Promising signs
Posted on | March 22, 2006 | 2 Comments
From the Higher Education section in today’s Australian:
FEDERAL Education, Science and Training Minister Julie Bishop has expressed strong support for the Australian Research Council and the system of peer review it uses to distribute $540million in research funds each year. She has also signalled she will not pursue the same controversial practice as her predecessor Brendan Nelson, who vetoed research grants in the past two years.
Needless to say, woo.
Comments
2 Responses to “Promising signs”
Leave a Reply
Currently consuming
Blogroll
- A Wild Young Under Whimsy
- Adrian Miles
- archive : s0metim3s
- Auslang
- Creativity/Machine
- Decasia: Critique of Academia
- Edu-Factory
- Event Mechanics
- Fashademic
- Flat 7
- Geert Lovink
- How The University Works
- Life During Wartime
- Making Wifi
- Marika Luders
- Mentalization-Positive
- Perspiring Dreams
- Pondering Postfeminism
- Purse Lip Square Jaw
- Silver in SF
- Snurblog
- Sorrow at Sills Bend
- Super Bon!
- Supervalent Thought
- Tama Leaver
- Tammi Jonas
- The Carriage Held But Just Ourselves
- The Last Sofa
- The Memes of Production
- The Vapour Trail
- Thinking Culture
- Transit Labour
March 23rd, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
The subtext (pointed out by someone we both know who has much experience with both the ARC and the federal government) is that the onus is still on researchers to ensure that they do not arrogantly believe that they should not have to explain their research to non-specialists, and to “accept that it is not unreasonable for those paying for our research to ask to have it explained to them.”
But all-in-all, a very positive statement for the sector. As you say, woo!
March 23rd, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
Yeah, and fair enough too. I feel like launching into an anecdote about the ‘Is History Fiction?’ forum last Saturday, but really, I don’t want to waste any more time thinking about it. I can’t resist a teaser, though: When I asked a question about how the writers respond to the Government’s recent stance on teaching history by rote learning, one panellist said they would have to think about it and talk to me afterwards. Another answered: ‘But you’re talking about ‘history’ history!’ as if I was from another planet. I had merely asked that they consider how their work translates to a non-tertiary audience, which was what I had expected a public forum to consider. Weird.