Starting in 2018, Australian universities will be required to prove their research provides concrete benefits for taxpayers and the government, who fund it.
Evidence shows that the Australian government’s ‘nudge unit’ may be the wrong way to address major problems like inequality, argue Andrew Frain and Randal Tame.
Why does it matter if research is ethical or not? And what steps could or should have been taken to ensure that issues such as those the Australian Human Rights Commission now faces — in a case related to well-intentioned research into sexual assault — are avoided?
An Australian directive to measure the engagement with and impact of academic research can itself by improved by applying new research.
Academics need to retain their freedom to speak on matters of interest, which intersect with their specialized knowledge, even where that intersection is tangential or not visible to others.
Perhaps the solution to conflicting spending priorities, write Rod Lamberts and Will J. Grant, is simply to acknowledge that people will always have conflicting priorities, and think about how best to live alongside each other: mythical, homogeneous pub-goer and irrelevant, out-of-touch academic alike.
Shonkily researched assertions are okay if you enjoy the safe patronage of a major news organisation, argues Rob Brooks. But know, he adds, you would never get away with such abject laziness, or such contempt for professional disinterest in a grant proposal to a federal funding body.
Academia has long recognized that wicked problems require cross-disciplinary research approaches, yet Australia’s Science and Research Priorities enthrall mainly STEM researchers. This divide puts academia back into silos: those on the sunny side of funding decisions and those under a constant rain cloud.
Drawing on discussions with academics who have oriented their work around public engagement and social impact, Daniel Pearson suggests these academics present an opportunity to rethink the existing structures of reward and recognition in higher education. “We are, as a species, addicted to story,” says English professor Jonathan Gottschall in his book, The Storytelling Animal. “Even when the […] Tom Burns, whose combination of play — and plays – with teaching in higher education added a light, collaborative and engaging model […] A 2024 report by the National Academies explores the latest advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology and their potential effects on economic productivity, job stability, and income inequality. It also highlights key research opportunities and data needs to help workers and policymakers adapt to the evolving AI landscape. In this post, co-authors Frank T. Piller, Tucker J. Marion, and Mahdi Srour reflect on the inspiration behind their research article, “Generative […] During the final stages of editing the proofs for Artificial Intelligence and Work: Transforming Work, Organizations, and Society in an Age of Insecurity, […]
EXPLORE
Impact
Young Scholars Can’t Take the Field in Game of Academic Metrics
READ MORE
Canada’s Storytellers Challenge Seeks Compelling Narratives About Student Research
READ MORE
Tom Burns, 1959-2024: A Pioneer in Learning Development
READ MORE
Innovation
NAS Report Examines Nexus of AI and Workplace
READ MORE
When Do You Need to Trust a GenAI’s Input to Your Innovation Process?
READ MORE
The Authors of ‘Artificial Intelligence and Work’ on Future Risk
READ MORE
