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