Australian Research on Asia by Region

SRI Survey on Research Capacity and Networks

In January 2004, the Asia and China network teams surveyed the views of partners to their Strategic Research Initiatives about Australia's research standing and capacity, and on problems and prospects for further research networks in their fields of research. Eighty-one questionnaires were distributed and thirty-seven responses were received. Respondents drawn from the initial SRI networks were all active and productive researchers in the Asian Studies field with ARC grant records.

The Questionnaire canvassed six issues: research scale, research training in Australia, research infrastructure in Australia, the standing and impact of Australian research, current network activities involving Australian researchers, and the relative priority that should be given to these and other issues in the development of an Asia-area research network. Some questions requested basic information about the respondents, others sought answers of the agree/disagree variety, and all but a few question sought to elicit discursive judgements about the capacity of the field, supported by evidence for judgements offered. Click here for questionnaire.

2. Research Scale

Respondents were asked to comment on issues of research scale raised by a number of potential research topics, including SARS, terrorism, and the communications revolution. The question neither sought nor elicited quantitative information.

Many respondents listed themes or topics that could benefit from large-scale collaboration, including Australia's economic security, language/linguistic issues, heritage issues, the environment, consumption, religion, urbanisation, migration/refugee issues, health and disease, political transformations, policy development for dealing with regional crises, and the interface between particular national states/societies and larger global processes.

The question also yielded a number of specific comments on the relationship between "how we network" and actual network outcomes, and on a felt need to ensure a "multi-nodal and comparative approach" in any large-scale research collaboration.

3. Research training in Australia

Respondents were asked whether undergraduate education in Asia-related fields in Australia offered adequate preparation for higher-degree research. Close to half agreed that undergraduate education was adequate for the purpose, thirty-five percent thought not, and seventeen percent did not know. See chart of Q3.1.

Respondents were asked whether postgraduate training in Asia-related fields in Australia offered adequate preparation for international professional careers. Close to half agreed that postgraduate training was adequate for the purpose, thirty-eight percent thought not, and fourteen percent did not know. See chart of Q3.2.

Among those who supplied evidence that Australian research degrees equipped students well for international careers, several cited postgraduate students from the region who had returned home to become prominent scholars, industry leaders, and senior government officials.

Among those who disagreed, repeated comments were made to the effect that Australian postgraduates have limited opportunities to conduct research in the region, and that the absence of course-work components in Australian research degrees left students ill-equipped to teach or research beyond their areas of specialisation or to compete with graduates from Britain and North America.

The network partners propose to assist in developing an all-Australia alumni list of postgraduate students from the region who have contributed to their communities on their return.

4. Research infrastructure in Australia

Respondents were asked whether Australian library, archival and digital resources on Asia are appropriate for the national research effort. Sixty-eight percent answered that resources are appropriate and thirty-two percent answered that they are not. See chart of Q4.1.

Respondents were asked whether Australian library, archival and digital resources on Asia are readily accessible to researchers throughout the country. Forty-one percent answered that such resources are readily accessible and fifty percent replied that they are not. Nine percent did not know. See chart of Q4.2.

Comments supplied in response to both questions tended to overlap. Those who responded favourably and unfavourably were equally inclined to comment on the excellent resources of the NLA and ANU, on significant holdings in Sydney and Melbourne, and on the inadequacy of collections housed elsewhere. Recommended issues to be addressed by a research network included improving access to holdings and digital resources.

5. Standing and impact of Australian research

Respondents were asked whether Australian research on Asia has set international trends and benchmarks in recent decades.

Eighty-five percent agreed that Australian research had set international trends and benchmarks, six percent disagreed, and nine percent did not know. See chart of Q5.1.

Australian researchers might reasonably be expected to consider their collective efforts highly, as indeed they do. The low negative response is nevertheless significant.

The question was designed chiefly to elicit evidence to support the widely-held view among Australian researchers that their research on Asia has significant international standing and impact. Comments in support of the claim pointed repeatedly to the unique standing of Australian research on Indonesia in international scholarship, to pioneering theoretical achievements in particular fields (notably in South Asian Studies), to the international prominence of international academic journals for Chinese studies, South Asian Studies, and Japanese law published in Australia, and to the very high standing of individual Australian researchers in Chinese and Japanese studies. See Edited Survey Responses.

6.Current network activities involving Australian researchers

Respondents were asked to name networks in which they were currently involved. Over forty current networks were listed. See Edited Survey Responses.

Respondents were also asked to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of networks in which they are or have been involved. Among strengths were listed strong, theoretically-focussed or problem-focussed structures for networks, and a capacity to bring the very best researchers together from around the world to focus on specific themes or topics.

Among weaknesses of existing networks were listed inadequate collaboration between researchers and practitioners in certain fields, lack of time and funds, over-dependence on certain hard-pressed individuals to run networks, poor network organisation, and particular problems facing Australian networks in securing funds from philanthropic or ARC sources to bring researchers from North America and Europe ("a big mistake given the importance of conferences in building up scholarly networks.")

7. Relative priorities of a network

Respondents were asked to rank six nominated issues by relative importance and to propose further issues of value or concern to the proposed network. The six nominated issues were research training, cross-disciplinary research on Asia, inter-regional research on Asia, interactions between academic researchers and professional practitioners, access to research infrastructure, and provision of teleconferencing facilities.

A complete set of charts illustrating outcomes from the first to the sixth priority is available. See chart for Q7.1. The following is a sampling of results.

First priorities were distributed as follows 'ranked No.1 out of 6':

1. Collaboration across disciplines (40%)
2. Research training (24%)
3. Collaboration across regions (15%)
4. Interaction between academic researchers and professional practitioners (12%)
5. Access to research infrastructure (9%)
6. Teleconferencing facilities (0%)

First and Second priorities (combined) were distributed follows 'Most Important (ranked 1 or 2)' .

1. Collaboration across disciplines (39%)
2. Research training (21%)
3. Collaboration across regions (21%)
4. Interaction between academic researchers and professional practitioners (10%)
5. Access to research infrastructure (9%)
6. Teleconferencing facilities (0%)

Respondents consistently ranked inter-disciplinary research first among listed priorities for a research network (or network of networks). Research training ranked second on one count, and equal second with inter-regional collaboration on another. Networking across the professional divide ranked fourth, not far ahead of access to research infrastructure.

In free-text comments, respondents made frequent reference to lack of time for research activities and research networking - time consumed in part by filling out endless forms ("such as this one") to respond to new demands or meet accountability requirements.

Several respondents commented on the desirability/undesirability of networking outside the academy, and on the difficulty of doing so.