On August 16th, UWAASA sponsored a forum on the question of University mergers in WA as a potential outcome of the WA State’s University Sector Review. The forum included WA Chief Scientist, Prof. Peter Klinken, UWA Professor Ray da Silva Rosa and current UWA DVC(Research) Prof Anna Nowak.
The viewpoints varied, there was discussion of the specifics effects on rankings, motivations to merge, and other outcomes – not only to the science disciplines but to the larger academic body. It was a spirited discussion, and the Q&A indicated a high level of engagement with the issues at hand.
On the website, for the convenience of those of you unable to attend, or as an aide memoire for those who were there, we have posted the part of the forum that we can present. For various reasons, we cannot post the entire recording and, unfortunately, Prof Nowak’s microphone was not turned on. You can view the recording below.
While all the discussion around size and scale was very interesting, I think the most compelling data set for a merger related to our declining NHMRC/ARC funding success rates, which are getting perilously close to catastrophic. IF it could be demonstrated that merging some or all of the universities could address this, then I think it would be worth considering.
However, from my viewpoint I don’t see the merger proposition as having an answer to this very serious situation. It has been my experience that academics from the various WA Universities collaborate quite well, and often are on joint applications (some of which get funded). Within disciplines, there seems to be little animosity and a great deal of collegiality. The MRIs, which are powerhouses of research within the state, are very much multi-institutional affairs and are careful to ensure they don’t adversely preference any single university.
So, while there is competition between universities at the institutional level, at the level of the researchers we all play pretty well in the same sandpit. Therefore, merging the universities would have little benefit in terms of increasing the number or quality of the applications, and would result in (at best) a marginal improvement in success rates/income. This marginal gain would be offset by massive disruption and stress, impacting both staff and students. Furthermore, a merger could dilute UWA’s research standing and result in a drop in rankings and prestige.
Formal agreements/policies around enhancing and building research collaboration and barrier-removal might be a productive strategy worth exploring. Even better would be getting state funding to support research and infrastructure, attracting high profile research groups and world class cutting edge research. This has clearly worked for Victoria. With our state budget happily in surplus, but with the end of the mining boom on the horizon, now would seem an opportune time to push this particular barrow.
Some final points:
1) Prof Klinken’s assertion around zero loss of academic staff is highly improbable. Teaching staff and units would have to be rationalised in any merger; financial imperatives and the reach for economies of scale would make this unavoidable. The only question is whose staff/units and how many.
2) I don’t think the concept of having sub-groups/specialists within disciplines on different campuses makes sense, particularly in the context of a rationalised teaching program where disparate programs would need to be brought under a single umbrella.
3) I think the different student cohorts, expectations, abilities and goals associated with the different universities would make the merger of teaching programs very problematic and difficult. Trying to squeeze them all into one mould would decimate student satisfaction/experience.
4) Merging the different university systems and processes would, I am sure, be a nightmare of monumental proportions!