Champions role is to engage researchers to ensure that discipline assignments are accurate, complete and optimised for ERA 2018 noting that EI data is linked to ERA data. FoR Champions will also have a role in the identification of case study contributors as well as contributing to the engagement narratives for EI 2018 and context statements for ERA FoR disciplines. FoR Champions may have a longer involvement in EI 2018 because of the likely extension of the due date for impact case studies.

Workload expectation – Although we cannot estimate workload in hours at this stage we can provide estimates of when we expect the workload to be higher. Peak workload is estimated to be around Nov/Dec and May/Jun (assisting with EI case studies/narratives).

ERA/EI 2018 Timetable Dates estimated on ERA2015 timetable and provisional ARC information on the 2018 process.

Establish Governance Groups August 2017

Prepare data Aug-Oct

Optimise submission Sep-Dec

ERA and EI data submission Mar-May 2018

Certification of ERA/EI Data Submission May 2018

Certification of EI Narrative/Impact Studies June 2018

ERA/EI Results December 2018

The ARC has given some indication that the submission period of EI case studies may be extended until later in 2018 although this is yet to be confirmed.


Page 36 of 39

G. HDR Load

Australian Sectoral HDR Load Data (EFTSL) Source: Department of Education and Training, UCube Statistical Database.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Domestic Overseas Total

Charles Sturt University

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

The University of MelbourneThe University of Sydney

Monash UniversityThe University of Queensland

University of New South WalesThe Australian National University

Queensland University of TechnologyCurtin University of Technology

The University of AdelaideRMIT University

Macquarie UniversityThe University of Western Australia

Griffith UniversityDeakin University

The University of NewcastleUniversity of Wollongong

University of Technology, SydneyLa Trobe University

University of TasmaniaFlinders University

Swinburne University of TechnologyUniversity of South Australia

Western Sydney UniversityJames Cook University

Murdoch UniversityVictoria University

The University of New EnglandEdith Cowan University

University of Southern QueenslandCharles Sturt UniversityUniversity of Canberra

Australian Catholic UniversitySouthern Cross University

CQUniversityUniversity of the Sunshine Coast

The University of Notre Dame AustraliaCharles Darwin University

Federation University AustraliaBond University

University of DivinityNon-University Higher Education Institutions

Non-University Higher Education Institutions (excluding Avondale)Private Universities and Non-University Higher Education…

Avondale College of Higher EducationNon-University Higher Education Institutions

Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary EducationTorrens University Australia

Australian Defence Force AcademyAustralian Maritime College

Headcount

EFTSL


Page 37 of 39

CSU HDR load – International vs. Domestic

CSU HDR Percentage International HDR Load

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Domestic International

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

28

2625

24

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% Inte

rnational H

DR

Percentage International HDR Load

Headcount


Page 38 of 39

H. Faculty Trends: HDR Commencements, Load and Completions

Faculty HDR Commencements

Faculty HDR Load

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CommencingHeadcount

CommencingEFTSL

CommencingHeadcount

CommencingEFTSL

CommencingHeadcount

CommencingEFTSL

Arts and Education Bus, Justce & Behav Sci Science

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Headcount EFTSL Headcount EFTSL Headcount EFTSL

Faculty of Arts and Education Faculty of Business, Justice andBehavioural Sciences

Faculty of Science

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016


Page 39 of 39

Faculty HDR Completions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Faculty of Arts and Education Faculty of Business, Justice andBehavioural Sciences

Faculty of Science

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

annual research report to academic … · annual research report to academic senate ... training)...

Documents