HES members,

Again, thanks so much for the support. Unfortunately the battle is not going well. The ABS is in its own complacent little world, and has zero concerns with our concerns. Here is the latest on this episode. Some of the material you will not understand as it is Australian jargon and acronyms, but you can get the gist of what is happening.

John Lodewijks


-----Original Message-----
From: John LodewijksSent: Sat 9/8/2007 10:27 AM

George,

That is the form letter response. Everyone gets that. No cause for optimism at all.

The ABS has been getting a lot of emails, including from overseas. They have received 30 from overseas, one in support of what they are doing and 29 against.

I just received this email from Mary Morgan:

_______________________________________

John,
In the last 24 hours, the President of our Royal Economic Society, the
Chair of the Economics section of the British Academy and the President
of the (British) Economic History Society have all responded to my
request to write about this matter to the ABS.  These letters have been
strongly supportive of HET.
Best wishes, Mary

______________________________________

However, here is the latest from the ABS:



Tim Sealey [[log in to unmask]]  Sent:   Fri 9/7/2007 3:52 PM 
 To:   Alex Millmow
 
 Cc:   [log in to unmask]; Glover, Barney; David Rome
 
 Subject:   RE: URGENT: Proposed changes to the RFCD Code: Response by 12Sept 
 
 
Dear Alex

I have looked at the information you have sent.  It would appear that
people have got a rather peculiar view of what the ABS and the committee
is trying to do with the revision.

Having spoken to Barney Glover (the nominated Universities Australia
rep) and David Brett of the ABS we concur that the issues raised have
little to do with the integrity of the classification system but more to
do with apparent benefits of visibility of various subject matter areas
within the classification structure.

One of the main reasons for the revision is to reduce the number of
research projects classified as "other not elsewhere classified" which
in some areas represented a significant proportion of the research
effort.  Secondly, we need to be able to make international comparisons
that have consistency with international standards.  The body seen as
most representative at this point in time is the OECD hence the
alignment with that organisation's Fields of Science. Third there has to
be greater alignment between research activity and Socio-economic
objectives.  Finally, an economic measure of research activity was
chosen to limit the inclusion of non-active areas of research.  The
figure decided upon was $250k with some flexibility for rapid growth
areas or areas of significant importance that did not meet the economic
benchmark.  Taking all of these factors into consideration the History
of Economic Thought and Economic History have been classified
appropriately by the ABS.

The revisions to the RFCD and the SEO proposed by the ABS in
consultation with the whole sector (not just universities) would appear
to be the most appropriate course of action in terms of simplification
and consistency of terminology.

No classification system is perfect but one has to bear in mind what the
goals of classification are.  The more individual codes we have the more
likely it is that areas will be exposed as not performing or not
worthwhile, or that the classification system becomes unwieldy and of no
practical use. 

A further important point that should be made is that the revision is
made on the basis of needs in relation to the ABS.  Therefore, talk of
the revision impacting on RQF funding or an area's viability are not
only premature but not likely to come to fruition.  These points have
been discussed by the Revision Committee.

However, it has been agreed that the issues raised by you will be tabled
for discussion at the next revision meeting on the 27 September.

I trust that this helps to ease the concerns expressed by your
colleagues.

Cheers

Tim Sealey, Assistant Director, Statistics and Data Analysis
Universities Australia
GPO Box 1142, Canberra ACT 2601
One Geils Court, DEAKIN, ACT 2600
Ph (02) 6285 8228 (BH), Fax (02) 6285 8213
E-Mail: [log in to unmask], Web:
http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au

Emergency Contact or outside of business hours:
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
mob: 0430 481 366

 __________________________________________________
 

In other words, they will not be moved despite the avalanche of protests. David Brett made it clear that no matter what we did, they were not about to restore either HET or EH to within the economics
discipline. I am amazed that a junior bureaucrat in the public service can make these crucial decisions that will affect so many academics, despite the mountain of protests. 


Here was my response:

From: John Lodewijks [mailto:[log in to unmask]]Sent: Friday, 7 September 2007 5:14 PM
To: Alex Millmow
Cc: Coleman, William; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: RE: URGENT: Proposed changes to the RFCD Code: Responseby
12Sept

Alex,

I have carefully read your last 2 emails.

My reaction is that the ABS does not understand the implications of what
it is doing. It is not a red-herring. We are not misreading the
situation. They do not understand the consequences of what they are
doing.

The ABS is interested in principles of classification based on research
funding (an economic measure of research activity).

Such an approach deletes HET and economic History from the economics
classification.

However, the revised classification will be used by DEST, RQF exercise
and the ARC as they will use the revised RFCD and SEO codes.

For example, at UWS for every new publication I get I have to fill in a
form to send to the Research Office indicating these codes. It is on the
basis of these DEST publications that conference funding, promotion and
all else depends. They are the basis for the RQF exercise.

With the reclassification, my HET publications will no longer count in
the total for the School of Economics and the funding that is associated
with that. So my research output will count for nothing in economics
(although it might count in Religion, Philosophy. History etc which is
all in the Faculty of Arts where I am not employed).

So if I am a Head of Department and I am faced with hiring or promoting
a young John Pullen, whose research is mainly on Malthus, I don't hire
him, don't promote him and in fact try to get rid of him because his
research does not contribute to my Department/School. He does not add to
my research quantum. I suggest he go work in the faculty of Arts.

As long as DEST, ARC, RQF, and Universities use these revised codes then
HET and Economic History is effectively dead in economics departments.

That is the issue that these guys don't seem to understand.


John

_________________________________________________________


We have until September 14 to voice our concerns and then they make their decision on September 27. The decision is effective from start of 2008.

John