OECD – ��ճԹ� I Championing Mathematical Sciences for Australia’s Advancement

Universities invest in industry internships for PhDs

��ճԹ� — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 08:01:03 +0000

MELBOURNE, MONDAY 3 AUGUST, 2015: Eight universities in Victoria and NSW have entered into a partnership with APR.Intern to boost industry-academic collaborations and improve the work-readiness of Australian postgraduate students.

The partnership looks set to deliver the federal government’s current agenda on the commercialisation of publicly funded research with every internship creating a collaboration between academia and industry – ensuring a work-ready PhD student and a significant outcome for the industry partner.

Placing over 130 postgraduate students into industry — across all study disciplines and business sectors — APR.Intern is Australia’s leading PhD internship program, delivering research solutions for challenges facing business. The student receives a stipend and is supported by an academic mentor throughout the 4-5 month project. Meanwhile, industry is reaping the benefits responding with a 97 per cent business satisfaction rating.

“Work-readiness of our PhD students, and the links between industry engagement and national productivity, are critically important matters for this country. The APR.Intern program is one such shining example,” says Professor Ian Chubb, Chief Scientist for Australia. [1]

The co-investment partnership in detail

The Victorian cluster includes the University of Melbourne, Monash University, Deakin University, Swinburne University, La Trobe University and RMIT University. And, in the NSW cluster the University of Sydney and University of Technology, Sydney.

“The strategic partnership will enable APR.Intern to greatly expand. By embedding business development officers within these Victorian and NSW universities we will develop a wider range of industry connections for the benefit of our PhD students,” says Dr Hannah Hartig, National Program Manager, APR.Intern.

Further expansion into other Australian states and territories is planned for 2016 and 2017.

“APR.Intern provides the match-making so often needed in industry-academic collaborations and our solutions to sore points, such as intellectual property rights, are popular with industry partners,” says Dr Hartig.

“The nation that goes all-in on innovation today will own the global economy tomorrow,” says Barack Obama, US President. [2]

Continued national dialogue laments the lack of industry-university collaboration in Australia and the future impact this will have on our global competitiveness. [3]

Australian Industry and Science Minister Ian Macfarlane recently stated: “Lifting the rate of collaboration between industry and research is essential to maintaining Australia’s economic growth. In order to sustain our prosperity, we have to build on our successes in innovation and focus on our areas of competitive strength to keep pace in the rapidly evolving global economy.” [4]

Australia ranks 29 out of 30 in the OECD in terms of the proportion of businesses collaborating with universities. This is in stark contrast to Australia being ninth in research output per capita amongst OECD nations. Australian businesses that engage in collaborative innovation with research organisations are three times more likely to gain productivity growth – so why this disparity? [4] [5]

“We must increase the penetration of Australian graduates with advanced research expertise into the private sector. They will boost innovation and business-university collaboration but we must give them those skills. And give business the confidence to employ them,” says Professor Geoff Prince, ��ճԹ� Director.

This co-investment partnership is timely given the National Strategy for Work Integrated Learning led by the Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN).[5] There are few industry-based work-integrated learning opportunities for PhD students, especially those cohorts not associated with industry-supported initiatives such as Cooperative Research Centres or Industrial Transformation Training Centres.

— ends —

AUSTRALIA’S PERFORMANCE IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

Researchers in business and higher education
OECD scorecard shows that out of the developed countries Australia has one of the lowest numbers of researchers in business – 2.2 researchers are employed in business for every 1000 workers. The proportion in the smaller countries of Sweden, Denmark and Finland are more than three times that of Australia.

SOURCE: Office of the Chief Scientist, Occasional Paper Series 2012 — Alan G. Pettigrew ‘AUSTRALIA’S POSITION IN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION’.

Business collaboration with higher education and public research agencies
Less than one in two Australia firms identify themselves as innovators. And only 4 per cent of our large firms collaborate with higher education and research agencies – that ranks us at 33 (out of 33) in the OECD. For Australian SMEs we rank equal with Brazil at 32.

��䷡:��OECD, based on Eurostat (CIS-2010) and national data sources, June 2013.

[1] Chief Scientist of Australia Professor Ian Chubb speech, 6 February 2013, ‘Productivity, Industry Engagement and the PhD Workforce’

[2] President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address, January 2014

[3] Government Discussion Paper ‘Boosting the Commercial Returns from Research,’ October 2014.

[4] Brisbane launch of ATN PwC Report, 30 March 2015

[5] Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN) PwC Report ‘Innovate and Prosper – Ensuring Australia’s Future Competitiveness through University-Industry Collaboration,’ March 2015.

What’s missing in research policy?

��ճԹ� — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:52:53 +0000

Senator Kim Carr,Shadow Minister for Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Industry, gave a speech to the Innovative Research Universities (IRU) senior staff forum on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 .

In his address Senator Carr highlights the importance of fundamental research and reminds us:

Universities, by definition, are dedicated to the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. They exist to discover what is not known as well as to pass on to new generations what is already known.

A research policy that neglects basic research will also fail to achieve its objectives with regard to applied research. You will all know instances of discoveries arising from pure research that not only expanded technological possibilities but transformed our daily lives. […] Without research into black holes, we wouldn’t have WiFi.

Read the senator’s speech here, or on his .

The Government’s Agenda

Today I propose to talk about the Abbott Government’s research agenda and Labor’s approach.

You will not be surprised to hear that I believe that the Government’s agenda is fundamentally flawed.

It is not only a matter of the substantial cuts the Government has made, and intends to make, to the funding of universities, to publicly funded research agencies, and to programs promoting industry-research collaboration.

Those cuts are bad enough. Over the course of two Budgets, the Government has sought to drain more than $3 billion from the system.

What’s arguably worse, however, is the incoherent, indeed chaotic, nature of this so-called agenda.

Earlier this month, the Government announced yet another review of research policy – the sixth in less than two years.

The Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, said that the Government would undertake a review of university research funding and policy as part of its Boosting the Commercial Returns from Research��ٰ��ٱ𲵲�.

I am not going to argue that the current block grant funding system is perfect – and I know the IRU is of the view that it could be improved.

But the context and nature of this review give me no confidence that it will lead to positive change.

Christopher Pyne’s announcement did not mention adequacy of funding, or how this review would interact with the work of the other studies.

There was no discernible requirement for input from industry, and no apparent direction to take account of broader science and innovation policy.

The importance of basic research

Worst of all was the fact that neither in the terms of reference nor in the Minister’s statement was there any mention of the importance of basic research and the generation of new knowledge.

That is the deepest problem I have with the Abbott Government’s research policy: I fear that the balance between pure and applied research has been lost.

My issue here, as I trust you understand, is with the Government.

I am aware that some of you are personally involved in the work of the new review.

I have no doubt that the review will do everything the Minister has asked of it.

The problem lies in what he has failed to ask.

A research policy that neglects basic research will also fail to achieve its objectives with regard to applied research.

You will all know instances of discoveries arising from pure research that not only expanded technological possibilities but transformed our daily lives.

The usual example cited by proud Australians is WiFi, which was made possible by technology CSIRO scientists developed for deep-space radio astronomy.

Without research into black holes, we wouldn’t have WiFi.

This isn’t a matter of one accidental spin-off. It is how human knowledge has always progressed.

To ignore or downgrade basic research is to curtail our chances of doing applied research really well.

Yet the Abbott Government’s much-touted commercialisation agenda fails to recognise this.

It may be, of course, that those conducting the review will advise the Government that neglecting basic research will undermine its commercial goals.

But I am not confident that ministers would understand their point.

The role of IRU

Universities, by definition, are dedicated to the disinterested pursuit of knowledge.

They exist to discover what is not known as well as to pass on to new generations what is already known.

That brings me to another question you have asked me to discuss: the role of your own network.

The six universities in the IRU have this in common: that they are chiefly located in regional cities or in outer suburbs of our larger cities.

You will know from the stance I have taken during the debate over the Government’s plans to deregulate fees that I attach a particular importance to suburban and regional universities, and the people they serve.

Your universities are sources of social mobility and inclusiveness – they provide educational opportunities to many Australians who might not otherwise have access to higher education.

What is more, they conduct research that is often very closely connected to the concerns of local communities.

I have in mind projects like:

Charles Darwin University’s research into the eradication of ear disease among indigenous Australians.
Flinders University’s research into eliminating the difference in outcomes for regional heart attack patients;
James Cook University’s development of anti-inflammatory treatments for hookworm;
Murdoch University’s study of innovations in crop rotation, saving $250,000 per farm per year;
Griffith University’s study of biogas and biochar, integrating both carbon-negative energy production and carbon sequestration within one agricultural project;

and La Trobe University’s collaboration with the Victorian Government in the use of DNA analysis to improve breeding outcomes in farming.

This research record is proof, to those who might demand it, that suburban and regional universities punch above their weight.

The ERA debate

In the sector, talk of research records often leads to discussion of the Excellence in Research for Australia framework of quality assessment, which Labor introduced.

I remain convinced that its citation-based approach is the fairest and most effective means of assessing research excellence in an international context.

And I am sure that the projects I have just mentioned would measure up well under the ERA framework.

I also know that university engagement with industry and the broader community has an impact well beyond citation, and that this is more difficult to quantify.

The challenge is to find a way of supplementing ERA, so that we also acknowledge and reward engagement.

But nothing will be gained by tearing down one measure to create the other.

Labor’s record

To hear Christopher Pyne and Ian Macfarlane talk, you would think that they invented the concept of research engagement with industry.

Yet when they try to explain what they have in mind, they all too often let business and industry off the hook, apparently expecting that universities and research agencies will do the heavy lifting.

And they misrepresent the record of Labor’s most recent time in office with breath-taking chutzpah.

So let me set the record straight here on the comparative performance of the two governments.

The Abbott Government has been in office for almost two years and recently delivered its second Budget.

In Labor’s first 18 months, we conducted comprehensive reviews of the innovation and higher education systems, and responded to these in our second Budget.

That Budget delivered a 10-year innovation strategy that included $3.1 billion in new investment in public and private sector R&D.

It introduced Sustainable Research Excellence, recognising the need to properly fund the indirect costs of research.

It established the Joint Research Engagement program, to foster and reward university research collaboration with industry and other end-users.

I think we would all agree that this measure has not been as effective at driving behaviour as we might have hoped – but it was a step in the right direction.

We took that step because I have always understood and advocated the need for universities and industry to work together better.

That’s why, in addition to our university commitments, we established, among other measures:

Commercialisation Australia – to help bring the fruits of Australian research to market;
Enterprise Connect – one objective of which was to improve businesses’ access to new technologies and the latest research; and
Researchers in Business – to build a human connection, promoting understanding by researchers of how their work could be applied, and in business of the value of highly developed research skills in driving innovation.

What has been destroyed

All of these programs have been abolished: the government has systematically dismantled the suite of innovation measures that had gained real traction in industry and the research sector and were achieving real results.

The same government is abandoning NICTA and its 300 PhD students who work directly with industry.

In two budgets, Labor created a framework for fostering research-industry collaboration. And in two budgets, the Abbott Government has done its best to destroy it.

So when I look at this record, and then I hear about yet another review into how to boost the commercial returns from research, I cannot help but be sceptical.

STEM and the future

The recently announced HILDA survey – which I am sure you have heard about – has not been in the news only because it ruffled feathers among the Go8.

HILDA also reported a drift away from science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines among young Australians.

In the last year of the survey, 2012, only 22 per cent of men with post-school education aged 25-34 held engineering and related qualifications, compared with 31 per cent of 45-54 year old males.

There was an increase in the number of women studying engineering, but from a very low base.

HILDA echoes findings by the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group, which have also reported skills shortages and called for a focus on improving STEM literacy across the workforce.

In September last year the Chief Scientist issued a major report on STEM, in which he called on policymakers to secure training in STEM skills across the education system and the economy.

More recently his office released a summary of a Deloitte Access Economics survey of employers, which found that almost half of those surveyed expected their need for STEM graduates and tradespeople to increase during the next decade.

If these multiple warnings worry Christopher Pyne and Ian Macfarlane, they have given no indication of it.

Perhaps they have been listening only to those who argue that there is already an oversupply of STEM graduates.

Such arguments typically try to predict the job market of coming decades by looking at the employment histories of recent graduates.

But conditions in the present post-boom market don’t change the fact that the jobs of the future are going to require STEM skills.

Three out of every four of the fastest-growing occupations in our economy will require STEM literacy.

That includes occupations that traditionally attract humanities and social science graduates.

And, although Australia’s Government is content to blithely ignore the decline in some STEM enrolments, governments in other countries with which we like to compare ourselves are investing in STEM education.

Labor’s agenda

A Labor government would not allow Australia to slip behind the rest of the world in this way.

That is why Bill Shorten announced in his Budget Reply speech that Labor will:

Set an ambition for the nation to invest 3 per cent of our GDP in Research and Development by the end of the decade;
Foster the essential literacy of the 21st century – the digital language of coding – across the school curriculum;
Boost the skills of 25,000 existing teachers and train 25,000 new teachers in STEM skills.

Provide an incentive for more talented students to study STEM disciplines at university, via HECS-free degree scholarships.

I want to emphasise the ambition here – 3 per cent of GDP being spent on R&D by 2030.

As Bill said, this will require universities, industry, the people and the Parliament to work together and each to pull their weight.

Labor’s plan for the future of the education system and for the jobs of the future is real and it is clear.

After almost two years, what’s also clear is the Liberals’ complete lack of a plan.

A time of opportunity

Let me close by saying this is potentially a time of great opportunity for universities.

Since Mr Pyne’s plan for deregulating fees and cutting the funding of Commonwealth Supported Places by 20 per cent was announced in the 2014 Budget, the higher education debate in this country has been characterised by uncertainty and anxiety.

I believe that the time for anxiety is over, even if Mr Pyne tries for a third time to get a deregulation bill through the Parliament.

I do not think he can expect any greater success in getting a deregulation bill through the Senate than he had the previous two times.

And if the Government wants to fight an election on its plan to price many young Australians out of higher education, Labor is fully prepared for the fight.

The evidence has long been in: Australians do not want $100,000 degrees and soaring HECS debts.

What they do want is what your universities do well: opening up opportunities for those who otherwise might not have had them.

That is why I say now is a time of great opportunity for universities.

Universities have always had the central role in generating new knowledge.

That role puts them in pole position to help shape the knowledge economy of the 21st Century.

BHP Billiton Foundation invests in Australia’s mathematical future

��ճԹ� — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 02:06:43 +0000

MELBOURNE, TUESDAY 28 APRIL 2015: Today, the ��ճԹ� (��ճԹ�) and the BHP Billiton Foundation launch Choose Maths, a five-year national program that will turn around public perception of mathematics and statistics as a career choice for girls and young women.

Working from the ground up, Choose Maths begins with a focus on mathematics education in primary and secondary schools. The BHP Billiton Foundation has contributed $22 million toward the partnership, which will enable ��ճԹ� Schools to expand its outreach capacity across Australia over the next five years.

The program will contribute to the health of the mathematics pipeline in Australia from school through university and out to industry and the workplace by:
— providing mathematics-ready teacher professional development in 120 schools across Australia and resources for every school in the country;
— developing a national mathematical sciences careers awareness campaign;
— establishing an “inspiring women in mathematics network”; and
— holding annual BHP Billiton awards for excellence in the teaching and learning of mathematics.

Research-based strategies for encouraging girls and young women into mathematics and STEM-related courses will be core to the program. The large-scale careers awareness campaign will be driven by research into community perceptions about mathematics.

STEM skills are critical for Australia’s productivity and global competitiveness

Innovation-active businesses are around twice as likely to use engineering and science skills, and three times more likely to use information and communications technology skills than innovation-inactive businesses [1]. It is estimated that 75 per cent of the fastest growing occupations require competency in the STEM disciplines [2]. It is no surprise, therefore, that in a 2013 survey, conducted by the Australian Industry Group, the majority of businesses indicated they had difficulty recruiting employees with these skills [3]. If no action is taken, demand for tertiary graduates with STEM skills, particularly mathematics, will continue to outstrip supply.

Women — an untapped resource to maximise talent

The percentage of male mathematical sciences graduates in Australia sits at half the OECD average; for women this drops to one-third [4]. Between now and 2020 we need new PhD graduates to grow the expert mathematical and statistical workforce by 17 per cent – a currently unattainable figure [5].

If Australia increases the participation of girls and young women in STEM we can contribute to addressing the gender wage gap and fill graduate places needed to secure a productive and innovative future. Eliminating the gender wage gap could be worth around $93 billion – that’s 8.5 per cent of GDP [6].

“The low participation of girls and women in the study of the mathematical sciences and in the quantitative professions is a significant national social and economic challenge.

“This landmark five year project, undertaken by the ��ճԹ� and funded by the BHP Billiton Foundation, aims to build self-sustaining education communities where girls and young women share equally in the rewarding careers and rich life experiences that mathematics offers,” says ��ճԹ� Director, Professor Geoff Prince.

— ends —

Media planning to attend the launch are asked to contact Stephanie Pradier at ��ճԹ� on 0424 568 314 or stephanie@amsi.org.au, to facilitate arrangements and interviews with:

Andrew Mackenzie, CEO BHP Billiton
(Please note: in order to secure an interview please contact Stephanie before 2pm Thursday 23 April.)

Professor Geoff Prince, ��ճԹ� Director

Janine McIntosh, Choose Maths Program Director
M: 0402 408 507 E: janine@amsi.org.au

The numbers on Australia’s decline in mathematics:
— In 2010 the Australian Industry Group said more than 75 per cent of employers responding to a survey reported that low levels of literacy and numeracy affected their businesses.
— Forty per cent of Year 7-10 maths classes nationally are taught by teachers who are teaching “out-of-field”. These teachers are qualified teachers, but their undergraduate course was not in mathematics or did not contain sufficient mathematics for them to undertake a method subject in their diploma of education. This figure is roughly three times the international average and twice the estimated rate for Year 7-10 science classes.
— 54 per cent of adult Australians have only basic numeracy skills.
— Research found that almost three quarters (74 per cent) of students who studied two science subjects in their final year of secondary school continued to study science-related areas at university.
— The figure below shows the number of girls and boys participating in advanced mathematics subjects at Year 12 between 2006 and 2013.

Further Resources:

Footnotes:
[1] Australian Government (2012) Australian Innovation System Report – 2012 DIISRTE, Canberra, p36
[2] Becker K & Park K (2011) Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning. A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5/6), p23.
[3] Australian Industry Group, Lifting our Science, technology, Engineering and Maths Skills, Australian Industry Group, Sydney p.p.3-7.
[4] Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators, Table A4.2b (Web only) Distribution of tertiary new entrants, by field of education and gender (2009)
[5] Edwards, D., Radloff, A., and Coates, H. (2009). Supply, Demand and Characteristics of the Higher Degree by Research Population in Australia. Canberra: Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Commonwealth of Australia.
[6] The Impact of a sustained gender wage gap on the Australian Economy, Report to the Office for Women, Department of Families, Community Services, Housing and Indigenous Affairs. Prepared by NATSEM University of Canberra, R. Cassells, Y. Vidyattaman, R. Miranti and J.McNamara. November 2009 p vi

Maths and science do the heavy lifting

��ճԹ� — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 04:56:33 +0000

MELBOURNE, THURSDAY 26 MARCH, 2015: The ��ճԹ� (��ճԹ�) is delighted with the recent recognition given to the prominence of the role mathematics and science have in the Australian economy. The sheer size of the numbers is impressive, as is the flow-on effect.

Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, reported that advanced mathematical and physical sciences make a direct contribution of $145 billion a year to the Australian economy – about 11 per cent of GDP.

The Importance of Advanced Physical and Mathematical Sciences to the Australian Economy, was commissioned by the Academy of Science and Chubb’s office, and was released in conjunction with his address to the National Press Club on Wednesday March 25. It combines the expertise of Australia’s scientific community with that of business and industry.

The report reflects the ubiquity of the mathematical sciences in modern scientific research. And emphasises the knock-on effects it has for our economy.

The physical and mathematical sciences also contribute, in additional flow-on benefits, another 11 per cent of Australia’s GDP annually, bringing the total benefits to 22 per cent or around $292 billion per year.

“I congratulate the Chief Scientist and the Academy of Science for this timely and important report. Maths and science make fundamental contributions to our lives, not least to our economic wellbeing. I’m sure that the report will make this particular contribution very real for Australia’s policy makers, business community and would-be scientists and mathematicians,” says ��ճԹ� Director, Professor Geoff Prince.

Further information, including a transcript of Professor Chubb’s address and a PDF of the report may be found on the .

Chief Scientist Report: The Importance of Advanced Physical and Mathematical Sciences to the Australian Economy

��ճԹ� — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 04:52:19 +0000

Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, released — at an address to the National Press Club —a report commissioned by the Australian Academy of Science and his office.

The report reflects the ubiquity of the mathematical sciences in modern scientific research. And emphasises the knock-on effects it has for our economy. It combines the expertise of Australia’s scientific community with that of business and industry.

Professor Chubb’s speech can be found .

A PDF of the report may be downloaded .

Counting the cost of national maths failure

Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:53:25 +0000

Article by , .

WHAT’S five times four? Geophysicist Peter Ridd was gobsmacked to see a first-year university student pull out a calculator to work out the no-brainer equation.

The James Cook University professor blames the dumbing down of a generation of Australian students on modern teaching philosophies that deride rote learning as “drill and kill”. His alarm is echoed by eminent maths, science and education professors concerned that underqualified teachers, “student-led” pedagogy and assignment-based assessment methods are rendering a generation of Australian children innumerate.

“Modern educational theory says you don’t need knowledge because it’s all online; there’s Google,’’ Ridd tells Inquirer. “But you ultimately do need a basic proficiency in spelling and numbers; you need knowledge inside your head. I’ve seen uni kids, when I’ve asked them ‘What’s 61 x 0?’, pick up a calculator.’’

The ��ճԹ� is warning of a looming skills shortage for industries such as banking, mining, information security, IT, biotech and communications.

Chief scientist Ian Chubb unveils ambitious strategy to secure Australia’s future prosperity

Tue, 02 Sep 2014 04:37:29 +0000

Article by Rebecca Barrett, ABC News, 2 September 2014

Australia’s Chief Scientist has unveiled an ambitious agenda for change to increase the focus on science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) skills to help secure the country’s future prosperity.

Professor Ian Chubb AC has outlined a number of recommendations to the Federal Government in a national science strategy to build a more competitive economy.

His call for action involves a long-term strategic view from the classroom to laboratories and the boardroom to create and foster STEM skills, which he says are relevant to an increasingly wide range of occupations.

The strategy outlines a broad approach across four main areas, including building competitiveness, supporting high-quality education and training, maximising research potential and strengthening international engagement.

The strategy has been welcomed by the ��ճԹ�.

Institute director Professor Geoff Prince said a coherent national strategy is necessary.

“We absolutely have to have one. We’ve got ourselves in the situation we’re in through the absence of strategy and absence of strategy is not going to get us out that position,” he said.

Professor Prince agreed that mandating maths subjects for year 11 and 12 students would not be productive, but said studying mathematics is beneficial in a number of ways.

“I’d like [students] to [study maths] because they were engaged and because it was something that was going to be good for their life skills and their career skills,” he said.

He said the system is under-resourced, with 40 per cent of classes in years 7 to 10 not being taught by qualified maths teachers.

“I think we’re actually in that vicious spiral where the numbers of maths graduates are being choked by the declining numbers of kids taking intermediate and advanced maths in year 12,” he said.

“That’s being choked because of a failure to staff schools with inspiring maths teachers, and inspiring maths teachers can’t be had because there aren’t enough maths graduates.

“It’s at a critical level now and unless we act, it’s only going to get worse.

“The consequences, I think, would be absolutely disastrous.”

OECD – ���ճԹ� I Championing Mathematical Sciences for Australia’s Advancement