Review of Area Studies Final Report

Review of Area Studies

A Vice‐Chancellor’s Work Slate Project

Final Report

October 2009

Contents 1. Letter from the Chair of the Review Panel ...... 5

2. Terms of Reference ...... 6

3. Panel membership ...... 6

4. Executive summary and recommendations ...... 7

5. Introduction ...... 11 5.1 Why Area Studies? ...... 11 5.1.1 What are Area Studies? ...... 11 5.1.2 The activities of Area Studies centres ...... 11 5.1.3 Reasons for the Review ...... 12 5.1.4 Academic support for an Area Studies strategy at Sydney ...... 13 5.1.5 Objectives for an Area Studies strategy at Sydney ...... 17 5.2 Obstacles to success ...... 18 5.2.1 Obstacles to collaboration between units within the University ...... 18 5.2.2 Limited opportunities for ‘in‐country’ placements and programs ...... 21 5.2.3 Workload constraints faced by staff and students ...... 22 5.3 Assessment of models ...... 23 5.3.1 Physical location and size ...... 24 5.3.2 Administrative support ...... 25 5.3.3 Reporting lines ...... 26 5.3.4 Management structure ...... 27 5.3.5 Academic staffing ...... 28 5.3.6 Focus of centres ...... 30 5.3.7 Funding...... 31 5.3.8 A preferred model for Sydney ...... 34 5.4 Assessment of areas ...... 35 5.4.1 Africa ...... 35 5.4.2 Australia ...... 37 5.4.3 China ...... 38 5.4.4 Europe ...... 39 5.4.5 Japan ...... 40 5.4.6 Korea ...... 41 5.4.7 Middle East ...... 41

5.4.8 Latin America ...... 42 5.4.9 North America ...... 43 5.4.10 South Asia ...... 44 5.4.11 Southeast Asia ...... 45 5.4.12 The Pacific ...... 47 5.4.13 Selection of areas ...... 47 5.5 Keys to success ...... 48 5.6 Conclusion ...... 49

6. Appendix ...... 50 6.1 Summary of the Review process ...... 50 6.1.1 Project initiation ...... 50 6.1.2 Phase 1: Written consultation ...... 51 6.1.3 Phase 2: Face‐to‐face consultations ...... 51 6.1.4 Process of mapping existing strengths and weaknesses ...... 53 6.1.5 Models referred to during the consultation phases ...... 54 6.1.6 Phase 3: Preparation of this report to the Vice‐Chancellor ...... 57 6.2 Summary of consultation discussions ...... 58 6.2.1 Faculty of Economics and Business, 6 August 2009 ...... 58 6.2.2 Faculties of Arts, Education & Social Work and Law, 19 August 2009 ...... 62 6.2.3 Postgraduate research students, 24 August 2009 ...... 67 6.2.4 Health Faculties, 26 August 2009 ...... 71 6.3 Mapping of Area Studies strengths ...... 74 6.3.1 List of relevant centres, networks, and programs at the University of Sydney ...... 74 6.3.2 List of researchers with an Area interest, as elicited during the Review ...... 80 6.4 The factors that will ensure success ...... 88 6.5 List of submissions to the Review ...... 93

1. Letter from the Chair of the Review Panel

Office of the Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor

Professor Stephen Garton FAHA FASSA FRAHS Room L2.22 Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor Main Quadrangle (A14) The University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA Telephone: +61 2 9036 5027 Facsimile: +61 2 9036 5031 Email: [email protected] Web: www.usyd.edu.au/provost

Dr Michael Spence Vice-Chancellor The University of Sydney

Dear Vice-Chancellor,

It is my pleasure to present for your consideration the report of the Review of Area Studies Work Slate Project.

The Review Panel has consulted widely over the last five months. We have found there to be overwhelming support among academic staff and students who participated in the Review for the University to pursue a considered strategy to support the development of Area Studies at the University of Sydney.

Our report makes 11 recommendations which we believe, if implemented and pursued with sustained rigour by the University’s leadership, will ensure the success of the Area Studies strategy we have proposed.

This includes a recommended model for the establishment, funding and operation of new Area Studies centres at Sydney that we are confident will, critically, have the broad support of the University’s academic community.

The Panel believes that there is great potential for Sydney to enhance its international reputation for excellence in education and research through an approach to Area Studies that seeks, initially, to build on the University’s existing disciplinary and area strengths.

We recommend that as a first step the University invest in the establishment of centres focused on two areas of significant current strength and strategic importance to Australia - Southeast Asia and China.

We further recommend that the University leadership, in particular the Provost and DVC International, monitor the development of other existing or new cross-disciplinary area networks and programs and, where appropriate, assess their importance as elements of the University’s Area Studies strategy, and promote these networks wherever possible.

We believe that the success of the proposed Southeast Asia and China centres will lay a strong foundation for the establishment of other Area Studies centres over time.

The Panel would like to thank all staff and students who contributed to the Review, whether by making a written submission, participating in a consultation session, or providing information relevant to the mapping of expertise we have undertaken. Our report draws heavily on their input which, in our view, adds weight to the case for the pursuit of a concerted Area Studies strategy at Sydney.

We look forward to discussing our report and recommendations with you, and with all members of the University community with an interest in the issues.

We look forward to working with you to implement a strategy for Area Studies at the University of Sydney and trust that our report proves useful for this purpose.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Stephen Garton Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor Chair, Review of Area Studies

23 October 2009

2. Terms of Reference

The Review Panel was asked to conduct a Review of Area Studies at the University of Sydney and advise the Vice‐Chancellor in relation to the following terms of reference:

 whether the University should implement an institution‐wide strategy for Area Studies; and if so,  the preferred model, or models for Area Studies that should be pursued; and  the design, implementation, financing and administration of any preferred strategy for Area Studies, or any alternative approach that the Review determines is preferable.

3. Panel membership

The Review Panel established to undertake the Review of Area Studies Work Slate project comprised:

 Professor Stephen Garton, Provost and Deputy Vice‐Chancellor (Chair)  Professor John Hearn, Deputy Vice‐Chancellor (International)  Professor Bruce Robinson, Dean, Faculty of Medicine  Professor Peter Wolnizer, Dean, Faculty of Economics and Business  Professor David Goodman, Director, Institute of Social Sciences  Professor Jeff Riegel, Professor and Head, School of Languages and Cultures  Associate Professor Robyn McConchie, Director, Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific  Professor Geoffrey Garrett, Chief Executive Officer, United States Studies Centre

Project management and secretariat support for the Review were provided by the Office of the Vice‐ Chancellor, with Mr Tim Payne, Director, Policy Analysis & Communication responsible for these services. Ms Aislinn Batstone provided invaluable assistance to Mr Payne and the Review Panel and we thank them both for their work in supporting this project.

4. Executive summary and recommendations

In 2009 the Vice Chancellor endorsed the establishment of a Review of Area Studies, as part of his Work Slate, to assess whether there was a strong academic rationale and a strategic opportunity to build a strong Area Studies capacity in the University. Area Studies are cross‐disciplinary fields of research, scholarship and teaching organised around the study of particular geographical, national, or cultural regions.

Over the last five months the Review committee has engaged in an extensive process of consultation with the University community – inviting written submissions and conducting open forums with staff and students – with a view to offering advice and recommendations concerning the feasibility and strategic importance of Area Studies for the University of Sydney.

Over the course of the Review the committee found that there is overwhelming support among academic staff with an interest in Area Studies for the University to pursue an institution‐wide strategy for Area Studies.

Moreover the Panel has identified over 350 members of academic staff with research and/or teaching expertise relevant to different countries or regions of strategic interest to Australia. We believe that even this figure is likely to understate the true extent of area activity within the University.

Based on submissions received, our discussions with academic staff, our research and analysis of the issues, we recommend that the University adopt and implement the institution‐wide strategy for Area Studies set out in this report and its recommendations.

Of all the possible models available to support Area Studies, we recommend the establishment of a series of small focused area centres, reporting to the Provost. We are confident that the proposed model is likely to have the support of most of the members of academic staff upon which any strategy must depend for its success.

We have also assessed twelve areas (eight regions and four countries) according to criteria including the current capacity within the University, strategic importance to Australia, potential for growth and the level of investment likely to be required in order to achieve international competitiveness.

We recommend that as a first step the University invest in the establishment of centres focused on Southeast Asia and China.

Of all the areas the Panel assessed, we believe Southeast Asia and China offer the best prospects for building strong centres to complement existing Area Studies initiatives such as the recently established United States Studies Centre.

The Panel stresses that merely facilitating and funding the establishment of Area Studies Centres at the University of Sydney will not, by itself, be enough to ensure the strategy’s success.

Clear and sustained leadership from the University Centre will be critical to the successful implementation of any strategy, as will be the encouragement provided to existing and new networks focused on areas other than Southeast Asia and China.

The Panel believes that the prospects of success will be good if the University commits wholeheartedly to the proposed strategy and to working closely with the centre Directors, faculties and departments to steer the strategy towards the achievement of agreed objectives.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1 That the University commit to implementing an institution‐wide Area Studies strategy and embed this strategy as a key part of its new Strategic Plan.

Recommendation 2 That the University adopt the following statement of objectives for its Area Studies strategy:

 To increase the quality, quantity, impact and profile of the University’s research and education activities.  To enhance the University’s international reputation ‐ thereby increasing its ability to attract and retain high quality staff and students.  To mobilise, coordinate and promote the University’s Area Studies strengths in a way that complements the University’s pursuit of excellence in disciplinary and cross‐disciplinary education and research.  To offer programs that are attractive to students and give the University a competitive advantage.  To lead and inform public debate about Australia’s relations with the rest of the world and the development of public policy relevant to key regions and countries.  To serve Australia by fostering knowledge, understanding and linkages with countries and regions of strategic and cultural interest to the nation.

Recommendation 3 That the University draw on leading domestic and international practice to develop and implement a state of the art web‐based expert database that allows anyone within or outside the university to find and make contact easily with disciplinary and area experts.

Recommendation 4 That the University ensure that its new economic model enables funding from undergraduate and postgraduate‐coursework student load that results from cross‐disciplinary programs to be shared between participating University units in proportion to their contribution towards the provision of each program.

Recommendation 5 That the University’s current PhD Rule be amended to formally accommodate joint or panel supervision of PhD students by academic staff from different faculties.

Recommendation 6 That the University ensure that its new economic model ensures that funding for higher degree by research student load is shared between participating University units in proportion to the share of supervisory workload undertaken by staff in each unit in relation to each PhD candidate.

Recommendation 7 That the University pursue reform of policy and funding for the provision of higher degree by research training in Australia to better enable students to undertake cross‐disciplinary research degrees.

Recommendation 8 That the University adopt the following model as its preferred model for the establishment of new Area Studies centres within the University:

 Each centre to be established in accordance with the University’s Centres Policy.  A high quality academic leader to be appointed as the Director of each centre.  Each Director to be supported, initially, by an Associate Director, with high level experience in the area, one Project Officer, running and other costs.  Each centre to have an Advisory Committee, comprising senior scholars in the area drawn from each participating faculty and appropriately qualified non‐university members.  Each centre to initially focus on research and higher degree by research training activities, but to aim to provide or coordinate postgraduate and undergraduate coursework programs.  Each Director to report directly to the Provost.  Centres to initially access administrative support from a faculty or cluster of participating faculties.  Once a number of centres are established, their Directors could be co‐located administratively within a faculty or central portfolio and share some administrative services.  Initially centres will be mostly ‘networks’ of staff appointed in disciplinary units.  If it is deemed appropriate for a particular centre, funding to be provided at the discretion of the Provost at the outset to enable a small number of joint appointments to the centre.  Over time, as centres establish operating arrangements and programs, and as additional funding becomes available, additional joint appointments to the centres should be encouraged.  Each centre to be reviewed after two and five years in accordance with the Centres Policy, and success against the achievement of the objectives agreed for each centre and the University’s Areas Studies strategy as a whole.  Within these broad constraints, each Director to be empowered to pursue strategies and activities as agreed with participating academics, departments and faculties.

Recommendation 9 That the University adopt the following criteria for the selection and review of Area Studies Centres:

 current capacity at the University;  relative international standing of current capacity at the University;  competitor analysis;  strategic importance to Australia; and  potential for growth to achieve the objectives of the University’s Area Studies strategy.

Recommendation 10 That the University establish Area Studies centres for Southeast Asia and China to complement existing Area Studies initiatives such as the recently established United States Studies Centre.

Recommendation 11 That in addition to the establishment of initial Area Studies centres for Southeast Asia and China, the University encourage and promote where possible other cross‐disciplinary Area Studies networks and programs.

5. Introduction

5.1 Why Area Studies?

5.1.1 What are Area Studies?

As internationally defined, Area Studies are cross‐disciplinary fields of research, scholarship and teaching organised around the study of particular geographical, national, or cultural regions. Area Studies typically concentrate on the history, geography, society, politics, philosophy, economics, languages and cultures of a country or region, but can include the sciences and other disciplines relevant to the area. An academic practitioner in Area Studies typically has a strong disciplinary grounding, as well as a sound understanding of the culture and language of a specific area. Similarly, students educated in an Area Studies environment obtain a disciplinary foundation focused on, or complemented by, knowledge of a particular geographic area.

Area Studies gained prominence in the United States and Western Europe after World War Two – following recognition of the value of deeper knowledge and understanding about other parts of the world and their peoples. While the pursuit of area specific knowledge did not begin with the Cold War, the partitioning of the world according to nation states that occurred following World War Two provided, arguably for the first time, a framework for the conceptualisation and organisation of area‐ based knowledge. Specific Area Studies strategies were commenced in the United States and Europe to serve national interests ‐ with government funds allocated to support centres in many universities.

Area Studies went into a period of decline in the 1990s. Two factors underpinned this shift: the end of the Cold War fostered complacency and a belief that English would become a global lingua franca, while the emergence of concepts of globalisation suggested that international economic processes and institutions of governance would become more important than regional and national conditions and institutions. In recent years Area Studies has again emerged as an important organising principle for academic research and teaching. The 9/11 attacks in the USA highlighted the serious lack of depth in regional expertise (linguistic, cultural, political and economic) in US universities, government departments and security services. Moreover, in universities, increasing theoretical and empirical interest in globalisation highlighted that transnational and regional processes were less polar opposites than complementary and integrally related. Thus the revitalisation of Area Studies as a field of research and teaching interest is one part of a broader movement to understand complex intersections between regional and transnational movements and processes.

5.1.2 The activities of Area Studies centres

University Area Studies centres typically act as focal points and coordinating centres for academic, public information and outreach activities focused on specific countries or regions. They serve as

11 contact points for a common interest within the University, and between the University and external individuals, businesses, governments and cultural communities.

Area Studies centres and programs typically pursue a mixture of disciplinary and cross‐disciplinary activities, including: research projects focused on specific areas; coursework and higher degree by research programs that span departmental boundaries; language programs; outreach activities; strategic and policy advice and commentary; and regional development programs.

5.1.3 Reasons for the Review

In recent times many leading international universities have developed new Area Studies capabilities that align with their strategic interests and the global interests of their nations. As a result, many of the University of Sydney’s international comparator institutions have well established Area Studies structures and programs. These structures have been refined in response to factors such as the ever‐ increasing connectedness of people and economies through globalisation, and increasing interest in cross‐disciplinary approaches to research and teaching.

For example, the United States government specifically supports Area Studies centres in the form of Title VI programs, with the US Department of Education stating that:

‘The United States today faces unprecedented demand for globally competent citizens and professionals... Congress recognized the Title VI programs' critical contributions to national security prior to 9/11. In Section 601 Part A of the Higher Education Act as reauthorized in 1998, Congress found that:

1. The security, stability and economic vitality of the United States in a complex global era depend upon American experts in and citizens knowledgeable about world regions, foreign languages, and international affairs, as well as upon a strong research base in these areas.

2. Advances in communications technology and the growth of regional and global problems make knowledge of other countries and the ability to communicate in other languages more essential to the promotion of mutual understanding and cooperation among nations and their peoples.

3. Dramatic post‐cold War changes in the world's geopolitical and economic landscapes are creating needs for American expertise and knowledge about a greater diversity of less commonly taught foreign languages and nations of the world.’1

The Review of Area Studies was included on the Vice‐Chancellor’s Work Slate out of concern that there may be significant long term reputational costs to the University and lost opportunities in

1 The Title VI scheme primarily provides funding for domestically‐based language and area training, research, and outreach in public United States ‘Land Grant’ Universities.

12 emerging areas of research and teaching in failing to develop, and to be seen publicly to have, a strong capacity in at least some areas of strategic importance to Australia.

Concerns were held that the University may be at risk of falling behind its national and international competitors in its capacity to attract high quality staff and students due to a perceived lack of high profile, high quality teaching and research centres enabling people to come together to work across disciplinary boundaries with a focus on particular geographical or cultural areas.

The Review was also influenced by the view that far from being weak in Area Studies, the University actually has significant strengths in scholarship relevant to particular areas, but that the extent of these strengths is relatively hidden from public view; and as a result, insufficiently recognised domestically and internationally. There were also concerns that our area experts are often difficult to identify — not only by people outside the University, but by University students and staff who may share common or complementary interests.

5.1.4 Academic support for an Area Studies strategy at Sydney

Support for an Area Studies strategy An overwhelming majority of those who took part in the various consultation phases of the review were in favour of developing a concerted strategy for Area Studies at the University of Sydney.

A recurring theme in the written submissions to the Review was the idea that area‐related expertise already existed at the University and that this expertise should be harnessed for the betterment of research outcomes, the education of students, and the enhancement of the profile and reputation of the University. The Asian Studies Program, on behalf of six Departments of Asian Studies in the School of Languages and Cultures, wrote that:

‘We would like to applaud this initiative to institute a university‐wide strategy for Area Studies… The University of Sydney has extensive Asia‐related expertise, found in disciplines as diverse as public health, agriculture, geography and the fine arts. In fact, it may well have the largest number of Asia researchers of any university in the country. Yet despite this, and despite the high profile of many individuals working in and on Asia at the university, this institution is not recognised in Australia – let alone in the region or globally – as a major centre for Asian studies…

...Some of the best students nationally make the decision not to come to the University of Sydney on these grounds alone. It is not uncommon ... for students to express surprise when they learn that the Asia‐related departments within the School of Languages and Cultures alone probably have more staff than the entire Faculty of Asian Studies at the Australian National University. Submission 27, Asian Studies Program, on behalf of six Departments of Asian Studies, in the School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts

Others wrote of the intrinsic rewards of combining disciplinary expertise with a deep understanding of the area or areas in which this expertise may be applied:

‘My experience of coming to the University of Sydney to study Chinese a decade after graduating as a geologist has been so fruitful both intellectually and experientially that I would recommend it to anyone. Disciplinary study is certainly necessary but is sorely lacking without an understanding of what I argue is its geographical basis, and this can be best achieved through a fruitful co‐existence with Area Studies.’ Submission 24, Dr Michael Paton, Teaching Quality Fellow in the Office of Learning and Teaching in Economics and Business

There was also a recurring theme of enhancing administrative efficiencies, and reducing duplication, which came through in written submissions and face‐to‐face consultations. The prevailing view was that properly managed Area Studies centres could provide semi‐centralised administrative support for worthwhile initiatives, which currently are not occurring because of a lack of resources, poor coordination and the already heavy workload of academic staff. Other perceived administrative benefits included:

‘teaching portfolios that easily stretch across institutional boundaries and allow for a flow of students and lecturers to the courses and research training clusters that need them most;... increased capacity to manage large grant applications beyond and including the ARC, the EU‐Asia initiatives and so forth;... [and] a voice on campus to manage common problems (such as the ethics and risk management systems).’ Submission 2, Professor Stephanie Donald, Professor of Chinese Media Studies, School of Letters, Art and Media, Faculty of Arts

Professor Stephen Leeder and Associate Professor Ruth Colagiuri, on behalf of the Menzies Centre for Health Policy, argued that the University has the opportunity to use an Area Studies framework to mobilise the University’s disciplinary strengths to address global challenges. Specifically, they argued that:

‘Sydney has the opportunity to be the first major academic institution to develop an integrated capacity to study and strategise the solutions to chronic disease and climate change in the Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTS)… Sydney fulfils the function of a loom on which the threads of insights and skill from all disciplines and other countries are woven together to achieve massive global improvements in health.’ Submission 37, Professor Stephen Leeder and Associate Professor Ruth Colagiuri, Menzies Centre for Health Policy

Reservations about any Area Studies strategy A small minority of participants argued against the idea of developing an Area Studies strategy, while a number of others made positive statements with caveats as to which strategies would have a chance of success at the University. The most serious arguments against the development of a concerted Area Studies strategy at the University of Sydney fall into three broad categories.

Whether there is a future for Area Studies This argument relates to the history of Area Studies. While most participants currently engaged in Area Studies view their research as having moved on from the traditional Cold War paradigm, some held concerns that the future of research will not be framed by areas, geographically or culturally defined:

‘What I am wondering is whether Area Studies as such is a dead paradigm now. If so, the University might be well advised not to put organizational resources into setting up general frameworks and mechanisms for Area Studies, as that will invite more development of an unsustainable kind.’ Submission 21, Professor Raewyn Connell, Faculty of Education and Social Work

Other participants contested this view of Area Studies as an old paradigm, bolstering forms of Western imperialism, stressing that there are new forms of non‐Western imperialism in key regions of the world that required serious research and analysis and that new forms of Area Studies was one means into these very contemporary issues.

A related view is that Area Studies are obsolete because the most pressing challenges and trends facing humanity are now global; and that understanding and addressing these challenges has little to do with geographic or national boundaries.

At the Arts, Law, Education & Social Work Faculties’ consultation session, however, the point was made by many participants that it was not an either/or question about whether the University focuses on global studies or Area Studies (Appendix 6.2.2). Associate Professor Luke Nottage, from the Faculty of Law addressed this issue in his submission:

‘…experiences within the Law Faculty see no contradiction between increased support for both regional studies and thematic issues. On the contrary, having more of each creates additional synergies. Area Studies Centres need to apply skills and knowledge in comparing developments over geographical or cultural areas by focusing on specific problems or fields. But Centres focused on broad themes need to apply not only interdisciplinary perspectives. Now and for the foreseeable future, they must work out how things can and could work in specific, often regional contexts.’ Submission 12, Associate Professor Luke Nottage, Co‐Director, Australian Network for Japanese Law

A similar conclusion was reached at the Economic and Business consultation session where it was agreed that Area Studies are compatible with global studies because global issues are refracted through and can be better understood and addressed through the study of specific areas (Appendix 6.2.1).

Definition of ‘area’ A related concern was that the old definition of areas in geographical or cultural terms may be too narrow. Traditional geographical groupings were questioned more than once over the consultation period, for example:

‘In some instances, might there not be discussion about setting up ‘Area Studies’ areas that do not correspond to geographically proximate areas? A number of other universities, for instance, have centres of Arabic or Islamic studies, and I know of at least one university that has a centre of island studies; centres of Commonwealth studies also exist. ‘Atlantic’ history is now a well‐developed field, and there is growing interest in links between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Centres of colonial and post‐colonial studies, spanning various geographical regions, now exist at a number of universities (e.g., Leeds, Southampton, Tasmania).’ Submission 22, Professor Robert

Aldrich, Professor of European History, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts

Of course, as Professor Aldrich points out, this need not be an argument against the development of an Area Studies strategy at the University, but an argument that traditional area groupings may need to be re‐examined and that the strategy may need to support, or at least account for, non‐traditional interdisciplinary groupings or definitions of ‘area’.

This issue was also discussed at the Economic and Business consultation session, where it was suggested that Sydney could gain a competitive advantage by extending the definition of Area Studies to encompass non‐geographical groupings like ‘emerging economies’ or ‘global cities’, or to take a more thematic approach such as ‘Future Alternative Fuels’. Both ‘area’ and ‘thematic’ approaches were recognised, however, as valid ways of pursuing cross‐disciplinary research (Appendix 6.2.1).

Chance of failure Many participants in the consultation phases of the Review while being overall, in favour of a concerted strategy for Area Studies, brought forward cautionary tales of centres that had been set up with the best of intentions, but had failed for various reasons. Professor Robert Aldrich wrote that:

‘Efforts to promote Area Studies have met with mixed success. I myself was involved with setting up the Centre for European Studies in the 1980s; the Centre received seed‐ funding from the University and from the Delegation of the European Communities in Australia. It had a public programme, introduced and coordinated undergraduate units and a postgraduate Master’s degree, and hosted a number of other activities; the teaching programme continues, though the other activities do not in a formal sense continue. This is partly because of the lack of commitment to continuing funding at a sustainable level, either by the University or by other donors – perhaps a salutary warning for other Area Studies centres.’ Submission 22, Professor Robert Aldrich, Professor of European History, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts

As well as sustainable funding, others raised concerns about: continued leadership and advocacy for any strategy; academic buy‐in; removing obstacles to collaboration; and in starting small and leaving flexibility in any system so that centres and programs would have ‘room to grow’. These ‘keys to success’ are explored in more detail in Section 5.5 and Appendix 6.4.

Limited interest in the Review from some disciplines The Panel also notes that, with a few notable exceptions and despite the Review being promoted widely within the University and faculties, there was limited engagement by staff in the more traditionally discipline‐focused faculties and departments. The views expressed by Dr Michael Harris on behalf of the Agriculture and Resource Economics Group in the Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources may point to some of the reasons for a relative lack of engagement with the Review by some faculties and their staff:

‘The Group has no particular views on the appropriate design, role or governance of an Area Studies centre, institute or program. Its members with an interest in the Asia‐ Pacific regard themselves as best aimed at getting on with what they do, including

projects in collaboration with people outside the Group. Participation in a more formal Area Studies enterprise can be considered when such a thing emerges.’ Submission 40, Dr Michael Harris, on behalf of the Agriculture and Resource Economics Group in the Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources

Despite this and despite the caveats outlined above; based on the evidence presented to it, the Panel is strongly of the view that the University should implement a University‐wide Area Studies strategy.

Recommendation 1 That the University commit to implementing an institution‐wide Area Studies strategy and embed this strategy as a key part of its new Strategic Plan.

5.1.5 Objectives for an Area Studies strategy at Sydney

The Panel agrees with the point made variously in submissions and consultation sessions that it would be premature to select a model without first clarifying what the objectives of a University‐wide Area Studies strategy for the University Sydney should be.

The Panel’s vision is for the University of Sydney, in five to ten years time, to have a handful of highly visible and accessible Area Studies centres, a flourishing range of equally visible area ‘networks’, and a growing international reputation for the quality of its cross‐disciplinary research and education organised around the scholarship of areas.

We see a University where it is easy for staff to locate colleagues with complementary disciplinary or area expertise and where people from outside the University experience no difficulties accessing information about our disciplinary or area expertise, programs and activities.

We see a University where diverse disciplinary units are collaborating in pursuit of clear purposes; and where any revenue growth that results from that cooperation is shared between the partners in each area centre. We see the University’s great disciplinary strengths mobilised and refracted through an Area Studies lens to shed light on global challenges. We see students from diverse disciplinary boundaries, but with a common interest in a particular country or region, coming together routinely to share experiences and knowledge. We see more of our students at all levels studying other languages and cultures, and spending more time in the countries or regions of interest to them.

The interest in an Area Studies strategy among staff sits within a broader context highlighted by the Vice Chancellor’s strategic planning consultation process. This process has highlighted a widespread concern that the University is marked by too many disconnected research and teaching silos and that there is insufficient collaboration across school and faculty boundaries. These silo structures are also seen to produce overlaps and duplication. Staff generally favoured the development of strategies that might foster greater collaboration and in this context Area Studies may be one means of linking researchers and students with like interests and expertise from different parts of the University. In other words, Area Studies might be one strategy for capacity building and doing more with what we have.

Recommendation 2 That the University adopt the following statement of objectives for its Area Studies strategy:

5.2 Obstacles to success

5.2.1 Obstacles to collaboration between units within the University

While the Review found considerable evidence of productive cross‐department and cross‐faculty collaboration that could be characterised as ‘Area’ in nature, a theme recurrent throughout the consultations was the degree to which current University policies, funding, and operating arrangements act as barriers to collaboration between units within the University.

Difficulties identifying expertise At the most basic level, as the Review itself found through its attempts to map the University’s Area Studies strengths (Appendix 6.1.4), identifying people within the University with expertise in particular disciplinary fields or geographical regions is far from a straightforward process. We may have considerable expertise in many areas and regions but it is extremely difficult for anyone external, let alone internal, to access this pool of expertise or even know of its existence without spending hours trawling through department and school web sites. The need for much better access to information about existing area and disciplinary expertise within the University was raised by participants at three of the four Faculty consultation sessions.

At the Arts, Law, Education & Social Work Faculties’ consultation session, various participants spoke of the difficulties they had experienced trying to locate people with expertise relevant to their area of interest (Appendix 6.2.2). Similarly, at the Health Faculties’ session, participants commented that providing for easy identification of expertise would be one simple way to remove a current significant impediment to internal collaboration, reducing duplication and improving public accessibility to University experts (Appendix 6.2.4).

At the Postgraduate Students’ consultation session, students referred to the difficulties they had had in identifying expertise in their area of interest at the University. A comparison was made at this session to the University of Melbourne’s ‘find an expert’ database which allows any visitor to its website to search for staff by: faculty or department; by research field; by the socio‐economic classification of their research; by their countries of expertise; and by their active international linkages (Appendix 6.2.3 and http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au).

A comparison of the functionality of the University of Melbourne’s staff expertise system with the University of Sydney’s current expert database (http://fmweb01.ucc.usyd.edu.au/ne/search.html) finds our system seriously wanting. Further, it is not clear that the University’s proposed new Research Information Management System (RIMS) will include comparable functionality. Meanwhile, in the absence of adequate information, some faculties have sought to implement their own solutions, with the Faculty of Medicine’s website, for example, providing a tool that allows its researchers to be identified according to disciplinary themes, key words, research approaches and country collaborations (http://www.medfac.usyd.edu.au/people/academics/search.php?resTheme=2).

There are also University‐wide partial solutions, such as the ‘Find a Research Supervisor’ tool, which, while effective to some extent, is complex and voluntary, and therefore captures only a fraction of the researchers involved in any given specialty. The ideal system, by comparison, would be simple for academics to maintain, and compulsory.

It is the Review Panel’s strong view that the absence of a comprehensive, up to date, efficiently maintained and user‐friendly expert database represents a significant barrier to collaboration between staff and students within the University. It also makes it very difficult for people from outside the University who are not familiar with the University to find staff with expertise relevant to their field or area of interest. In our view there is clear and pressing need for a University‐wide solution to this problem to be found as soon as possible.

Financial disincentives to collaboration A second obstacle to collaboration, raised repeatedly in submissions and during the consultation sessions, was that the University’s internal funding model for the support of undergraduate and postgraduate programs promotes competition and duplication, rather than cooperation between departments and faculties. A number of respondents made the point that any area centres that might result from the Review risked failure and isolation within the University if they were effectively set up in competition with existing units:

‘a Centre … could not be in competition with existing units, rather it would have to link, coordinate and add value to the activities of relevant Departments and Schools, and the research centres… Present university funding is not conducive to such large‐scale collaboration, since there are not strong mechanisms for sharing EFTSU and other basic funding across faculties, and ‘line‐of‐sight’ budgeting has been particularly divisive in

this respect.’ Submission 8, Professor Adrian Vickers, Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts

A postgraduate student provided the following description of his experience trying to pursue cross‐ disciplinary approaches:

‘While the vision and the rhetoric of a multidisciplinary environment were supported by my academic colleagues, the administrative aspects of such programs were atrocious… When I required inter‐faculty cooperation to access resources I was made to feel like I was attempting to steal or engage in corrupt activities. It seemed I became a criminal for wanting to work beyond the limits of a specific faculty. These are strong words but coming from ten years in private industry the university’s administrative inadequacy in engaging with a real multidisciplinary research program with real needs was shocking and disheartening and if it hadn’t been for the support of my academic colleagues I would have considered shifting to a different institution before I even had an opportunity to begin work. This could have been avoided if funding and administrative support was aligned with such multidisciplinary programs rather than competing faculties.’ Submission 45, Scott Hawken, Postgraduate Student

In relation to funding support for higher degree by research students, the current PhD Rule’s requirement is that each student must have a principal supervisor and associate supervisors appointed by a single faculty board on recommendation from the head of the department concerned. This system is not conducive to co‐supervision, or the sharing of funding between departments or faculties.

At the Arts, Law, Education & Social Work Faculties’ consultation session it was noted that the Academic Board’s review of the PhD was likely to recommend supervisory panels. There was consensus that such a move would serve to promote cooperation and connections between units in the supervision of higher degree by research students (Appendix 6.2.2). At the Postgraduate Students’ consultation session, there was a great deal of support for the University to remove funding barriers to genuine co‐supervision of research students across disciplines, and for the Academic Board to recognise co‐supervision (Appendix 6.2.3).

In the Panel’s view, to truly encourage and facilitate cross‐disciplinary and joint‐supervision of research students, funding arrangements must be changed so that they routinely allow for the sharing of resources between collaborating units and staff. The Review Panel notes that the University is currently developing a new economic and funding model. If the University accepts the Panel’s recommendations that a University‐wide Area Studies strategy should be implemented, then it is the Panel’s strong view that the new economic model should establish mechanisms that reward faculties, departments and staff for engaging in collaboration in the areas of teaching, research and research training.

Recommendation 4 That the University ensure that its new economic model enables funding from undergraduate and postgraduate‐coursework student load that results from cross‐disciplinary program to be shared between participating University units in proportion to their contribution towards the provision of each program.

Recommendation 5 That the University’s current PhD Rule be amended to formally accommodate joint or panel supervision of PhD students by academic staff from different faculties.

5.2.2 Limited opportunities for ‘incountry’ placements and programs

The opportunity for students to spend time in their country of interest was considered a vital part of any Areas Studies program by various contributors to the Review. Some departments currently run successful field‐schools, and some language departments send students to their country of interest for semester courses and for summer‐session intensive studies. A number of barriers exist, however, to the provision of collaborative in‐country study opportunities for students.

There is a perceived need for more flexible structures for crediting such studies into course requirements. Spending time ‘in country’ through the University’s Summer School is viewed as expensive, since it operates on a full‐fee basis, and typically would require a minimum of 20 students per unit of study to make an overseas subject pay for itself (Submission 8, Professor Adrian Vickers, Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts). The curriculum requirements of some degree programs are seen to work against ‘in‐country’ experiences, while issues of costs, time and administration can also deter students from spending time abroad as part of their studies.

At the Postgraduate Students’ consultation session the point was made that students currently rely heavily on the reputation and connections of their supervisors, and word of mouth, to establish contacts in universities and other organisations in their country of interest and to organise ‘in‐country’ placements. The current arrangements for placements are viewed as heavily reliant on the initiative of individual students.

Professor Roland Fletcher from the Department of Archaeology also stressed the importance of ‘in‐ country’ programs, but placed more emphasis on the value to be gained from the University offering programs to students in their home countries of interest, without the need to come to Australia but allowing them to obtain a qualification from the University (Submission 26).

While the Panel has not been able to examine in detail the issues surrounding ‘in‐country’ placements and programs, it appears to be an area ripe for dedicated attention as part of any Area Studies strategy. Discussions with staff currently involved in informal Area Studies networks indicate that a lack of time and administrative resources to develop, administer and credit ‘in‐country’ programs, often results in it being left to the initiative of individual students, working with their lecturers or supervisors on a case‐by‐case basis, to pursue opportunities.

The Panel envisages that the strengthening of formal links with institutions and the development ‘in‐ country’ placements and programs will be key responsibilities of the directors of Area Studies centres, working closely with the International Portfolio.

5.2.3 Workload constraints faced by staff and students

The issue of time pressures on academic staff was raised repeatedly during the consultation sessions. Academic members of staff currently involved with coordinating cross‐disciplinary Area Studies type networks reported that the provision of administrative resources would allow them to achieve much more than they are able to currently. This presents as a likely significant impediment to the success of any Area Studies strategy, and underpins the need to ensure that any institution‐wide Area Studies initiatives are adequately resourced.

At the Postgraduate Students’ consultation session, students raised time pressures as a likely obstacle to their involvement in the activities of an Area Studies centre. Concerns were raised that cross‐ disciplinary seminars may often require students themselves ‘teaching’ students from other disciplines about their own research, which would add to the pressures of papers and seminars students are already expected to give within their discipline (Appendix 6.2.3). Such approaches will only succeed if the value of involvement is seen by students to outweigh the costs.

The idea of introducing Area Studies coursework options or requirements to PhD programs was also discussed at this session. While students were in favour of the concept as a learning opportunity, they again raised concerns about adding to their workloads. It was also noted that the completion of a coursework requirement within a PhD is currently not treated as a legitimate reason for an extension of most PhD scholarships.

At the Health Faculties’ consultation session there was considerable discussion about how to incorporate the study of languages and culture options into undergraduate professional health programs. This was seen to be highly desirable in principle. The point was made, however, that existing course requirements and timetables would not easily allow for a student to follow any interest in a particular area or to learn its language. Further, in terms of skills at graduation and the desirability of graduates with area expertise, while there may be professional advantages to having area knowledge and understanding, graduates would still need to meet the requirements of the accreditation body in any country where they wished to work (Appendix 6.2.4).

At a number of consultation sessions broader concerns were raised about the competiveness of the Australian PhD compared to the programs available at leading universities in North America and Europe. It was noted that not only were there great disparities in levels of funding for higher degree by research training between Australia and countries in these regions, but that the Australian system’s emphasis on short completion times meant there is limited capacity to build coursework elements into programs, or to provide students with the same type of cross‐disciplinary and ‘in‐country’ experience that they might have available to them elsewhere.

Participants noted that higher degree by research training policy was an area that received relatively little attention from the Federal Government in its May 2009 response to the Bradley Review of Higher Education, and the Cutler Review of the National Innovation System. In this regard the Panel notes the work of the Academic Board’s Working Party on the future of the PhD at Sydney, as well as the findings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation’s 2008 inquiry into research training and research workforce issues in Australia.2 The Panel believes this entire area remains ripe for reform at the policy, funding and program level.

5.3 Assessment of models

Realising the objectives of any Area Studies strategy In Section 5.1.5 the Panel set out the objectives it believes any University‐wide Area Studies strategy should seek to achieve. The Panel agrees with the point made repeatedly by participants to the Review that different purposes may be best served by different models, and that the starting point for any assessment of models should be to define clearly the strategy’s objectives.

We believe, however, that it is also fair to say that a number of the models considered during the course of the Review could achieve the objectives we have articulated for the strategy, but would come with different implementation challenges and different costs. The challenge for the Panel was therefore to identify the model and approach to implementation that would be most feasible and likely to succeed at the University of Sydney – given the need to achieve broad academic support for any proposal, existing operating structures and financial realities.

Models considered During the course of the Review the Panel considered and consulted widely on numerous possible models, and variants of models, for supporting Area Studies at Sydney. These included: minimalist/virtual networks, programs or centres; centres housed within major International Institutes with different reporting and accountability lines; centres as distinct entities outside of faculty structures; centres hosted within different faculties or clustered together within a single faculty; centres with different forms of staff appointments and membership. Details of the types and varieties of models considered are included in Appendix 6.1.5.

Models for Area Studies can be distinguished based on: their physical location and size; source of administrative support; reporting lines; management structures; the focus of their activities; the way they are staffed; and the way they are funded.

2 http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isi/research/report.htm

5.3.1 Physical location and size

Three features of the various models considered are closely related. These are the physical location and size of any centre, the structures into which it is embedded to provide it with administrative support, and the centre’s reporting lines or position in the University’s organisational structure.

In terms of physical size, there was broad consensus throughout the consultation phases of the Review that the establishment of a large scale International Institute as a separate entity within the University, with its own building in which all staff are housed, was not only unlikely to be feasible in the short term, but would not serve well the objectives of an Area Studies strategy at the University of Sydney ‐ at least in its initial stages.

Such an approach was considered financially burdensome on the University at a time of budgetary constraint, global financial uncertainty and limited immediate prospect of external funding support from governments or other sources. It was also viewed as an inherently riskier approach than starting with the more modest steps of, consolidating or building area strengths and programs gradually, with the potential to grow them into a more substantial structure in the future. The restructuring and disruption that would be required to establish such an institute would be significant, it would be likely to add further complexity to current operating arrangements, and would risk the establishment of another body within the University seen to be in competition with existing units.

In terms of individual area centres which may be established as part of the University’s Area Studies strategy, large‐scale individual centres for the study of a particular area, which may themselves have a great degree of physical and human infrastructure, were also seen as risky and unfeasible given current budgetary constraints.

At the other end of the spectrum, there were some participants to the Review who supported a ‘minimalist’ or ‘programmatic’ approach (at least initially) that would stop short of the establishment of Area Studies centres or Institutes, but start by providing strategically targeted resources to capitalise on existing area initiatives:

‘The need to maintain disciplinary strengths in the teaching of Area Studies points to a framework for Area Studies that stops short of a Centre‐ or Institute‐based approach and rather suggests a well‐supported and strategically driven program‐based approach – at least in the first instance. An Area Studies program could pull together existing Centres and cross‐departmental initiatives (eg for SE Asia: Australian Mekong Resource Centre, Australian Cambodia Research Initiative, Centre for Asia Pacific Law, Australian Centre for Asian Art and Archaeology, Greater Angkor Project) as well as individual expertise from within existing departments under, for example, a Program in Southeast Asian Studies. The program ... need not require another level of administration and another site or layer of competition for research quantum.’ Submission 32, Professor Philip Hirsch, Professor in the School of Geosciences, Faculty of Science, and Director of the Australian Mekong Resource Centre

At the Economics and Business, Arts, Law, Education and Social Work and the Health Faculties’ consultation sessions, as well as in a number of written submissions, the point was made that a certain degree of physical and human infrastructure would enhance the prospects of success. For example, Professor Adrian Vickers wrote:

‘While a virtual centre (ie a website) is useful, an actual centre with staff attached to it is always going to make a stronger internal and external impact.’ Submission 8, Professor Adrian Vickers, Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts

While a broad range of views were elicited throughout the consultation process on the possible size of newly established Area Studies structures at the University of Sydney, a reasonable degree of consensus emerged at the face‐to‐face consultation sessions. Neither a large‐scale infrastructure nor a purely virtual minimalist approach would be supported by the majority of staff who took part in the Review.

The Panel agrees with the academic consensus that a moderate approach to the size and infrastructure of centres should be taken at first, providing any new initiatives with adequate and secure resources for their early ambitions, but leaving them with ‘room to grow’.

In terms of physical location, this is closely related to the arrangements made to support centres administratively. If centres are not to involve the co‐location of academic staff, then their physical location will depend on administrative factors. For example, administrative efficiencies are more likely to flow where the administrative core of a centre is physically located within the university unit that is expected to provide the centre with support. More efficiencies may be possible if multiple area centres are co‐located together, or located alongside other types of centres that require the same types of administrative support.

5.3.2 Administrative support

A number of options exist for the provision of administrative support to a medium‐scale centre or centres at the University. The main relevant options at this institution would be to have administrative support provided for each centre by one of the faculties participating in the centre, or by the International Portfolio, or by a new ‘umbrella’ institute that could be created specifically to provide administrative support for all Area Studies centres at the University of Sydney.

While this third option may be one the University wishes to consider at some point in the future, in consultation sessions it met with similar responses to the idea of creating any single large‐ infrastructure centre. That is, that there would be significant disruptions and greater financial risks for the University in taking such an approach. In addition, some participants argued against the idea of a high degree of centralisation of the management of groups of Area Studies centres, which would add to the layers of bureaucracy at the University.

The idea of the International Portfolio providing administrative support for Area centres was raised by various participants in the Review including Professor Robert Aldrich:

‘This would promote international links with partner universities, and could facilitate approaches to governmental entities and funding bodies. It might also promote inclusiveness across faculty boundaries.’ Submission 22, Professor Robert Aldrich, Professor of European History, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts

This view met with opposition in other written submissions and in the face‐to‐face consultation period. A prominent concern was that a strong association with the International Portfolio – either administratively or in terms of reporting lines – would lead to the perception (with the emphasis on perception) that the activities of Area Studies centres were to be more focused on outreach, student recruitment and income generating activities, than on the pursuit of the highest quality research and education.

A theme recurrent throughout the consultations was that whatever strategy is adopted, it will only succeed if it is academically driven and broadly supported by academic staff with an interest in each area (Appendix 6.4). It is the Panel’s view that at present there is little support among academic staff for any Area Studies centres to be administratively supported through the International Portfolio, although it is clear that any centres should work closely with the International Portfolio to enhance partnerships and collaborations with overseas universities and organisations. Indeed the International Portfolio will play a crucial role in the success of Area Studies centres but the consensus was that the locus for area studies activities should, at least initially, be with academic departments, schools and faculties.

This leaves the possibility that any Area Studies centres established as a result of this Review will access administrative support through one of the faculties that participates in the centre’s activities. Some participants in the Review were concerned that this may compromise interdisciplinarity and perpetuate the current divide between the teaching of languages and cultural studies and area specific disciplinary knowledge.

In the current financial climate, having some administrative support provided by a faculty may be the most realistic and least divisive option for the provision of administrative support of a centre ‐ at least in the early stages of implementation. Nonetheless, there is a risk that locating area centres in faculties will be seen as imposing further financial and administrative burdens on hard‐pressed faculties. There was a consensus amongst participants in the consultation process that for the Area Studies centres to work they will need to have some independent funding lines to ensure a degree of independence and the provision of adequate administrative support. Thus it is important that Area Studies centres be seen as genuinely independent units with their own budget lines, even if much of the back‐office support (ICT, finance, HR etc) is provided by a faculty or cluster of faculties.

5.3.3 Reporting lines

A variety of options exist for reporting and accountability lines for Area Study centres. These need not reflect the physical location or source of administrative support for each centre. For example, under

26 the current Centres Policy, a centre administratively supported by a faculty, the International Portfolio or a stand‐alone institute may report directly to any ‘University Officer’ appointed by the Provost.

At present, centres established under the Centres Policy that are located in a faculty typically report to the Dean of that faculty and through the Dean to the Provost. Such a reporting line is not considered appropriate for Area Studies Centres because it would not reflect the shared ownership and responsibility for the operation of the centres across the whole University that will be critical to their success.

In addition, it is likely that the idea of centres reporting through the International Portfolio to the Provost – where‐ever they may be located or administratively supported – would meet with similar concerns to those raised above in relation to the administrative support of centres. That is, that such a reporting line may fail to reflect the core research and teaching activities of Area Studies centres.

At present, staff responsible for comparable cross‐disciplinary initiatives such as the Institute for Sustainable Solutions, The Institute for Social Sciences, and the Centre for Obesity, Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease, report to the Deputy Vice‐Chancellor (Research).

Given that the proposed long term objective of the Area Studies strategy is for centres to undertake activities that extend well beyond research into teaching at both the undergraduate and/or postgraduate level, the Panel sees a strong case for the lines of reporting to be directly to the Provost – at least in the early phases of implementation. Here the Panel notes the recurring theme throughout the consultation sessions that a key to success of any strategy will be the degree to which the University demonstrates strong and sustained leadership in relation to the implementation of any strategy (Appendix 6.4).

5.3.4 Management structure

A fourth key component for the development of any model for Area Studies at the Sydney is determining the management structure that will best facilitate the pursuit of agreed objectives. The point was repeatedly made during the consultation phases of the Review that in order to maximise the prospects of success, the University’s strategy for Area Studies must: empower those charged with leading centres; must have the flexibility to support different approaches; and must serve to encourage academic staff involved with the centres to be innovative and entrepreneurial.

The University’s current Centres Policy provides ample flexibility for the University to put in place management arrangements for each centre that are responsive to their varying needs and strategic priorities. Under the policy each Area Studies centre would be required to develop business and academic plans in consultation with participating faculties and the Provost. The Centres Policy currently leaves it open to each centre to adopt a management structure which includes a management committee and/or advisory committee.

The Panel agrees with the view expressed by participants in the Faculty of Business and Economics consultation session that the quality of the people recruited to lead any Area Studies centres will be of critical importance to the success of the strategy as a whole (Appendix 6.2.1). The more flexible the

University and participating faculties are, within broad parameters, about the strategies and activities they are willing to allow centres pursue, the greater the likelihood of attracting outstanding leaders to serve as centre directors.

The Panel therefore believes that it should be left to each Director, in consultation with participating faculties and the University, to determine whether a management committee is required or whether an Advisory Board alone will suffice.

As the success of centres will depend largely on the level of support and engagement provided by participating faculties, in the early phases of establishment at least, the Panel believes that each centre should, as a minimum, have an Advisory Committee comprised of senior scholars in the area drawn from each participating faculty and non‐university members drawn from appropriate backgrounds.

Further, the Panel believes that the Provost should establish and chair an ‘Area Studies Academic Strategy Advisory Committee’, comprised of the directors of each Area Studies centre and others with relevant responsibilities and/or expertise. The role of such a body would be to ensure the overall coherence of centre activities under the University’s broader strategic framework, to pursue reform of systemic barriers to the success of the strategy and to work with the Provost to plan each phase of strategy’s implementation. This Advisory Committee would report through the Provost to the University’s Senior Executive Group.

5.3.5 Academic staffing

Like any unit within the University, any Area Studies centres established as a result of this Review will depend upon academic staff for their success.

Academic staff may engage with Area Studies centres in a variety of ways. They may remain in their ‘home’ disciplinary units and interact with the centre as part of a network and in relation to specific initiatives the centre might pursue.

Another approach common internationally is for academic staff to be appointed to a centre jointly between the centre and a participating faculty, with the staff remaining within in their disciplinary unit or being housed in the centre.

Alternatively, staff may be appointed solely to a centre and funded through the resources of the centre, but again be located either in their disciplinary unit, or co‐located together in a distinct Area Studies Centre. Another variant is that staff may be employed by a disciplinary unit, but seconded to the centre periodically to work on specific projects.

Centres need not operate on any single model of academic staffing. They may, for example involve a mixture of: staff located and funded by their disciplinary units; staff physically located in a centre but supported solely by their ‘home’ disciplinary unit; staff supported jointly by a number of participating units and the centre but located either in the centre or disciplinary units; and staff supported solely by the centre but again located in the centre or elsewhere.

A key issue raised repeatedly in written submissions and face‐to‐face consultation sessions was that any Area Studies strategy adopted by the University must not compromise disciplinarity. For example:

‘It is important that the integrity and coherence of departmental and disciplinary fields be maintained; Area Studies specialists are (or should be) firmly rooted in a particular discipline, its methodology and its network of professional organizations, publications and collegiate links.’ Submission 22, Professor Robert Aldrich, Professor of European History, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts

A number of submissions stressed the importance of staff retaining their positions within disciplinary units and being either seconded to centres for finite periods, or jointly appointed to an Area Studies centre. For example:

‘A common dilemma or tension in creating an Area Studies program is that it can be seen to be descriptive and atheoretical and to undermine the disciplinary core in undergraduate and postgraduate studies. If staff with area expertise were to be taken from their disciplinary ‘home’ departments and relocated to an Area Studies centre, or if undergraduate units of study and postgraduate training were to be dissociated from their disciplinary locations, Area Studies could miss the strength of the University’s (albeit scattered) expertise in applying disciplinary strengths to study of a region.’ Submission 32, Professor Philip Hirsch, Professor in the School of Geosciences, Faculty of Science, and Director of the Australian Mekong Resource Centre

Others envisaged members of each Area Studies Centre being academics from across the University, appointed jointly to both a regular academic school or department and a specific Area Studies Centre. On the other hand, Professor David Hensher, Director of the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, argued strongly that the only path to success was through full‐time appointment to the centres:

‘...the push‐pull between the home Faculty and the Institute more often than not simply does not work… The solution in my view is that every academic in a Centre should be full time in the centre (shared allegiances simply do not work for the majority of academics and researchers, and administration)…’ Submission 10, Professor David Hensher, Director and Head of Discipline, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, Faculty of Economics and Business

The Panel acknowledges that sole appointment to centres has strengths in some fields, particularly those focused on research and teaching in quite specific thematic areas. In our view, however, the Area Studies strategy we have proposed for the University of Sydney will have the best prospects of success if the staffing arrangements promote ongoing collaboration with (and ownership of) centres by participating disciplinary units. Despite the added complexity, we see a system of joint academic appointments between participating academic units and the Area Studies centres as one important mechanism that could be employed at Sydney in order to obtain and maintain the buy‐in and engagement that will be necessary from disciplinary units if the strategy is to succeed. Joint appointments would also serve to ensure that most participating staff remain firmly connected with their disciplinary units. In the initial phases of establishing centres, such a system will require funding

29 from central or external sources, but over time we envisage the appointments being supported by revenues generated by the activities of the centre in collaboration with participating units.

5.3.6 Focus of centres

The sections above covered some detail of the expected activities of the directors of any Area Studies centres that may be established as part of the University’s strategy. Section 5.1.2, ‘The activities of Area Studies centres’, also contains a summary of the activities which participants in the Review thought would be appropriate for any new centres to undertake.

Aside from administrative and co‐ordinating activities, which will be partially determined by the human resources available to each centre, the core academic activities of any newly established centre will be research and teaching. A question relevant to the assessment of models, therefore, is to what extent centres will aim to carry out each of these activities.

The possibility was raised in the Faculty of Arts, Law and Education and Social Work consultation session that an Area Studies strategy might begin with undergraduate courses and build upwards from there (Appendix 6.2.2). Throughout most of the consultation sessions and written submissions, however, there was a consensus that a more likely strategy for success would be for centres to initially focus on fostering cross‐disciplinary research and research training, and to move from there into undergraduate and postgraduate coursework teaching where appropriate. At the Faculty of Arts, Law and Education and Social Work consultation session participants described their view of the difficulty of implementing an initial Area Studies strategy at the undergraduate level:

‘...to create undergraduate Area Studies capacity may require significant change to internal regulations of degree structures, while staff and research interconnections may require less change. The formation of an Area Studies program may therefore have to be a staged process.’ Appendix 6.2.2, Faculty of Arts, Law and Education and Social Work consultation session

A range of views was expressed throughout the consultations on whether undergraduate teaching should become a part of the activities of Area Studies centres at all. Many viewed coursework teaching as a core activity of Area Studies centres, whether or not it could be included early on in the activities of centres, or would be developed once centres became firmly established. Professor Roland Fletcher wrote:

‘Area Studies programs should be...designed to facilitate students from anywhere in the University having access to being taught and assessed by staff from anywhere in the University in a frictionless (from their point of view) administrative milieu.’ Submission 26, Professor Roland Fletcher, Professor of Theoretical and World Archaeology, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts

Professor Helen Dunstan raised a concern of ‘inadequate undergraduate preparation for postgraduate research, which is reflected in inadequate flow‐through into PhD programs’ in Area Studies, particularly in her field of Chinese Studies (Submission 30). This concern was mirrored in various

30 consultation sessions, where concerns were raised that students at the undergraduate level would be unable to take on the challenge of a research degree at an Area Studies centre without adequate preparation in the language and culture of the region.

With all of these considerations in mind, it is the Panel’s view that any centres established as part of a University‐wide Area Studies strategy should initially focus on research and research training activities, while at the same time developing or coordinating coursework teaching programs in close consultation with participating staff and disciplinary units.

As part of its broader strategy for Area Studies the University will also need to consider ways to make language and cultural training more accessible to students from any discipline at the undergraduate level. In this regard, the Panel notes the work of the University’s Working Party on ‘Second Language’ Acquisition and the Student Experience at the University. The Panel endorses the projects that the Working Party is undertaking to better integrate language acquisition in professional programs in particular, and to enhance ‘in‐country’ language immersion opportunities.

5.3.7 Funding

Sources of funding Globally, Area Studies centres are funded from a variety of sources. In the United States for example, Area Studies Centres continue to receive substantial funding from the Federal Government through Title VI and Fulbright‐Hays programs. These programs support the study of foreign language, area, and international studies. They provide infrastructure in colleges and universities which is designed to provide a steady supply of graduates with expertise in less commonly taught languages, world areas, and trans‐national trends. The Title VI scheme primarily provides domestically‐based language and area training, research and outreach, while the Fulbright‐Hays program supports in‐country opportunities to develop these skills.3 National governments, or groups of governments (such as the European Commission) often also provide funding to support centres in other countries focused on the study of their area, and on building linkages with the host country.

While the current prospects of accessing significant block funding from Commonwealth or State Governments to support the establishment of Area Studies centres are limited, they should not be ruled out. The Commonwealth recently announced funding of $8 million from the Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund to establish an ‘Australia India Institute’ to be led by the University of Melbourne, but involving La Trobe University and the University of New South Wales.4 In its first term of office the Rudd Labor Government has signalled a keen interest for Australia to be engaged internationally and global in its outlook – with a particular focus on the Asia Pacific Region. Long term, once the Commonwealth’s new National Asian Languages and Studies School Program begins to produce greater numbers of Australian students with an interest and competency in Asian languages,

3 http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/title‐six.html 4 http://www.deewr.gov.au/Ministers/Gillard/Media/Releases/Pages/Article_090807_124408.aspx

31 it is reasonable to expect that this will result in greater demand for university‐level language education within the next decade.5

As part of the Federal Government’s responses to the Bradley Review of Higher Education, a total of $200 million over four years 2009‐13 has been committed for further structural adjustment by higher education providers, as part of shift to a student ‘demand‐driven’ and negotiated mission‐based compacts approach to the funding of universities.6 While the stated focus of these funds will be to support institutions based in regional and remote areas to adjust to a more deregulated environment, it is possible that Sydney may be able to access some funding through this scheme to support an Area Studies strategy, or specific centres, through the compact negotiation process.

Another source of possible Government funding for the establishment phase of centres would be through the Australian Research Council’s Centres of Excellence program. This program, however, is highly competitive and the reality is that such an application would only be likely to succeed following concerted strategic, organisational and planning work. Already, some research activities in Area Studies that are taking place at the University have had significant success in attracting funding from competitive grant scheme and could be used as a basis for future Centres of Excellence applications. (Section 5.3, Assessment of areas)

Internationally successful Area Studies centres derive income from a wide variety of sources other than enabling grants from governments. Other common sources of income include domestic and international student fees; targeted scholarships; research grants and consultancies; endowments and outright gifts. The Panel anticipates that the centre Directors will work closely with the participating faculties, the University’s Development Office and the International Portfolio to identify and pursue income generating opportunities for the centres and their supporting academic units. Significant opportunities exist for the University to access philanthropic support for an Area Studies strategy as a whole, or for centres focused on specific areas. The prospects of accessing such resources will be enhanced greatly by the existence of a clear overall strategy, and by having effective centre Directors in place.

Funding requirements The level of administrative and other support that would be required to support each centre is, as Professor Adrian Vickers noted in his submission, a ‘how long is a piece of string question’; as it is dependent on the agreed objectives for the strategy, the initial strategic and operating plans for each centre and the availability of funds:

‘Ideally the levels of funding that support the US Studies Centre; at a minimum a separate Southeast Asia Centre director on professorial‐level salary ($200,000 pa with on‐costs), admin staff ($100,000), 3‐4 post‐doc/fellowship funds ($200,000), so $500,000 pa, not including running costs, seminar, travel, seed funding, post‐graduate support etc budget, which would run to at least $150,000 pa. A budget to support the study of languages, especially smaller‐enrolment languages, is also essential. This would consist of funding for outside teachers to run specialist programs at the University of

5 http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NALSSP/Pages/default.aspx 6 http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Pages/TransformingAustraliasHESystem.aspx

Sydney ($100,000 pa, including administrative support) and a set of scholarship and other support mechanisms to facilitate in‐country programs ($50,000 pa starting funding). A higher profile would be achieved by taking over a journal or publication series, which would require funding of editorial and publishing staff.’ Submission 8, Professor Adrian Vickers, Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts

Professor David Hensher took a similar view:

‘This depends on the size of the enterprise. If you want a stand‐alone Centre for say South America, then I would start small and appoint two very able persons (1 academic, 1 entrepreneurial) with impeccable networks in the country (location) of interest. Provide also a project manager (HEO 8), an office manager (HEO 7), and two RAs (HEO7).’ Submission 10, Professor David Hensher, Director and Head of Discipline, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, Faculty of Economics and Business

In the absence of immediate funding options from external sources, the challenge for the University is to determine whether, compared to competing strategic priorities, it is worth investing general University funds to support the establishment of a small number of Area Studies centres. Most contributors to the Review who commented on the issue of ongoing support from central University funds, believed that if an Area Studies approach was viewed as a strategic priority by University, then establishment funding should come from the central administration.

The Panel believes that if the University is to implement an Area Studies strategy, then it will need to be supported from the University’s strategic resources, at least in the establishment phase. With such investment, good support from faculties and the recruitment of the right people, there are good prospects that the centres will, in time, contribute positively to the balance sheets of participating faculties and departments. Ongoing levels of support should be subject to the University’s normal budget processes, and decisions about the continuation of centres should be made after the periodic reviews of performance which are required under the University’s Centres Policy.

5.3.8 A preferred model for Sydney

Based on the objectives set out in Section 5.1.5, feedback from the consultations and the analysis and experience of the Panel, the following model is recommended for any centres that the University decides to establish as part of the first phase of a University‐wide strategy to foster Area Studies.

Recommendation 8 That the University adopt the following model as its preferred model for the establishment of new Area Studies centres within the University:

As discussed above the precise amount of funding that will be required to support each Centre in the establishment phase will depend on the strategic and operational plans that will be agreed for each centre between the University and the participating faculties and departments.

5.4 Assessment of areas

As discussed in Section 5.2.1, the Review experienced some difficulties obtaining information about academic staff with a research or teaching interest in particular countries or regions.

In the absence of consolidated data about the area interests of staff, and with the limited resources available to undertake this research, the Review relied heavily on information provided in submissions, participants in the consultation sessions, and helpful staff in most faculties. The International Portfolio also provided some information based on surveys of international research collaborations it had undertaken. The Panel has assessed twelve areas (eight regions, Australia, China, Japan and Korea), according to criteria including: current strength and spread of expertise across faculties; the strategic importance of the area to Australia; the potential for the University to develop a competitive advantage in the area – including competitor analysis and analysis of the relative international standing of our existing capacity. In making our recommendations about which areas the University should focus on initially, we have also taken a pragmatic approach in recognition of the financial challenges the University currently faces as a result of the Global Financial Crisis and other factors.

We stress that the ‘mapping’ information provided below and in Appendix 6.3 does not necessarily represent the full extent of activity relevant to any particular area.

The Panel expects that further details about area strengths will emerge following the release of this report, and welcomes such feedback, as it will assist the University to gain a better understanding of the breadth and depth of area expertise relevant to specific countries or regions.

Recommendation 9 That the University adopt the following criteria for the selection and review of Area Studies Centres:

5.4.1 Africa

Current strength and spread across faculties Preliminary mapping found a total of 17 scholars with an interest in Africa, across nine faculties (Agriculture, Arts, Economics, Education & Social Work, Law, Medicine, Science and Veterinary Science).

Strategic importance Australia’s strategic interests in Africa were recently the subject of a policy forum held by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). According to Dr Tanya Lyons from Flinders University, despite the prevalence of political instability and ongoing civil wars across Africa, Australian mining

35 companies and associated industries have been gradually increasing investments in the continent over the last fifteen years.7 ASPI’s Director of the Australian National Security Projected, Dr Carl Ungerer, reported that interests in sub‐Saharan Africa have increased from virtually nothing to over US$20 billion and that BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are leading a renewed push into the African resources sector despite the global economic crisis.8 Alongside this rapid growth in mining interests, Australia has welcomed many refugees from Africa through its humanitarian refugee program. The population of African‐born Australians is now over 200,000. A recent government discussion paper on African Australians: A Report on Human Rights and Social Inclusion Issues, indicated that this influx of Africans is not without associated social problems, which need to be addressed.9 In 2005 when the then Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Kevin Rudd, spoke to the Australia‐South Africa Business Council he argued for a new engagement with Africa, mainly because of China and India’s increased investment there. With Labor now in Government, the Commonwealth has a new focus and strategy for Africa ‐ signalling its intention to change direction on Africa and pursue a much stronger engagement strategy. Recent visits to Africa by the Governor General, the Foreign and Defence Ministers, reinforced the Government’s message.10 At the same time, the Obama Administration has called for a new engagement strategy with Africa, built around longstanding US strategic interests in the promotion of democracy and human rights. ‘Development assistance programs will continue to be a major plank of that strategy. But so will a more comprehensive engagement in Africa’s political and security structures’.11 According to Ungerer, ‘the elevation of African issues in foreign and defence policy is based, in part, on a judgment about shifting strategic priorities among the major powers. Canberra believes that Africa is drawing closer to the centre of international politics. And continuing a policy of benign neglect towards a quarter of the world’s countries is no longer sufficient to meet Australia’s long‐term national interests.’12

Competitive advantage There are concerns that Australia needs more African experts to provide information, content and analysis on the political and economic climate in Africa. According to Tanya Lyons, ‘there are only a few topics available on African politics in all Australian universities, and less than a handful of academics who could supervise postgraduate research on African security and political issues.’13

With seventeen scholars with expertise in Africa, Sydney may be as well placed as any other Australian University to develop strength in this area. It is the Panel’s view, however, that Sydney would be starting from too low a base to develop the capacity in African scholarship that would be required to make a centre internationally competitive. At this point it would be more strategic for the International Portfolio, under the direction of the Deputy Vice‐Chancellor (International), to build

7 http://www.aspi.org.au/research/spf_article.aspx?aid=51 8 http://www.aspi.org.au/research/spf_article.aspx?aid=46 9 http://www.aspi.org.au/research/spf_article.aspx?aid=51 10http://www.aspi.org.au/research/spf_article.aspx?aid=46 11http://www.aspi.org.au/research/spf_article.aspx?aid=46 12 http://www.aspi.org.au/research/spf_article.aspx?aid=46 13 http://www.aspi.org.au/research/spf_article.aspx?aid=51

36 further links with African universities and to explore further options for collaboration with the aim of, over time, developing more Africa expertise and closer links, at which point we might explore the feasibility of a more formal Area Studies centre in this field.

5.4.2 Australia

Current strength and spread across faculties The strength of expertise in Australian studies is perhaps the hardest of all to assess. While it is relatively easy to identify research interest in Indigenous Australian studies or in Australian history or literature, boundaries become blurred in other disciplines – for instance, in biology, where a researcher may have a specific interest in Australian ecosystems or wildlife, or in Medicine, where the interest may be in Australian attitudes to visiting the doctor. To go too far in this direction would be to include most of the University’s academic staff as researchers with expertise in ‘Australian studies’.

For this reason the data on researchers with an interest in Australia is less reliable than for other geographical areas. Nevertheless, preliminary mapping indicates around 33 researchers with an interest in ‘Australia’ in the more narrow sense, working across seven faculties (Architecture, Arts, Economics, Health Sciences, Medicine, School of Contemporary Art, Veterinary Science) and the Koori Centre.

In addition to the Koori Centre, the University has the Poche Centre for Indigenous Health in the Faculty of Medicine and programs of study in Indigenous Health in the Faculties of Medicine and Health Sciences.

Strategic importance In strategic terms, it would be natural to argue that thorough research into the issues facing Australia internally – such as indigenous health and education, population, immigration, environment and workforce issues – are of prime strategic importance to our social, political and economic future.

Competitive advantage Sydney would appear to be in a strong position to develop a Centre for Australian Studies, which may be of interest, in particular, to students from other countries interested in understand more about Australian society and culture. On the other hand, there are a number of existing centres for Australian studies in Australia and elsewhere (Monash and London for example). This is a crowded field and in the Panel’s view, the initial focus of an Area Studies strategy at Sydney should be on developing centres about other countries or regions. If academics active in this area saw value in the establishment of an Australian Studies network at Sydney and the promotion of it activities, then this should be encouraged by the University as a possible component of its broader strategy for cross‐ disciplinary teaching and research.

5.4.3 China

Current strength and spread across faculties Preliminary mapping of the University’s expertise in the study of China shows at least 50 academic staff across eight faculties (Agriculture, Arts, Economics, Education & Social Work, Law, Medicine, Pharmacy, and Veterinary Science) with a research interest in China.

A Contemporary China Research Group has recently been established in the Faculty of Arts, with input from other faculties, and a number of relevant centres already exist such as the China Education Centre in the Faculty of Education and Social Work. For further details please see the Appendix6.3.1.

Strategic importance David Morris, Director of Government Relations in the Office of the Vice‐Chancellor, wrote in support of an Area Studies strategy which would focus on furthering our research and teaching capacity in China studies:

‘China is one of the key international actors with which Australia and Australians will increasingly engage in the future, with its re‐emergence as a great economic power. Arguably, China will become the world’s largest economy within the next decade or decade and a half. It is already one of Australia’s largest trading partners. It is also a significant source of Australia’s migrants... As a major Asian power, China is also a key influence on our other regional partners.’ Submission 13, David Morris, Director of Government Relations, Office of the Vice‐Chancellor

China is already a major source of international students both for the Australian education sector as a whole and for the University of Sydney. One in eight of the Sydney population is now of Chinese descent and the University has a growing Chinese Alumni network. China is investing heavily in its own higher education system with a view to becoming a global leader in research and innovation.

Competitive advantage China Studies at the University of Sydney has been historically underdeveloped, particularly in comparison to ANU, the widely recognised leader in China Studies programs in Australia, and until recently the largest. This situation is beginning to change quite dramatically. There have been a number of appointments in recent years to full professorships in China Studies at Sydney so that there are currently nine China Studies professors (with another chair waiting to be filled) compared to four at ANU. There are full professorships in Anthropology, Chinese Language and Culture, Fine Art, History, Media and Culture, Politics, and Political Economy. The University of Sydney has a far wider range of academic and intellectual interest in China than ANU across eight University of Sydney faculties and at present seems to have about the same number of academic staff involved directly in research and education on China as ANU. In addition, where ANU’s attention is widely targeted at different aspects of China’s society, history and culture, China Studies at University of Sydney is characterised by its focus on contemporary social and political change, especially at the local level.

Within China Studies there is the capacity to develop a postgraduate program and a research training program in China Studies. Numbers of staff engaged in China Studies are larger than those at UTS which established a China Research Centre in 2008, and which has attempted to establish

38 postgraduate studies in the field. The China Studies capacity of the University of Sydney is vested in staff based in different departments, schools and faculties and there is a need to establish a Centre to ensure this competitive advantage is realised.

An important aspect of the University of Sydney’s competitive advantage with respect to its China‐ related activities is the number of academic staff who work with colleagues in China or who work on China and its development though not themselves specifically China specialists. Staff in the Faculties of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, Arts, Economics and Business, Education & Social Work, Law, Medicine and Science work on and with colleagues in China from perspectives other than those of China Studies. The number of those with these interests appears to be far greater than at other Australian universities.

The University of Sydney is well placed to develop its activities and resource base through its links with the local Chinese communities, and its Chinese alumni. The University hosts a Confucius Institute, which under the leadership of its new full time Director is likely to prove an asset in the mobilisation of support from Sydney’s sizeable Chinese communities. There is a high possibility of being able to raise funds to support the development of China Studies and China‐related academic activities from Chinese graduates. One chair in China Studies has already been funded this way and with University support it should prove possible to develop fund‐raising for a variety of activities.

5.4.4 Europe

Current strength and spread across faculties Expertise in Europe tends to be concentrated in the School of Languages and Cultures in the Faculty of Arts. There is also representation on the list from the Faculties of Agriculture, Architecture, Economics, Engineering, Law, Science and the Conservatorium of Music. A total of 42 researchers including some classicists and medievalists are therefore spread across eight faculties. It is likely that not all scholars with an interest in Europe have been captured by the preliminary mapping carried out for the Review.

Strategic importance Taken in its entirety, Europe has the largest economy of any in the world, and with its huge diversity and cultural antiquity, it remains an area of deep research interest both in itself and as a bellwether for social and political issues that will face Australia now and in the future.

Competitive advantage Given the breadth and depth of expertise on Europe at the University of Sydney there is a case for Europe being considered as one of our Area Studies centres. In addition, there have been long standing efforts to generate a significant European Studies group in the University, and these efforts have born some fruit at both the teaching and research level. On the other hand, we have very significant strengths in the history and literature of Europe but less breadth and depth in politics, economic policy, social policy, sociology and law. Moreover, significant EU funding to establish EU Centres at Australian universities has gone to other universities (notably ANU, Macquarie, La Trobe and Flinders) even though Sydney has made bids for this funding. As a result, despite our strengths, any comparative advantage for Sydney in this area is at best marginal. The scale of investment required to generate a measurable advantage in this area would be very significant and beyond the

39 capacity of the University at this point. Therefore, at this point, the Review Panel believes that the case for a Europe Centre is not as strong as for some other areas.

5.4.5 Japan

Current strength and spread across faculties The mapping undertaken in the Review shows at least 42 scholars with an interest in Japan working across five faculties (Architecture, Arts, Economics, Education & Social Work, and Law). As well as the various Centres at the University that deal with Asian studies, the University of Sydney participates in the Australian Network for Japanese Law ‐ which promotes scholarly engagement with Japanese Law in Australia.

Strategic importance By various measures Japan remains the world’s second or third largest economy and is a major traditional trading partner of Australia. Associate Professor Elise Tipton, from the Department of Japanese Studies in the Faculty of Arts wrote of the strategic importance of Australia’s relationship with Japan:

‘One observation about Japan‐Australia relations that’s been made and may explain the relative neglect of Japan at higher levels of both the university and government is that the relationship has reached a level of maturity. Japan is no longer seen as a hot area for future expansion like China and India, but that doesn’t mean we should be complacent about keeping it vibrant.’ Email to Tim Payne, 1 September 2009.

In a recent speech the Australian Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, outlined the strategic importance of North Asia to Australia:

‘For over 40 years, Japan has been Australia's largest export market. It was our largest trading partner in 2008. Japanese investment in Australia has continued to grow, notwithstanding the global economic crisis and Japan's domestic economic difficulties. We look forward to enhancing our economic relationship further through the conclusion of a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement. Australia is committed to strengthening relations with Japan, not only by intensifying high level relations, but by building on our respective Alliances with the United States through the Trilateral Security Dialogue.’ Stephen Smith, Australian Foreign Minister, Speech to the Griffith Asia Institute 14 August 2009.

Competitive advantage The University clearly has significant expertise in Japan, although as with Europe the real depth of expertise is in the fields of history and literature, rather than politics, economics and other social sciences. Student interest and enrolments are comparatively high. It is arguable that Sydney’s breadth and depth in this area is significant in an Australian context perhaps second to that of ANU. On balance, the Panel recommends that the University does not support the establishment of a Japan centre in the first stage of its Area Studies strategy. The Panel believes that the researchers in this area should be encouraged to develop and promote networks across faculties. Any such network which

40 was established would provide an important focal point for the study of Japan given the degree of expertise evidenced in this region.

5.4.6 Korea

Current strength and spread across faculties A total of 11 Korean scholars were identified in preliminary mapping, in five faculties (Architecture, Arts, Economics, Education and the Conservatorium).

Strategic importance The Republic of Korea (ROK or South Korea) is a major trading partner of Australia’s and one of our largest export markets. Relations with the ROK have prospered over the past 40 years with shared regional interests and trade complementarity. Australia is actively in support of the resolution of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, along with key players China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea), Japan and the United States of America. Recent testing of nuclear weapons by the DPRK (April and May 2009) has reignited international concern over North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. The area therefore remains of global strategic interest.

Competitive advantage While there is no doubt that a case can be made for the development within Australia of a greater degree of expertise and understanding about the Korean region, it is the Panel’s view that, compared to other areas, the University of Sydney does not currently have the extent of expertise in the region to warrant the establishment of a centre for the study of Korea in the first phase of concerted Area Studies Strategy unless there was significant external support to sustain such a Centre. Networks between staff and students with an interest in the region should be encouraged while the International Portfolio should continue to build up our links with and expertise in Korea.

5.4.7 Middle East

Current strength and spread across faculties The Middle East as a region is not always clearly defined, but includes countries on and around the Arabian Peninsula: Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel and Palestine, Jordon, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Preliminary mapping undertaken by the review indicates at least 23 academics with a research interest in the Middle East working in five faculties (Arts, the Conservatorium, Economics, Engineering and Medicine). In the Faculty of Arts there is a Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies within the School of Languages and Cultures.

Strategic importance The Middle East remains politically volatile and the area is of high strategic interest to Australia in terms of its security issues and also in terms of how these impact on our relationships with key partner nations. Australia continues to be involved in efforts to meet the humanitarian and reconstruction

41 needs of Iraq. The Middle East is a significant destination for Australian exports including agriculture, services and manufactured exports, and our commercial interests in the area are expanding.

Competitive advantage The possibility for a competitive advantage for the University of Sydney in this region seems to be similar to the situation outlined for Africa or Korea. While Australia without doubt needs more expertise centred on the Middle East, the Panel is of the view that, compared to other areas, the University’s current levels of expertise are not sufficient to lay the foundation for successful centre for the study of the Middle East at this stage. Again, it would appear to be more strategically sound for the International Portfolio to continue to foster relationships with universities within the region and to seek to offer scholarships to students from the region, in order to build a base from which expertise in the Middle East at the University may eventually build.

5.4.8 Latin America

Current strength and spread across faculties Preliminary mapping of research interest in Latin America found 21 researchers with an interest in the area, the majority in the Faculty of Arts, with others in the faculties of Agriculture, Economics, Education & Social Work, Science, and Veterinary Science (six faculties). There is also a small but thriving network of researchers and postgraduates ‐ the Sydney University Research Community for Latin America (SURCLA), which aims to promote research and teaching in Latin American studies and also runs outreach events such as a film festival and a lecture series.14

Strategic importance A submission from staff of the Spanish and Latin American Studies Program stressed the importance of the connection between the USA and Latin America, taking the view that this area would be better understood as ‘The Americas’.

‘Latin America is geographically, historically and culturally connected to the USA...US studies has benefited greatly...from the scholarly work produced in and on Latin America... The Americas uniquely encompass both North and South geopolitically, especially at the vantage point of Mexico and the US, whose border is the largest frontier, industrial zone and crossing point for both human and capital movement between Global North and South.’ Submission 39, Dr Vek Lewis and Dr Fernanda Penaloza, Spanish and Latin American Studies Program, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts

Competitive advantage According to Drs Lewis and Penaloza, The University of Sydney is well placed to build a competitive presence in Latin American Studies:

…No other Sydney based University runs research seminars and organises cultural activities with a focus on Latin America. [SURCLA] answers both a student demand

14 http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/spanishlatino/surcla/index.shtml

… but also a community and academy‐wide interest. The fact that we have managed to attract to each of our events between 40 to 70 people speaks volumes about the fact that we have identified a demand and we are satisfying it. SURCLA offers a site of debate where members share their ideas, strategies and research experiences with the common goal of advancing knowledge of Latin America. Given our experience, it is our firm belief and conviction that the University is uniquely placed to become the leader in Latin American research, something which our competitors (eg. ANU with ANCLAS, Australian National Centre for Latin American Studies) already threaten to do (as they have done in Asian Studies, for example – a significant loss). Submission 39

There is also growing demand for the study of the Spanish language, with total undergraduate load for 2009 at 179.6 EFTSU up from 98.6 in 2005. But at this point it seems apparent, despite our current and increasing activities in this area, that compared to other areas we lack the breadth and depth of expertise required to leverage additional momentum in this area through the establishment of a formal centre. As capacity develops, however, this area might be worthy of reconsideration to see if the interest, breadth and depth is sufficient to warrant further support. The Panel believes that the researchers in this area should be encouraged in their efforts to develop and promote research across faculties.

5.4.9 North America

Current strength and spread across faculties Preliminary mapping undertaken during the Review found 26 University staff with an interest in North America, in six faculties (Arts, Conservatorium of Music, Economics, Health Sciences, Law, and Science) and the United States Studies Centre (USSC). The USSC is a major centre hosted on the University’s Camperdown campus since 2008, but which is administratively independent from the University. The centre was established in partnership between the Australian Government, the American Australian Association, the NSW Government, The University of Sydney and the private sector. Its activities include postgraduate and undergraduate teaching, academic research and research training, policy analysis and commentary, business leadership forums, public education and community outreach.

Strategic importance It goes without saying that the United States is of significant strategic importance to Australia, while Australia shares many similarities and common interests with Canada. Every year, 200,000 Australians visit Canada and 100,000 Canadians come here – with most visits being by young people. In an address to the Australian Parliament’s House of Representatives in 2007, the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Stephen Harper noted:

‘Today, despite the vast distance between us, Canada and Australia follow remarkably similar paths. We have built on the enduring strengths which we inherited from our European ancestors, added the common experience of multicultural, immigrant nations and sought to achieve reconciliation with our first peoples. Of course, Canada and

Australia have also borrowed and adapted the traditions and institutions of British government and American federalism... ‘ Hansard, 11 September 2007.

Competitive advantage Through improved collaboration with the USSC the University is already in a strong position to build competitive advantage in relation to North America. Moreover, at this point it would be clearly counterproductive to establish a centre that might compete with the USSC. The USSC is a high profile, active centre that is making a very significant contribution to linking researchers in this area and leveraging this expertise in a major way to enhance the University’s profile, contribution and reputation. The University should support the USSC and encourage faculties and departments to cooperate with it.

5.4.10 South Asia

Current strength and spread across faculties 42 researchers were found in preliminary mapping to have a research interest in South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives). Expertise was widely spread across faculties with representation from ten faculties (Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, Architecture, Arts, Economics & Business, Education & Social Work, Dentistry, Health Sciences, Science, Sydney College of the Arts and Veterinary Science).

There is a South Asia Studies Group in the Faculty of Economics and Business. On 17 September 2009 the Faculty of Arts sought expressions of interest for a University‐wide South Asia Research Network which would aim to promote the study of South Asia and bring together scholars in the area for various activities. The response to this initial call for interest elicited 50 names (including some research students).

Strategic importance India’s economy is one of the fastest growing major economies in the world, and several submissions to the Review commented on the University’s lack of investment in research into this key region. Professor Robert Aldrich wrote that:

‘...it is particularly lamentable that the University has so little interest and provides so little support for studies of South Asia given the cultural, commercial and geopolitical importance of the region. Indian Studies was once a thriving field ... but over the past years, there has seemingly been little commitment to the development of expertise in such an important area.’ Submission 22, Professor Robert Aldrich, Professor of European History, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts

The Australian Government has recently shown considerable interest in India in response to issues relating to the experience of Indian students studying in Australia. Notably, the Government has recently committed $8 million to establish an Australia India Institute to be led by the University of Melbourne, but involving La Trobe University and the University of New South Wales.15

In a recent speech on Australia’s strategic regional relations, the Australian Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, said of Australia’s relationship with South Asia:

South Asia is increasingly important for Australia's strategic and economic interests. Australia is committed to taking its relationship with India to the front rank of our bilateral partnerships. Today, the world is beginning to see India, the largest parliamentary democracy, assume the global influence to which its economic size and strength, its strategic weight and its rich history entitle it. The Government is determined to seize upon an historic opportunity to take our relationship with India to a new economic and strategic level. This momentum has occurred despite, not because of, any concerted Australian governmental effort over the past thirty years or so. Stephen Smith, Australian Foreign Minister, Speech to the Griffith Asia Institute 14 August 2009.

Competitive advantage As the Commonwealth has just invested in a collaborative research centre focused on India, there would appear to be little prospect of Sydney securing funding from the Commonwealth to support another centre. Achieving greater levels of collaboration between Australian universities is a policy priority for the Australian Government. While arguably no Australian universities may presently have the breadth and depth of knowledge and expertise about India to claim an international reputation, there may be potential for this to be achieved through collaboration between institutions. There may, in particular, be potential for the University of Sydney to add value and develop specific areas of South Asia expertise by seeking to become part of, or linked as a node with, the new Australia India Institute to be funded by the Commonwealth. Researchers in this area should be encouraged to continue their efforts to facilitate and promote research across faculties.

5.4.11 Southeast Asia

Current strength and spread across faculties Southeast Asia comprises Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam. The preliminary mapping undertaken as part of the Review indicates that there are at least 94 staff across 11 different faculties (Agriculture, Architecture, Arts, Conservatorium, Economics & Business, Education, Health Sciences, Law, Medicine, Science, Veterinary Science) and the Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific (RIAP) who have a research interest in Southeast Asia.

15 http://www.deewr.gov.au/Ministers/Gillard/Media/Releases/Pages/Article_090807_124408.aspx

There is a network for Southeast Asia already in existence at the University. It has a mailing list of 110 (which includes honorary fellows and PhD scholars). which The network holds regular seminars as well as special postgraduate seminars and master‐classes.

In addition to this network, there are also centres across the University with expertise in Southeast Asia. These are: the Australian Mekong Resource Centre (Faculty of Science); the Australian Centre for Asian Art and Archaeology (Faculty of Arts); the Centre for Asian and Pacific Law at the University of Sydney (Faculty of Law); the Centre for International Security Studies (Faculty of Economics and Business); the Sydney Centre for International Law (Faculty of Law); and the Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific (International Portfolio). For further details of the activities of these centres please see the Appendix 6.3.1.

Two of the University’s most senior Southeast Asia scholars made written submissions to the Review of Area Studies: Professor Adrian Vickers, Professor of Southeast Asian Studies in the School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts (and who runs the Southeast Asia network), and Professor Philip Hirsch, Professor in the School of Geosciences, Faculty of Science, and Director of the Australian Mekong Resource Centre. Both submissions provide extensive detail on the strength of Southeast Asian studies at the University of Sydney. Professor Vickers wrote, for example, that:

‘The University of Sydney has a long history of Southeast Asian Studies, although it has never had a Southeast Asian Studies Centre. It currently has four professors who are recognised as leading scholars in the study of Southeast Asia, and has researchers in most Faculties who also have a strong Southeast Asian focus in their work. Scholars working on Southeast Asia have strong records of grant success, for example the Indonesian Department has more ARC grants than it has members of staff.’ Submission 8, Professor Adrian Vickers, Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts

Strategic importance The Panel views Southeast Asia as an area of strategic importance to Australia in terms both of its physical proximity, and in terms of the political involvement between Australia and countries in the Southeast Asian region which this proximity entails.

Competitive advantage The University of Sydney would appear to have a strong competitive advantage in Southeast Asian studies purely by virtue of the number of scholars we have working in the area. It is arguable that no other university in Australia could boast the same level of expertise, across a breadth of disciplines – yet the depth of breadth of this expertise is not widely understood either within or outside the University.

If the University’s expertise in Southeast Asia was more widely known the likelihood is that Sydney would be able to attract more high quality students from the region and significant interest from philanthropists and other potential funding sources. Further, our proximity to the region offers a competitive advantage against comparable international institutions.

5.4.12 The Pacific

Current strength and spread across faculties Preliminary mapping of research interest in this area at the University of Sydney indicates at least 20 researchers working across a wide range of faculties. A total of ten faculties are represented on the list: Arts; the Conservatorium of Music; Economics & Business; Education & Social Work; Health Sciences; Law; Medicine; Nursing & Midwifery; and Veterinary Science. Ten of the 20 staff members identified are from the Health Faculties ‐ either Health Sciences, Nursing or Medicine.

In terms of centres and programs already in existence, much interest in the Pacific seems to be concentrated in the Public Health program in the Faculty of Medicine, the Menzies Centre for Health Policy and the George Institute for International Health. In addition, there are the various Centres focussing on Asia and the Pacific, and the University also participates in PARADISEC, the Pacific and Regional Archive for Digital Sources in Endangered Cultures.

Professor Stephen Leeder and Associate Professor Ruth Colagiuri of the Menzies Centre for Health Policy in the Faculty of Medicine, provided a written submission to the Review which suggested an approach to study of the Pacific at the University of Sydney in terms of the thematic areas of climate change and public health (Submission 37).

Strategic importance While the countries of the Pacific tend to be small in population and economic strength, one strategic argument in favour of support for research into the problems facing these nations is that their issues tend to be Australia’s own issues, magnified. Finding solutions for problems facing the Pacific nations is therefore a key to finding solutions for the problems Australia faces and will face in the future. Further, as a leading regional power in Pacific, the rest of the world looks to Australia to play a leading role in ensuring stability regional stability and security.

Competitive advantage The University already has a significant number of staff with expertise in Pacific affairs or with disciplinary interests that are directly applied in Pacific. There is potential for the University to build on this base to achieve competitive advantage in scholarship about a region which may not be as economically significant as other, but is nevertheless of strategic importance to Australia because of its geographic proximity and Australia’s responsibilities in the region. While the Panel is of the view that the case for a Pacific Studies centre is not currently as strong as the case for other areas, any cross‐disciplinary initiatives focused on this region should be considered for further support and promoted as part of the University’s Area Studies strategy.

5.4.13 Selection of areas

Given the above assessment of existing Area‐based expertise within the University, the strategic importance of each country or region to Australia, the potential for the University to achieve competitive advantage in research and teaching focused on each area, the Panel makes the following two recommendations about the approach the University should take to the pursuit of any institution‐ wide Area Studies Strategy.

While the committee has recommended that only two centres be established in the initial phases of the University’s Area Studies strategy, it will be crucial that existing and new area networks and programs develop over time as an integral part of the strategy. Most of these networks will be informal and be largely supported by faculties but should be highlighted as important elements of the University’s Area Studies capacity in any website or other initiatives the University establishes to promote its area strengths.

Recommendation 11 therefore reflects the understanding that area networks and programs will be an important part of our vision for Area Studies at the University of Sydney, and in some cases, where appropriate, these may grow into centres in the future.

5.5 Keys to success

Through the course of the Review the Panel identified the following sixteen key success factors for any Area Studies strategy at the University of Sydney:

1. The clarity of the objectives of the agreed strategy. 2. Realistic ambitions, assessment of costs and available sources of funding. 3. The extent to which the strategy is academic‐led and supported. 4. The degree of focus on the highest quality research and teaching. 5. The drive and quality of the academic leaders appointed to realise the strategy. 6. The extent to which the strategy fosters academic entrepreneurialism and innovation. 7. The extent to which the strategy complements, rather than works against disciplinary strengths. 8. The extent to which the strategy seeks to build on existing ‘area’ strengths. 9. The University’s ability to attract high quality domestic and international students to Area Studies programs. 10. The extent to which barriers to collaboration between University units and staff are removed. 11. The quality of the domestic and international linkages achieved. 12. The extent and quality of ‘in‐country’ placements and programs. 13. The extent to which the strategy bridges the divide between the teaching of languages and cultures and the location of disciplinary knowledge relevant to a culture or region.

14. The extent to which language education at the University is integrated and enhanced. 15. The extent to which the Area Studies centres lead and inform public debate about Australia’s relations with key regions and countries and the development of public policy in relation to these area. 16. The extent to which the Area Studies centres connect with local migrant communities.

Each of these factors is elaborated upon in Appendix 6.4. It is the Panel’s view that these ‘key success factors’ may also provide guidance for measuring the success of the Area Studies strategy as a whole, as well as the progress of any individual centres established under the strategy.

5.6 Conclusion

The Panel concludes by stressing that merely facilitating and funding the establishment of initial Area Studies Centres at the University of Sydney will not, by itself, be enough to ensure the strategy’s success.

As a number of participants in the Review advised, the history of the University is littered with ‘area’ and other types of cross‐disciplinary centres, or initiatives, that have failed for a variety of reasons. We therefore agree with the many contributors to the Review who emphasised that clear and sustained leadership from the University Centre will be critical to the successful implementation of any Area Studies strategy.

As highlighted in Section 5.2, there are a number of systemic barriers to collaboration that will stand in the way of success if left unaddressed. At a most basic level the University must make it easier for staff, students and the wider public to access information about the disciplinary and area expertise of individual staff and units within the University. Systemic barriers to collaboration posed by the current internal funding model must also be addressed. Otherwise, Area Studies are destined to be perceived as a source of competition for limited resources, rather than as a mechanism by which to make more of what we have and deliver additional resources to all units that support each centre.

In the establishment phase for centres in particular, the leadership of the University will need to work closely with each centre Director to develop strategic and operational plans that meet the University’s objectives, and have the support of each relevant academic community.

Further, while we believe the University should act now to support the establishment of centres for China and Southeast Asia, care must also be taken to encourage and promote other Area‐based networks that may have the potential to grow into centres in the future.

The Panel believes that the prospects of success will be good if: the University adopts the statement of objectives contained in Recommendation 2; moves to initially establish centres focused on China and Southeast Asia based on our recommended model set out in Recommendation 8; and works closely with the centre Directors, faculties and departments to steer the operation of centres down a path that aligns with the critical success factors we have identified (Section 5.5 and Appendix 6.4).

6. Appendix

6.1 Summary of the Review process

6.1.1 Project initiation

On 31 March 2009 the Vice‐Chancellor approved a Project Initiation Plan for the Review of Area Studies Work Slate Project.

On 30 April 2009 a discussion paper was released by the Office of the Vice‐Chancellor on behalf of the Review Panel. The discussion paper sought to elicit views on the current state of Area Studies at the University of Sydney and to stimulate discussion about whether the University should have an institution‐wide strategy for developing visible centres of Area Studies expertise. A number of key questions (listed below) were elaborated on in the discussion paper and responses from interested staff were sought by close of business on 19 June 2009.

Question 1 What is the current extent and state of Area Studies at the University of Sydney?

Question 2a What are our Area Studies strengths and weaknesses, and where do we want our future strengths to be? And

Question 2b Which cultural or geographical areas should the University focus on and on what grounds should such decisions be made?

Question 3 What relationship should there be between the University’s development of any strategies for Area Studies and its broader strategic planning process?

Question 4 What factors will be critical to the success of any Area Studies strategy?

Question 5 What kinds of activities should be pursued through Area Studies centres?

Question 6a What are the options for organisational, administrative and governance models for Area Studies? And

Question 6b Which operating model, or models, are preferred for this University and why?

Question 7 What level of funding will be required to create and sustain internationally competitive Area Studies centres and where will this funding come from?

Question 8 What role should the University’s International portfolio play in the establishment and operation of Area Studies centres?

Question 9 What lessons can be learnt for the establishment of university‐wide mechanisms for Area Studies from experiences at Sydney and elsewhere in supporting cross‐disciplinary activities organised around thematic areas of study and vice versa?

Question 10 Other issues?

6.1.2 Phase 1: Written consultation

Comments on the discussion paper were invited from interested staff and students. The call for submissions was publicised in early May 2009 by way of all‐staff email, an email to all postgraduate students, and an interview in the UniNews with Professor Garton, Chair of the Review Panel. The discussion paper was sent by email to postgraduate students and was also posted on the Review of Area Studies website. This site was accessible to all staff as part of the Vice‐Chancellor’s work slate.

On 21 May Professor Garton emailed Deans, Heads of selected Departments and a number of staff members who had been identified in early meetings of the Review Panel as potentially having an interest in the Review. This email reiterated the content of the all‐staff email, with a further request for written submissions to the Review, and a request that the email and discussion paper be forwarded to any other interested parties.

By the end of the written consultation period, a total of 45 submissions had been received. Of these, 32 submissions were from staff members, either individuals or collective submissions, and 13 were from students.

6.1.3 Phase 2: Facetoface consultations

Extension of consultation period The face‐to‐face consultation phase of the Review was originally scheduled for July 2009. However, at a meeting on 19 June 2009 the Review Panel discussed difficulties with this timing due to the absence of key staff – both Panel members and academic staff – from campus during the month of July. It was agreed that a request be made to the Vice‐Chancellor for an extension of the Phase 2 consultation period until the end of August, which would extend the completion date of the project to October 2009. The Vice‐Chancellor approved this request.

Individual consultations with Review Secretariat During the month of July, the project management and secretariat team for the Review took the opportunity to meet with a number of individual staff members who had made written submissions to the Review. These staff were asked to elaborate on comments they had made in their submissions, and assisted the Review team in developing an understanding of what a vision for Area Studies at the University of Sydney might be, keys to success, potential pitfalls and what are currently seen as systemic obstacles to collaboration at the University.

Individual consultations:

Friday 3rd July 2009, 2 – 3pm; Professor Adrian Vickers, Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts Individual consultation with Tim Payne, Director Policy Analysis and Communication, and Aislinn Batstone

Tuesday 7th July 2009, 3 – 4pm; Professor David Hensher, Director and Head of Discipline, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, Faculty of Economics and Business Individual consultation with Tim Payne, Director Policy Analysis and Communication

Tuesday 14th July 2009, 2 – 3pm; Professor Philip Hirsch, Professor in the School of Geosciences, Faculty of Science, and Director of the Australian Mekong Resource Centre Individual consultation with Tim Payne, Director Policy Analysis and Communication

Wednesday 22nd July 2009, 2 – 3pm; Mr Alex Maitland, Group Secretary, Office of General Counsel Individual consultation with Tim Payne, Director Policy Analysis and Communication, and Aislinn Batstone

Friday 31st July 2009, 10 – 11am; Professor Robert Aldrich, Professor of European History, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts Individual consultation with Tim Payne, Director Policy Analysis and Communication, and Aislinn Batstone

Tuesday 11 August 2009, 11 – 12 noon, Dr Vek Lewis and Dr Fernanda Penaloza, Lecturers in the Latin American Studies program, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts Individual consultation with Tim Payne, Director Policy Analysis and Communication

Review Panel consultation meetings In August 2009 a series of consultation meetings was arranged to give the Review Panel the opportunity to speak directly with staff members from the Faculties, and with postgraduate students.

Four consultation meetings were held and are listed below. A fifth consultation meeting, involving staff of the Faculties of Agriculture, Engineering and Science, was cancelled due to a lack of numbers. Full notes from the four consultation meetings are included below in Appendix 6.2, ‘Summary of consultation discussions’.

Thursday 6 August 2009, 11:30 – 1pm; Economics and Business Consultation meeting

Wednesday 19 August 2009, 9‐10:30am; Arts, Law and Education Consultation forum

Monday 24 August 2009, 2‐3:30pm; Postgraduate Consultation group

Wednesday 26th August, 9‐10:30am; Health Faculties Consultation group

6.1.4 Process of mapping existing strengths and weaknesses

Mapping To inform the Panel’s recommendations to the Vice‐Chancellor, the project management and secretariat team was asked to compile information on the extent of current area expertise and interest currently spread across the University. Summaries of the information obtained are contained in Appendix 6.3, ‘Mapping of Area Studies strengths’.

List of relevant centres, networks and programs at the University of Sydney As a first step in this mapping process, the Review Panel provided guidance as to interest networks already existing at the University – a Southeast Asia network, a China Interest Group and a Latin American interest group. Subsequently, a Japanese Law network was also added to this list. A South Asia interest network was established during the course of the Review.

The Group Secretary at the Office of General Counsel provided a list of centres recognised under the Centres Policy, and this list was analysed to extract those which might be relevant to the University’s Area Studies strategy.

The Faculty handbooks from all faculties were also reviewed to provide a further list of departments or programs of study which might relate to Area Studies.

List of researchers with an Area interest, as elicited during the Review Individuals from all networks mentioned above, who were currently employed in substantive positions at the University of Sydney, were added to the list of researchers with area interests.

Following the written consultation phase of the Review, the list of researchers with area interests was expanded to include individuals who had made submissions and identified themselves as researchers with an interest in particular countries or regions.

On 8 July 2009 the project management secretariat team wrote to the Associate Deans Research of all faculties, asking them to assist in the mapping process by providing contact details of an individual who may be able to assist in identifying researchers with an area interest in their faculty.

Responses from the faculties were mixed, with some able to provide thorough lists of area experts and others not able to respond within the Review timeframe. Lists were provided from the Faculties of Economics and Business, Health Sciences, Law, and the Conservatorium of Music.

The secretariat then undertook to review the smaller faculties by way of the University website, and was able to capture what appears to be reasonably thorough data from the Faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary Science. The Faculty of Arts website was also reviewed, with area experts from various departments and schools relatively easy to identify. Following this, staff from area centres already in existence at the University were also added to the list.

Assistance was requested from the International Portfolio, and while much of the data available from that source related to international collaborations rather than area themes, the data was analysed to provide further names for inclusion on the list of researchers with an area interest. From these data further names were included from the Faculties of Veterinary Science and Science, and the area interests of some other researchers were confirmed.

The international collaborations data provided by the International Portfolio had been provided to the portfolio by each faculty. Data had not been provided to the International Portfolio by the faculties of Medicine, Health Sciences, Nursing and Midwifery, the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, Architecture, Dentistry or Education and Social Work.

Finally, all members of the International Portfolio’s ‘Regional Expert’ groups were contacted to ask whether they would classify themselves as having an Area Studies‐type research interest in a particular region. Individuals who responded in the affirmative were added to the list.

Difficulties in the mapping process The secretariat encountered difficulties in the mapping process which should be noted as caveats to the use of the data. We found that there was no single source of information on individuals with area research interests in any faculty or for the University as a whole.

With limited resources, it was not possible for the secretariat team to undertake a thorough review of the information on staff research interests available on faculty websites. This information was in any case often found to be incomplete.

It therefore remains a concern that some faculties and potentially some geographical or cultural areas of interest remain underrepresented on the list of researchers with Area interests.

6.1.5 Models referred to during the consultation phases

Five possible operating models for Area Studies at the University of Sydney were raised in the Discussion Paper:

1. Centres established through the International Portfolio of the University, often overseen by a board comprising faculty representatives, and appointments made by the head of the portfolio or in partnership with the faculties.

2. Each centre as a distinct entity within the University, with joint appointments of staff from the faculties.

3. Centres embedded within a single department or faculty.

4. A physically distinct Institute for Area Studies with an overarching board and a coordinating, group administration function, with each Area Studies Centre having a director and its own board.

5. Centres hosted by a single faculty and accountable administratively to that faculty, but with a separate board of directors from all participating faculties, and joint appointment of staff from the faculties.

Further to this, written submissions and preliminary Phase 2 consultations identified 8 models favoured by some staff or units at the University with an interest in Area Studies. Some of these shared features of some of the models outlined in the Discussion Paper, but were described for the purposes of the Phase 2

54 consultation sessions as practical examples of possible models that Sydney could draw upon if it decided to embark upon a concerted Area Studies strategy.

Model 1: Minimalist/virtual centres A minimalist approach with a strong web presence, academic leadership and good administrative support. A Director with sound administrative support is appointed to act as the centre/coordinator/developer of a network of experts who already exist at the University. This administrative centre would arrange activities – seminars, conferences, collaborative teaching arrangements, develop collaborative programs, market the Centre’s programs and activities, and seek out funding to support centre initiatives. Perceived advantages of this model are: building on existing strengths with minimal financial risk; academic buy‐in likely (this is widely perceived as critical to success); complements and coordinates existing efforts rather than competes with them; can be used as a basis to evolve into other, more costly and comprehensive models as critical mass is achieved.

Model 2: United States Title VI Centres models eg.1. Wisconsin‐Madison At The University of Wisconsin‐Madison, for example, the Area Studies centres are the responsibility of the International Office. The Centres are part of the International Institute, part of the School of International Studies Programs. They are housed together in a central campus building, each with 2‐3 offices, and sharing 2 separate seminar rooms, allowing for extensive interaction between all centres. Each centre has an executive officer who was an academic staff member (i.e. not faculty but having a Ph.D. and research record in the field). All faculty members of the centres are based in relevant disciplinary departments, and one serves as a director of the Centre Board 2‐3 years in rotation. The members of the centre, including students, gather for a seminar every week. There is also an extensive set of social activities. The directors of all 16 international programs are represented on an ‘Academic Planning Council’ which reports to the Dean of the School. Perceived advantages: no need for joint appointments; faculties/staff support Centres where they are seen to add value; the physical co‐location of all Centre administrative units ensures high levels of interaction and visibility. eg.2. UC Berkeley Model The International and Area Studies (IAS) at U.C Berkeley supports an extensive research programme, overseas UG and PG degree programs, and also provides services to international students and scholars at Berkeley, such as the International House, a dormitory and restaurant. Underneath IAS, there are several Area Research Institutes and smaller Centres: Center for African Studies, Canadian Studies Program, Institute of East Asian Studies (IEAS), Institute of European Studies, Center for Latin American Studies, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Institute of Slavic, East European Studies, Center for South Asia Studies, and Center for Southeast Asia Studies.

The three Institutes of East Asian, European, and Slavic & East European Studies all have their own lecture series, organise conferences and workshops, and operate their own publication series. Each Institute has several smaller Area Centres underneath it. For example, Berkeley’s Institute of East Asian Studies supports the Berkeley Center for Buddhist Studies, the Center for Chinese Studies, the Center for Japanese Studies, and the Center for Korean Studies. Each of these Centres runs its own annual lecture series, organizes one or two international conferences per year, and offers post‐doctoral research fellowships that are open to competition among recent Ph.D.s around the world. The Center for Chinese

Studies is the largest and most active Center, and it runs its own Library focusing on Chinese language materials from 1949 to the present, thus complementing the East Asian Library, which has an extensive pre‐modern East Asian collection. The International and Area Studies program at U.C. Berkeley is, however, undergoing restructuring, in part due to the difficulties of it evolving into an overly large and centralised organisation.

Model 3: Joint appointments/minimal infrastructure Similar to Model 2, but with joint appointments Centre/Faculty. Each Centre has office space and a meeting area on campus, as well as a Director responsible for co‐ordinating activities of the Centre. Crucial to this model is that staff are employed jointly by the Centre and by their own discipline, but are physically located in the faculties. Funding for the Centre’s part of appointments conceivably from teaching load, but preferably from the University or external source. Perceived advantages: strikes a balance between Area Studies and disciplinarity; financial risk is moderate. Disadvantages: more costly than the minimal model; potential for tensions in loyalty between the Centre and Faculties.

Model 4: Centre appointments only Staff appointments are made solely to the Centre. Start‐up funding provided, perhaps with an expectation that the Centre will be self‐supporting within a reasonable period. Perceived advantages: no risk of staff loyalties being split between the Centre and Faculties/departments; a centre will only survive long term if it is encouraged to be self‐sustaining after a reasonable period; physical co‐location of cross‐disciplinary experts ensures cross‐disciplinary approaches to Area Studies research. Perceived disadvantages: potential for staff to become isolated/disconnected from their disciplines; concerns that the period of ‘seed funding’ must be long enough to allow the Centres to develop momentum and a diversity of funding streams.

Model 5: Distinct Area Studies Centres, each comprised of component institutes This model, proposed by the Asian Languages Program in the School of Languages and Cultures would see an organisational and governing model for Area Studies in which a few Area Studies centres would be established at the university level, with membership and participation drawing from across Faculties. Each centre would have a distinct entity and identity, with joint appointments of staff from the different Faculties. Based on their assessment of existing Area Studies expertise across the University, the Asian Languages Program suggests that the following three Area Studies Centres would make sense: 1) Centre for the Study of Asia (CSA); 2) Centre for European Studies; 3) U.S. Studies Centre. In the first instance, they propose the establishment of a Centre for the Study of Asia (CSA), with an overarching board of selected Asia experts drawn from across the university. Underneath this Centre would be a number of more specialised Area Studies Institutes: 1) Institute of Southeast Asian Studies; 2) Institute of Japan and Korea Studies; 3) Institute of China Studies; and 4) Institute of South Asian Studies. The coordinators of each Institute would all sit on the board of the Centre for the Study of Asia, and report to the administrative head of the Centre.

Model 6: Leiden Model In the Netherlands, there is the well‐known International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) based in Leiden. The IIAS is funded by the Dutch government to attract top researchers and PhD students in Asian Studies from the Netherlands and internationally. Details of its structure are limited at this point. It has a part‐ time director, a Board of Directors, Academic Committee, 10 staff, 3 full‐time professors and around 50

56 temporary research appointments at any given time. It organises the IIAS biannual international conferences in collaboration with universities in Asia, a lecture series, and offers fellowships to international academics. The IIAS Newsletter publishes articles on politics, popular culture, economy and society in East, SE, and South Asia, and is distributed to individuals and academic institutions around the world. The University of Leiden has also recently established the ‘Leiden Institute for Area Studies’ in the Faculty of Humanities. The Institute is responsible for researchers who are active in fields relevant to the East, South ,Central and Southeast Asia and the Middle East. The expertise of approximately 75 staff (20 professors) allows for a multidisciplinary approach to teaching and research, spanning fields including history, law, economy, literature, religion, language and philosophy.

Model 7: Oxford Model At Oxford the School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies (SIAS), which houses various Area Studies Centres, is a department within the Social Sciences Division. Oxford operates under a comprehensive set of devolved budgets, holdings its divisions and departments to these. As a department the SIAS is a single cost centre, with each of its centres, units or programs semi‐autonomous cost centres, all subject to monitoring by a Finance Steering Group and the SIAS Management Committee. The strengths of the devolved model are flexibility and strategic capacity to ‘cross‐subsidise’ units and programs until they attain the critical mass required to attract good income flows from teaching, research and other activities. This allows the SIAS to study and develop new programs. SIAS academics generally hold joint appointments, usually 50:50 with disciplinary departments. This is said to have a powerful influence on both teaching and research. It also complicates the academic administration of the department, because all academic and most administrative matters have to be managed in consultation with the partner departments and units.

Model 8: Large infrastructure model The structure of this model is similar to many of the above, with a Director/Directors and joint appointments between the Centre and Faculties. Under this model, however, the Centre is housed in a building of its own, where all or most of its activities can be carried out and where all staff can be housed. Perceived advantages of this model: a high degree of visibility and a greater likelihood of successful collaborative research with staff and students all in one location for much of their time. The Centre has a Foundation as its dedicated fundraising arm. Perceived drawbacks: potential for centre to become isolated from disciplinary strengths and faculties; difficult to implement; potentially ends up in competition with other units.

6.1.6 Phase 3: Preparation of this report to the ViceChancellor

Phase 3 of the Review commenced after the completion of the final face‐to‐face consultation session on 26 August. Phase 3 involved the preparation of this report.

6.2 Summary of consultation discussions

6.2.1 Faculty of Economics and Business, 6 August 2009

Thursday 6 August 2009, 11:30 – 1pm; Economics and Business Consultation meeting

Venue: Economics Dean’s Boardroom, Room 210 Building H69

Attendees from Review Panel: Professor Stephen Garton, Professor Geoff Garrett, Professor Jeff Riegel, Associate Professor Robyn McConchie

Apologies from Review Panel: Professors Robinson, Hearn, Wolnizer and Goodman

Attendees from Faculty: Professor David Hensher (Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies) Dr Michael Paton (Learning and Teaching); Professor Alex Frino (Finance); Professor David Grant, Associate Dean (Research); Ms Rebecca Connell (Faculty Research Manager); Dr Leanne Piggott (Centre for International Security Studies); Dr Dilip Dutta (Economics); Professor Gail Pearson (Business Law); Dr Hui Zheng (Finance); Dr Richard Seymour (IBUS)

Also in Attendance: Mr Tim Payne (Director Policy Analysis and Communication), Ms Aislinn Batstone

Key points raised in the meeting:

Demand from students and employers for ‘area’ expertise

Faculty representatives reported on discussions with government and industry employers which suggested strong interest for graduates with a sound understanding of the areas/countries with which they engage. The Faculty has undertaken some marketing research which similarly suggests strong potential demand from students for approaches that combine disciplinary training with an international dimension. One participant reported that when the Economics Department had had strong links and programs with the languages department, there had been strong demand from students to combine the study of economics with the study of a regional language and/or culture.

There was a general consensus that both students and employers were seeking courses that would give students skills and knowledge that went beyond the discipline to include a deep understanding of a country, region or global issues beyond their discipline. On the student side, the Faculty has had success in encouraging study groups around areas e.g. in South Asia studies. On the employer side, in general employers want graduates who understand what is going on in the world, and more specifically in the countries or regions with which they will have contact in their working lives.

The point was also made that it is important for Area Studies to capture and enhance the skills of students from disciplines such as science who may have a side interest in an area, or who may end up doing research in or alongside an area.

Teaching

At what level would it be best for students to introduce Area Studies into the curriculum? It was agreed that postgraduate students could get much out of an understanding of other disciplines. It

58 was mooted that the question of Area Studies at the undergraduate level would depend on the particular discipline, and perhaps on the individual student’s interest and commitment. The point was raised that it may be a problem to leave it too late to introduce an Area Studies focus, particularly in terms of language acquisition. There was a consensus that cross‐disciplinary teaching is difficult at Sydney due to the current operating structures and the mindset of the individual faculties, which are in turn influenced by internal funding drivers which are seen by some as encouraging competition rather than collaboration.

‘Area’ versus ‘thematic’ studies

There was some discussion about whether the concept of Area Studies, with its geographical focus, was out‐dated; and that a key to Sydney defining where its competitive advantage lies, could be in extending the definition of area to encompass non‐geographical groupings like “Emerging Economies” or “Global Cities”, or to take a more thematic approach such as “Future of Alternative Fuels”. Both were recognising as valid ways of doing interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary studies.

Models

General

Participants stressed the need to ensure that whatever approach the University takes, it does not stifle innovation and entrepreneurship by being too prescriptive about what model or models would be acceptable. The point was made that there should be capacity within the framework to support different models, and to allow different groups to organise themselves in the way that works best for their area. Striking the right balance between a “bottom up” and “top down” approach was seen as a key challenge for the Review Panel.

The importance to success of people, rather than models, was also stressed. That is, it matters little what model is used, unless you have the right people with the requisite drive and entrepreneurial skills that will be required to achieve success. Great people can make a success of a poor model, so long as there is clarity about the desired direction and enough flexibility in the framework to allow for development and innovation. On the other hand, a great model is likely to fail if not underpinned by the right leaders.

It was suggested that one possibly sound approach could be for the University to establish an overarching framework or ‘umbrella’ body to oversee Area Studies activities across the University. The purpose of this framework would be to encourage academics to pursue innovative approaches to the pursuit of Area Studies, rather than to make all approaches fit pre‐determined models. Such a body would set the institutional strategy for the encouragement of Area Studies approaches, and then provide incentives for groups of academics to bring forward innovative proposals. It might also have a role in determining what areas the University should be focusing on, and for determining the types of Area Studies activities that could be pursued by different centres at different stages of their development.

Staff appointments

There was some discussion of the merits of single versus joint appointments. While single appointments can work well where there are sufficient resources to support them, and area of

59 research or teaching is relatively well defined, joint appointments are seen to assist in terms of breaking down faculty barriers. However, joint appointments were acknowledged as far more administratively complex. They will only work if both sides are clear about the terms of the appointment, and if the individual appointees do not feel compromised or overloaded by the splitting of their lines of reporting and accountability.

Infrastructure

While large infrastructure investments are unlikely at the moment for the University, a minimal degree of infrastructure, both physical and virtual, will be absolutely necessary for the success of any Area Studies centres.

External engagement and research activity

While it is extremely important for a centre to be visible and to act as a point of contact for external enquiries, it is also crucial that the reality of the centre’s activities match up to the presentation, and that substantive collaboration is taking place.

Risk

Two elements of risk were raised: financial risk; and the risk of failing to meet agreed strategic objectives. While a large‐scale investment in infrastructure and long‐term support may pose a greater financial risk, to some it seemed to pose a lower risk of failure against objectives than taking a minimalist, low investment approach.

However, a small‐scale approach was seen by some as having the advantage of achieving immediate buy‐in from academics, which may lower the risk of failure. A step‐by‐step approach, with incentives and success driving the growth of a centre through different models, was seen as a positive approach with low risk.

General concerns raised

 The potential need for the Area Studies concept to be reinvigorated to reflect contemporary global realities.

 Sydney’s internal allocation of funding promotes competition rather than cooperation between faculties.

 The danger of stifling creativity by imposing a structure where it might be better to allow innovation to emerge with support, but without a great degree of interference.

 Concern that a centre may replicate what already exists, particularly if imposed in a top‐down manner.

 Concern that an areas approach may add to the proliferation of small research centres with overlapping activities and a lack of critical mass.

 Concern that a faculty ownership model may, in certain circumstances, present an obstacle to inter‐disciplinarity.

 The challenge of achieving true collaboration between very different disciplines – e.g. the

science and technology disciplines with the social sciences.

Keys to success and aspirations for Sydney

 Clarity about the University’s vision or objectives for Area Studies.

 A strategy arrived at following a rational assessment of where the University’s global comparative or competitive advantages lie, or where it wants them to lie.

 A recognition that in the end demand drives supply, and that any strategies must reflect and be responsive to levels of likely demand for the services that will be provided.

 That in deciding its strategy Sydney needs to look forward to where it wants to be in 5 or 10 years time, not to catch up to where other universities were 5 years ago.

 The quality of the people selected to own/drive whatever Area Studies centres or approaches might be pursued.

 Strong support for encouraging rather than stifling innovation and entrepreneurialism through the adoption of a flexible framework, under which a variety of approaches to Area Studies might flourish.

 Incentives must be created so that good ideas come out of the woodwork and people start talking to each other – not just financial incentives, but positive examples that demonstrate to academic staff the rewards of cross‐disciplinary research and the fact that disciplinarity can be maintained effectively.

 The need to focus on and encourage networks beyond the boundaries of the University.

 Researchers with ‘side‐interests’ in areas should be captured, for example in the areas of science and technology. Technical solutions may not work if culture/geographical background is not understood. Government is beginning to understand this, and funding will reflect it.

 We should aspire at the University to break down faculty barriers where appropriate.

 That there are national interest imperatives in deciding which areas we focus on.

 That Area Studies are compatible with global studies, because global issues are refracted through and can be better understood through the study of specific areas.

 The importance of faculty buy‐in.

6.2.2 Faculties of Arts, Education & Social Work and Law, 19 August 2009

Wednesday 19 August 2009, 9‐10:30am; Arts, Law and Education Consultation forum

Venue: The Refectory, Quadrangle

Attendees from Review Panel: Professor Stephen Garton, Professor David Goodman, Professor Jeff Riegel, Professor Geoff Garrett, Tim Payne

Apologies from Review Panel: Professors Wolnizer, Hearn, Robinson and McConchie

Attendees from Faculties: Associate Professor Anne Dunn (Acting Dean/Faculty of Arts); Associate Professor Luke Nottage (Law/ANJeL); Professor Linda Connor (Arts/Anthropology/SSPS); Professor Adrian Vickers (Arts/SLC); Professor Raewyn Connell (Education & Social Work); Professor Simon Tormey (Arts, Head, SSPS); Professor Anders Ahlqvist (Arts/School of Letters/Celtic Studies); Dr Pamela O’Neill (Arts/Celtic Studies); Dr Richard Smith (Arts/Film Studies); Professor Stephanie Donald (MECO/SLAM/Film/Media/China); Professor Roland Fletcher (Arts/Archaeology/SOPHI); Professor Robert Aldrich (Arts/History/SOPHI); Dr Andrea Williams (Arts/European Studies); Dr Andrew McGarrity ( Arts/Asian Studies/Indian Sub‐continental Studies); Dr Vek Lewis (Arts/Latin American Studies); Fernanda Penaloza (Arts/Latin American Studies); Dr David Bray (Arts/Sociology and Social Policy); Dr Bronwyn Winter (Arts/French Studies & ICLS); Associate Professor Elise Tipton (Arts/Asian Studies/Japanese Studies/Korean Studies, SLC); Dr Elizabeth Rechniewski (Arts/French Studies/SLC); Dr Penelope O’Donnell (Arts/School of Letters); Dr Yiyan Wang (Arts/Modern Chinese Literature & Culture, Critical Theory and Cultural Studies); Dr Yi Zheng (Arts/Department of Chinese Studies)

Invited: All who made submissions; all on mapping list

Also in Attendance: Mr Tim Payne (Director Policy Analysis and Communication)

Key points raised in the meeting

Different ‘Areas’ may require different models

The point was made early in the session that it may be premature to be discussing specific models, without first providing greater clarity about the ‘Areas’ that are under consideration. Different Areas may be suited to different models and administrative structures, depending on the level of existing strength, its current location within the University, the nature of the Area, and the location of strengths at other universities in Australia and elsewhere. Specific concerns were raised about the apparent demise of Australian Studies at the University of Sydney.

A need for a better understanding of strengths and weaknesses

Following on from the questions of ‘which Areas’ and on ‘which criteria’, there was general agreement that there was a need for better access to information about the breadth and depth of existing Area as well as disciplinary activity. Various participants expressed concern at the difficulties they had experienced trying to identify people with expertise in fields relevant to them.

Definition of Area is important

There was considerable discussion of what is meant by ‘Area Studies’ and whether the traditional concept remains relevant. Questions were raised about the ‘evolving’ or even ‘disintegrating’ nature of Areas, with the example given of films which might now feature multiple languages and involve characters and interwoven cultures and relationship that are meaningless within ‘Areas’ conceived on geographic grounds. The point was made that it need not be an either/or question about whether the University does ‘International Studies’ or ‘Area Studies’ and should do both, with the Area approach adding value to International approaches because you need to look at Area/regions ‐ and then potentially countries within these ‐ to make sense of international developments in the discipline. One participant pressed for Sydney to not be locked into imperialist models or approaches that have been used by rich Western/Northern Hemisphere countries and institutions, but to reinvigorate Area Studies by focusing more on relationships that cross geographical boundaries, or on disciplines applied to Areas. This view was countered by another participant who argued that there are now ‘new imperialisms’, and that Area approaches remained relevant. Another stressed the need for history to be given a prominent voice in any Area Studies Strategy.

How best to build Area strengths

Competing views were expressed about whether the best way to build up an Area Studies capacity was to start with undergraduate courses and build from there, or to start with Research and Research Higher Degrees, and build down from there through honours to undergraduate programs. Some had experienced success using the former approach, while others were not convinced and thought that focusing on research and branching out from there was the more likely path to success.

It was pointed out that different approaches would require different degrees of restructuring of the status quo – for example, to create undergraduate Area Studies capacity may require significant change to internal regulations of degree structures, while staff and research interconnections may require less change. The formation of an Area Studies program may therefore have to be a staged process.

Are there ways other ways to connect staff and break down ‘silos’ and barriers?

There was considerable discussion of the numerous barriers and obstacles to collaboration at Sydney ‐ even within a faculty ‐ let alone between faculties or institutions. Barriers raised included: the funding models for both undergraduate and postgraduate students; difficulties identifying potential collaborators; administrative difficulties establishing new courses; lack of administrative assistance to support cross‐disciplinary collaboration which might be seen within the department/faculty as not core business; competition for research grants which typically favour disciplinary approaches; joint appointments often resulting in a loss (financial or otherwise) to the ‘home’ department; and the Academic Board’s policies regarding supervision of PhD students – precluding true co‐supervision. Those that have sought to achieve collaboration under the current arrangements spoke of having to invent incentives for Unit managers to support their activities. Whatever else is done as a result of this Review, there appeared to be agreement that if cross‐department/faculty/discipline/institution collaboration is seen as desirable, then systematic incentives must be put in place to reward such behaviour. In relation to the supervision of PhD students, it was noted that the Academic Board’s

Review of the PhD was recommending supervisory panels ‐ and that if implemented, this could remove some of the obstacles to cooperation that are currently seen to exist in this area.

‘Project’ versus ‘Centres’ approaches

The idea of taking an ‘Area Project’ as opposed to ‘Area Centres’ approach was proposed as a possible alternative. Rather than the imposition of rigid a ‘one size fits all model’ which was described by one participant as a potential ‘monster’, a number of participants saw value in the adoption of a ‘responsive’ and ‘fluid approach’ which fostered and promoted innovative approaches. The University of Western Australia’s Institute of Advanced Studies and Sydney’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions small grant scheme were suggested as possible examples.

The focus of such an approach would be on defined projects, with limited life span, with funds allocated through an application‐based process. One participant raised concerns, however, that the University should not be in effect establishing an internal ARC process for projects and requiring staff to prepare yet more applications. Another suggested that rather than projects per se, the Project approach could focus on providing short‐term support for collaborative networks. Another questioned what such an approach would mean for the continuity and visibility of expertise in the Area, and in particular whether it would provide the best environment for higher degree by research training.

A ‘Network’ approach: inter‐university collaboration and engagement

A number of participants commented that the models put forward to prompt the discussion were very Sydney or Institution centric. They stressed that more emphasis was needed on how any Area Studies centres established at Sydney might link with expertise in other Australian universities and elsewhere in the world.

Following the meeting a participant made the following comment: “One way to achieve this might be for Sydney to provide support for “convenors” of “ nodes” (rather than “directors” of “centres”) that are part of an international network of partner institutions. RIBG funding could be used to support this type of activity in the research domain, as these networks should meet the definition of “international consortia”. This also has the advantage of being a less hierarchical model, and fostering opportunities for student exchange and language immersion experience, in areas where this is deemed important. Student and staff exchange programs with partners would facilitate educational and staff development opportunities in developing country institutions that are less well‐resourced than Sydney University, particularly for areas like Southeast Asia, Africa and the Pacific.”

The role of Languages in Area Studies

There were strongly divergent views about how important the study of a language, or expertise in a language of a country or area, was for Area Studies. One participant argued that Area Studies would fail if the study of languages was made mandatory, suggesting that knowledge of a language was no more important to the understanding of a region or culture at the undergraduate level than understanding geophysics, for example. Most others argued that you cannot possibly do Area Studies properly without a knowledge of the language, or languages and culture, or multiple cultures of the area in question. For example, how can a researcher who has never been to a continent and knows nothing of the language, peoples and cultures of the place, and who has based his or her whole research on data about the area obtained through a third party, claim to be an Area expert? Effective

64 cross‐cultural communication with those living and working in various ‘areas’ of the world was seen by most as a central component of Area Studies, whatever one is communicating about (geophysics, health, bridge building etc).

Moreover, it was pointed out that the ability to research in other languages is important, given that whole bodies of knowledge and investigation exist in other languages, which may not be available to scholars without the capacity to access them. Time limitations precluded exploration of how widespread the division of opinion actually is regarding the place of language studies in Area Studies.

Following the meeting, the participant who had argued against mandatory language study wrote : “I am emphatic that some graduate researchers need language expertise. That does not mean the only way to achieve this is to enforce language training for all UGs. That straitjackets Area Studies was my phrase. We need to devise ways to rapidly develop language competency for those who need it when they need it. An Area Studies program does not and should not require language competency in UG courses.”

Value to students

Some concerns were raised about what an ‘Area Studies’ PhD would mean for students in terms of their employability upon graduation. One participant suggested that they might be disadvantaged if not seen to have a strong disciplinary grounding. Another argued that a knowledge of a language and culture, combined with disciplinary expertise, served to amplify a student’s prospects. It was also noted that in the Review Panel’s consultation session with the Faculty of Economics and Business, participants had reported that their contacts with potential government and non‐government employers of graduates suggested that at the undergraduate and postgraduate coursework level, employers were looking for students with disciplinary expertise, but who also had a solid understanding of the cultures they would be dealing with in their professional lives.

Broader challenges facing Australian PhDs

Numerous participants lamented the state of the Australian PhD, and in particular the low levels of funding available to support PhDs, the rigidity of the Commonwealth’s funding rules and their focus on quick completions rather than high quality outcomes. This was seen as putting Australian PhD students at a competitive disadvantage internationally and also leading to many of our best honours students preferring to do PhDs in North America, the United Kingdom or Europe.

Concluding comments

At the end of the meeting consensus seemed to emerge on a number of issues with most participants appearing to agree that:

 ambitions for Area Studies should inform all decisions made about the structure and activities of Area Studies centres. For example, if one aim is to improve the quality of postgraduate education, then this should be a driver for the activities and structure of the centre.

 different objectives require different approaches, but generally a large infrastructure or highly centralised model was less favoured, with a more minimalist or joint appointments model being preferred, at least as a starting point;

 significant obstacles to collaboration between departments and faculties currently exist at the University, and that an Area Studies approach is unlikely to succeed unless these are addressed;

 there is a need for far better information about existing Area and other strengths, and for this to be readily accessible to people inside and outside the University;

 the traditional definition/conception of Area Studies and models used by other universities may not be the best way for Sydney to proceed;

 the models in the Discussion Starter were too ‘institution centric’, and that the approach Sydney takes should include external partnerships as a key element.

6.2.3 Postgraduate research students, 24 August 2009

Monday 24 August 2009, 2‐3:30pm; Postgraduate Consultation group

Venue: Madsen Conference Room (449)

Attendees from Review Panel: Professor Stephen Garton, Professor David Goodman

Apologies from Review Panel: Professors Wolnizer, Robinson, Garrett, Riegel, McConchie and Hearn

Attendees: Academic staff: Professor Philip Hirsch (Sci), Dr Bob Fisher (Sci), Dr Jeffrey Nielson(Sci); Postgraduate students: Olivia Dun, Wora Suleraroele, Mattijs Smits, Xuemei Lu, Eli Oshorov, Sopheak Chann, Surin Onpram, Ken Serey Rotha, Somatra Sean Kim, Soimart Runymanee, Nguyen Tuong Huy, Oulavanh Keosilignavony, Jo Gillespie, Robin Branson, Daravy Khiev

Also in Attendance: Mr Tim Payne (Director Policy Analysis and Communication), Ms Aislinn Batstone

Key points raised in the meeting:

Value to Research Students

One student made the point that it had been extremely useful for him to attend an ‘area’ seminar outside his discipline, and that the informal communication with other students was a positive feature of this experience. However, the point was also made that such activities could not only be a forum for connecting students across disciplines but, more formally, could provide a framework for students to tap into existing disciplines to better understand their area of interest.

There was strong support in this group for multidisciplinary approaches to a region, with students seeing existing structures such as the Australian Mekong Resource Centre as providing different perspectives to students, widening their disciplinary horizons, allowing them to deepen their understanding of the region and to do their own research in a more thorough way. Key elements that students would like to get out of any activities in Area Studies would be to better understand the context of their own research, to share perspectives and to understand the culture of their region of interest.

The point was also made that students from an area can benefit just as much as local students from Area Studies, because, while they may understand the culture of their own country, an area tends to encompass a number of neighbouring countries about which students may have much to learn.

Time pressures

The problem of time pressures on PhD students was raised as a potential obstacle to their involvement in the activities of an Area Studies centre alongside their own disciplinary work. There was some concern that cross‐disciplinary seminars may involve the students themselves ‘teaching’ students from other disciplines about their own research, which may add to the pressures of papers and seminars students are already expected to give within their discipline.

The issue of time pressures on both students and academic staff also prompted the point that at least enough funding for a co‐ordinating centre would be needed to avoid adding to existing workloads,

67 and to maintain the momentum of Area Studies activities. These have been known to fail when students and staff are too busy to continue to commit their time to the activities and are not able to see a continuing benefit.

In terms of adding a coursework requirement or opportunity to the PhD program, for example in order to enhance language skills or cultural understanding, students were in favour of the concept as a learning opportunity, but again concerned about adding to their workload, and also concerned that currently a coursework requirement within the degree is not seen under scholarship rules as a legitimate reason for an extension of the scholarship.

Difficulty identifying expertise at Sydney

The point was raised that difficulties can be experienced finding out who had expertise or interest in a particular area of research at the University. The University was referred to as a ‘soup’ of knowledge, and some saw a role for management in helping both students and staff to navigate their way through it efficiently.

The University of Melbourne’s ‘find an expert’ database was cited as a good example of a resource which enabled people both within and outside the university to easily locate people with particular disciplinary or country expertise.

An Area Studies centre might therefore serve as a centre of knowledge of what is going on in the University relevant to different areas.

International connections

One student raised the issue of how important an individual supervisor’s reputation could be in making connections with institutions overseas. It was stressed that building trust and partnerships with international institutions should be an important part of the activities of an Area Studies centre. From a research student’s perspective it is crucial to have access to these good relationships in order to properly conduct research overseas. However, the point was also made that affiliation with an Area Studies centre should in fact immediately enhance the possibilities for a research student, with access to a number of researchers, each of whom would have their own connections with overseas institutions.

Another student raised the question of whether an Area Studies centre would see itself as beingin competition with, or in co‐operation with institutions from the area itself. While the University is in some sense in competition with other universities around the world to attract students, part of the activity of an Area Studies centre could be to send more students on placements overseas, and to build more meaningful collaborations with institutions in the area.

While it was recognised that relationships between academics at Sydney and in the regions or countries in question would always be vital, there was a need for any Area Studies strategy to ensure that there were stronger formal university to university linkages.

Possible activities for students

Throughout the meeting, a number of possible activities for an Area Studies centre were raised,

68 which would be of benefit to postgraduate students:

 A source of information about relevant area expertise

 Assisting in student placements or in otherwise facilitating research in the area

 Making language studies more accessible

 Student seminar groups bringing together those with an interest in an area

 Guest lecturers who might explain the background of their discipline to a diverse range of students interested in the area

 Guest lecturers from the area

 Problem based learning group activities were seen as one way that students could gain a deep understanding of other disciplines

Cross‐supervision

There was a great deal of support for the University to remove funding barriers to genuine co‐ supervision of HDR students across disciplines, and for the Academic Board to recognise co‐ supervision. It was agreed that for Area Studies to really work, the problem of benefit‐sharing across faculties needs to be dealt with. Funding incentives should be put in place to encourage cross‐ disciplinary/area supervision. It should not be left to individual academics to decide if funding is shared.

Models

The group was not in favour of a high degree of centralisation. The emphasis was more on the idea of networking and sharing of knowledge. It was also agreed, however, that some of the more useful activities of an Area Studies centre would need proper funding and leadership, a ‘nucleus’ with an excellent understanding of available resources at the University, and the motivation and enthusiasm to keep the centre and its activities running.

Leadership

The importance of institutional leadership was raised as a key to the success of any strategy. This would require ensuring that funding is adequate for the task and that the strategy has a champion at the appropriate level of the University.

Value for graduates

One student raised the idea that the first graduates from an Area Studies centre would have to explain what they had studied, and to prove that there was added value in their ‘Area Studies’ PhD. Ultimately this student felt that she would be able to describe herself as both a disciplinary and an area expert, which would enhance her prospects. However, this led to a discussion of whether value actually would be added to the PhD by Area Studies. Given that most people really want to be specialists in a discipline, couldn’t they independently educate themselves about a region, and draw

69 on other disciplines themselves without the structure and expense of an Area Studies centre?

In response to this, the point was made that it would be hoped that the value added by an Area Studies centre would be to the actual education and research training of students, and to their skills on graduation, and that it would be disappointing if funding issues and the feeling that a person could only enrol in one discipline, were to overwhelm issues of education at the University.

A further point was made in relation to the value of Area Studies programs for graduates: this was that over the course of their studies, students would have the opportunity to network with others with similar interests, and that these relationships would continue after graduation. Some students may even find themselves working in the area far from the University of Sydney, but with local ties to each other and back to the University.

Local versus International target market

One student raised the question of whether a centre would have as a target students from Australia or students from the area, making the point that curriculum design might vary depending on the origin of the target market. In response to this, the Panel commented that any initiative would most likely be targeted at both sets of students, and that the program would be enriched for all students if enrolments came from both local students and students from the area.

Which areas to focus on

The point was raised that we should focus on areas which are relevant to Australia – either of national interest, relevant to industry or relevant to our changing relations to other countries. However, it was also pointed out that part of what the University might want to do is to also focus on some areas that may be more innovative and may distinguish the University from its competitors.

6.2.4 Health Faculties, 26 August 2009

Wednesday 26th August, 9‐10:30am; Health Faculties Consultation group

Venue: Western Tower Meeting Room

Attendees from Review Panel: Professor Stephen Garton, Professor Bruce Robinson, Professor Jeff Riegel, Professor David Goodman, Associate Professor Robyn McConchie

Apologies from Review Panel: Professors Wolnizer, Garrett and Hearn

Attendees from Faculties: A/Prof Donna Waters (N&M), Professor Mary Chiarella (N&M), A/Prof Michael Dibley (Med), Professor Iqbal Ramzan (Pharm), Dr Dilhani Bandaranayake (Med), Dr Lyndal Trevena (Med), Ms Louise Freckleton (Global Health), Professor Stephen Leeder (Menzies Centre)

Apologies from Faculties: Professor Ruth Coligiuri (Menzies Centre), Dr Alex Broom (FHS), Mr Tom Rubin (Medicine)

Also in Attendance: Mr Tim Payne (Director Policy Analysis and Communication), Ms Aislinn Batstone

Key points raised in the meeting:

Consultation and stakeholder involvement from the beginning of the process

The point was made that lessons could be learned about what not to do, from large scale multidisciplinary projects where the University had become involved late in the process, and University stakeholders had not been involved in consultation about the development of key elements such as building design. Transparency and consultation are needed to ensure that there is broad‐ranging benefit within the University.

Aims of the Area Studies project

It was noted that collaborations tend to be spontaneous, and that it will be crucial to provide structures and to remove impediments to spontaneous collaborations across disciplines. However it was also stressed that there is no point facilitating collaboration unless it is for a purpose. Any strategy should therefore aim to foster collaboration with strategic intent, with the future of research in Australia involving more large scale interdisciplinary projects. To add value to students’ education at the University, and to improve the visibility of expertise at the University, were also raised as key outcomes to be hoped for from the project.

Clarity about the definition of ‘Area’

Early in the discussion the point was made that we need to be clear about what we mean when we talk of Area Studies. Do we mean geographical, thematic or disciplinary areas? Clarity here is important, because different strategies may be needed in each case.

Leadership

Leadership was one of the key themes raised in the meeting. Leadership, enthusiasm and purpose

71 were seen as key requirements for multidisciplinary projects to work. Competition between researchers and between disciplines cannot be ignored. Researchers and disciplines must be able to see potential benefits or they will not engage in these projects. This should be seen as part of the responsibility of the leadership of the project, and as one of the reasons why leadership is required. Money will not be enough if leadership is absent.

How the Health Faculties would intersect with other Faculties

Two possibilities were raised here, which were not seen as necessarily mutually exclusive.

On a ‘resource’ model, a researcher from a Health Faculty might use an Area Studies centre as a resource for an international project, or for a course which contains an international element. Visibility of expertise would be important here, with a key factor being simply that individuals across the University should know that there is a pool of expertise in different Areas that they can tap into if need be. Accessibility may need to be virtual given time constraints on individuals, and there may be a question of intellectual property in any research outcome from the project.

On a ‘product’ model, individuals from the Health Faculties might work more closely with individuals from other Faculties on a particular thematic problem relating to an Area, to produce research relating to that problem which is strongly disciplinary, yet informed by the culture and language of the region.

Identification of expertise within the University

Researchers in Medicine have been asked to group themselves according to disciplinary themes, so that they are now accessible and searchable. Meetings of experts with similar interests are now possible. In Area Studies a simple way of identifying experts would provide more opportunity for collaboration. Easy identification of Area expertise was seen as a simple way of removing an impediment to cross‐disciplinary research, and as a way of avoiding duplication across faculties. It would also facilitate the promotion of events across the University, and assist in the presentation of the University’s external profile. Broadly speaking, this measure would assist in improving communication between relevant individuals and groups across the University, which would have flow‐on effects for research, teaching, funding applications and events.

Teaching & Language

The Institute for Sustainable Solutions was raised as a good model on the educational side, with a Masters degree that would expose students to different perspectives on the issues of interest. The point was made that if an Area Centre has a research focus, then there will be clear benefits to research students. But how might coursework students benefit? Some possible activities of Area Centres relating to coursework students were raised: access to language courses; guest lecturing from Area Centres into disciplines (and vice versa); and access to support for curriculum development.

There was some debate about the level at which Area Studies should be brought into the curriculum. While it was put forward that research students would perhaps benefit more directly from involvement with Area Studies centres and that limited resources should perhaps be targeted to them, comments were made that: there may be ways to bring Area Studies into the undergraduate

72 level; that it is important to engage motivated students early and to show them how disciplinary and Area Studies can be integrated; and that the earlier language acquisition can begin, the better.

In terms of bringing language and cultural studies into the curriculum in other disciplines, the point was made that it is unlikely that a single model would suit all faculties, and that they will have to be consulted to ensure that courses and opportunities are customised to students’ needs.

There was further discussion on the accessibility of language courses across other disciplines. Language courses were seen as something students would want to have access to. Students on overseas placements would get much more out of such placements if they had language skills. The example of a Harvard medical school program was raised, where students with basic Spanish were given advanced language training before an elective term in South America.

However, a further key point about Area Studies and language acquisition at the undergraduate level, particularly in the professional degrees, was the fact that timetables do not currently easily allow for a student to follow any interest in a particular area or to learn its language.

In terms of skills at graduation and the desirability of graduates with Area expertise, while there may be professional advantages to having such an expertise, an individual would still have to meet the requirements of the accreditation body in any country where they wished to work.

Models

A large infrastructure model was not favoured, but nor was an absolutely minimalistic virtual model. Leadership was seen as crucial, as was ongoing funding and administrative support. It was agreed that highly worthwhile projects may not be able to be presented to the University management as profitable or even self‐supporting, in which case ongoing funding for a centre would be required. In cases such as these, a high degree of commitment to the project from faculties and from individuals would be necessary. It was also pointed out that it would be disappointing if the business requirements of the University were such as to create a high degree of tension with the intellectual work of the group.

Areas to focus on

In this meeting the Pacific was raised as an area where we might have a responsibility to build up our levels of expertise, both because of its proximity to Australia, and because of the relative lack of power and resources small countries in the Pacific have in comparison to other nations which might be of interest. It was also agreed that a key outcome of any Area Studies initiative should be to build on existing strengths, which would be made clearer by the mapping work being undertaken.

6.3 Mapping of Area Studies strengths

6.3.1 List of relevant centres, networks, and programs at the University of Sydney

Centres established under the Centres Policy

Australian Centre for Asian Art and Archaeology (Arts) Contact: Adrian Vickers The University of Sydney established the Australian Centre for Asian Art and Archaeology in July 2006 with the aim of fostering innovative teaching and research, and coordinating resources and activities, in the field of Asian Art and Archaeology. As well as covering the field of Modern Asian Art and Archaeology, the Centre also includes pre‐modern art not previously covered in Australia ‐ in particular, pre‐modern Chinese Art and Islamic Art and Architecture.

Australian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law (Law) Contact: Rosemary Lyster The objectives of the Centre are to encourage, promote and support innovative and important scholarship including teaching, research, consultancy and public interest advocacy in all areas of environmental law and policy.

Australian Mekong Resource Centre (Science) Contact: Philip Hirsch The Centre promotes research, discussion and debate on development and environment issues in the Mekong Region. Established in 1997, AMRC focuses on the role Australia plays in the region as a near neighbour, donor and major trading partner

Centre for Asian and Pacific Law at USyd (CAPLUS) (Law) Contact: Vivienne Bath The Centre for Asian and Pacific Law of the University of Sydney, located within Sydney Law School, is a leading centre for the teaching and research of law and legal systems in Asia and the Pacific.

Centre for International Security Studies (Economics) Contact: Alan Dupont Analysing international and human security challenges facing Australia, Asia and the world.

China Education Centre (Education) Contact: Hui Zhong Shen The China Education Centre acts as a non‐profit organisation for the development of educational, cultural and professional links between Australia and China. It was established following the visit to China of a group of comparative educators from the University of Sydney in 1972.

Herbal Medicines Research and Education Centre (Pharmacy) Contact: Basil Roufogalis The area of herbal and complementary medicines is a major industry in Australia, and is being increasingly recognised in the health policies of the federal and state governments. The Herbal Medicines Research and Education Centre (HMREC) was established at the University of Sydney in July 1997 to carry out high quality research and education on herbal and complementary medicines.

Institute of Social Sciences (DVC Research) Contact: David Goodman The Institute of Social Sciences has been established to build capacity, enhance performance and raise the profile of the social sciences at the University of Sydney. Its main activities will be to:  develop and construct cross‐disciplinary research collaboration;  establish linkages with external partners in government, industry, and community groups, as well as with other universities, especially internationally; and  provide a focal point for the development of programs of teaching and learning in the social sciences.

Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies (Economics & Business) Contact: David Hensher The Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies (ITLS) is Australia's Key Centre of Excellence in Transport and Logistics Research and Education. ITLS undertakes graduate teaching, management development programs, grant and contract research and development in the fields of transport and logistics studies.

Poche Centre for Indigenous Health (Medicine) Contact: Ngiare Brown The Poche Centre for Indigenous Health was established with the primary aim of contributing to the elimination of disparities in Indigenous health and social justice outcomes through collaborations for service delivery, workforce development and research.

Sydney Centre for International Law (Law) Contact: Ben Saul The Sydney Centre was established to pursue several main objectives:  to promote excellence in the teaching of international law;  to make a major contribution to international legal scholarship;  to play a significant international legal advisory role for governments and non‐governmental organizations in the Asia‐Pacific region; and  to enhance public awareness of, and interest in, international law.

Sydney Centre for Medieval Studies (Arts) Contact: John Pryor The Centre exists to promote all aspects of the study of, and research on, the civilization of medieval Europe and its neighbours to the north, east, and south.

University of Sydney Institute for Marine Science (Science) Contact: Doug Cato The University of Sydney Institute of Marine Science (USIMS) provides a focus for marine science at the university. It coordinates undergraduate and graduate teaching and research, promotes marine science within the university and externally, and fosters interdisciplinary research in marine science. Teaching and research are conducted within the schools and centres including: The Centre for the Research on the Ecological Impacts of Coast Cities; The Ocean Technology Group; The Geocoastal Group; The Australian Ocean Drilling Program; Australian Centre for Field Robotics; The Centre for Geotechnical Research; and One Tree Island Research Station.

These research centres attract a significant amount of funding annually, which in turn attracts top local and international students, thus producing a challenging academic atmosphere that brings out the best that research students have to offer.

Other Centres and networks

Australian Cambodia Research Initiative Contact: Dilhani Bandaranayake The Australia‐Cambodia Research Initiative (ACRI) was set up in 2004 as a means of coordinating and conducting multidisciplinary research on Cambodia. It is envisaged that the establishment of ACRI will allow for a sustainable and flexible research relationship to develop between the University of Sydney and Cambodian research and research training efforts, so that a robust and focused research community can develop. Meets twice per semester.

Australian Network for Japanese Law (ANJeL) Contact: Luke Nottage The Australian Network for Japanese Law (ANJeL) is an initiative of the law faculties at the Australian National University (ANU), the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and the University of Sydney (USyd). The core aim of ANJeL is to promote scholarly engagement with Japanese law, especially in Australia.

Centre for Classical and Near Eastern Studies of Australia (CCANESA) (Arts) Contact: Margaret Miller Established in May 2009, the Centre for Classical and Near Eastern Studies of Australia (CCANESA). The Centre embodies an integration of the research activities of these separate operating units in keeping with recognised shifts in the approach to teaching and scholarship in the broader disciplinary area. It will give rise to an even more vital intellectual community within which Postgraduate Learning can thrive. Plans for the future include:  Collaboration in developing research partnerships in key areas of extensive common interest (e.g. ancient theatre studies), through pooling resources for mounting international conferences, co‐ hosting lectures, etc.  The integration of PG studies through the creation of a PG Pro‐seminar led by researchers from different units within CCANESA.  Thoroughly integrated undergraduate instruction in order to make UG students more competitive applicants for graduate studies internationally while using staff resources more efficiently.  Honours and PG programmes especially will flourish within such an environment, and stand out in a national and even international context.

Contemporary China Research Group (Arts) Contact: David Goodman A research group within the School of Social and Political Science, Faculty of Arts, with participants also drawn from other faculties.

Greater Angkor Project (Arts) Contact: Roland Fletcher An international, multidisciplinary research programme interested in the decline of urbanism at Angkor, in Cambodia. Specifically, the project is investigating the relationship between the vast extent of Angkor in the 12th to 16th centuries AD, land clearance for rice production and regional ecological damage both then and now.

Interest Groups within the Faculty of Medicine Contact: Dilhani Bandaranayake Managed by the Office of Global Health within the Faculty of Medicine, these regional and country‐ specific interest groups have been established to further relationships and coordinate activities in those areas: Cambodia Interest Group China Interest Group Indonesia Interest Group Timor Leste Interest Group Viet Nam/ Hoc Mai Foundation Interest Group Africa Interest Group (to come)

Koori Centre (In conjunction w/Faculty of Arts) Contact: Janet Mooney The Koori Centre aims to:  increase the successful participation of Indigenous Australians in undergraduate and postgraduate degrees;  conduct research across a broad range of Indigenous Australian issues; and  build upon existing working ties with schools and communities.

Menzies Centre for Health Policy (Medicine) Contact: Stephen Leeder The Menzies Centre for Health Policy is a collaborative centre between The Australian National University and the University of Sydney. It aims to provide the Australian people with a better understanding of their health system and what it provides for them. The Centre encourages informed debate about how Australians can influence health policy to ensure that it is consistent with their values and priorities and is able to deliver safe, high quality health care that is sustainable in the long term. The Menzies Centre:

 produces and publishes high‐quality analyses of current health policy issues;  delivers public seminars and education programs on a wide variety of health policy topics;  undertakes comprehensive research projects on health policy issues.

Pacific and Regional Archive for Digital Sources in Endangered Cultures (PARADISEC) (Conservatorium) Contact: Linda Barwick PARADISEC (Pacific And Regional Archive for Digital Sources in Endangered Cultures) offers a facility for digital conservation and access for endangered materials from the Pacific region, defined broadly to include Oceania and East and Southeast Asia. Our research group has developed models to ensure that the archive can provide access to interested communities, and conforms with emerging international standards for digital archiving. Our research group is composed of investigators from the four participating institutions. (USyd, ANU, UMelb, UNE)

Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific (RIAP) (DVC International) Contact: Robyn McConchie The Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific (RIAP) is an education and research unit within the International Portfolio of the University of Sydney. Founded in 1987, RIAP has two core functions:  Initiating, designing and managing multidisciplinary international research projects for the University of Sydney

 Developing and facilitating education programs for international and Australian leaders from public and private sector organisations

Southeast Asia Network (Arts) Contact: Adrian Vickers Network of 110 staff, honorary fellows and PhD scholars with an interest in Southeast Asia. Has a mailing list, runs seminars, workshops and postgraduate master classes and teaches 8‐10 speciality subjects and teaches into others.

South Asia Studies Group (Econ) Contact: Dilip Dutta Coordinated from the Faculty of Economics and Business, the Group aims to promote, foster and develop South Asian Studies at the University of Sydney in collaboration with other universities, members of the business community, and the South Asian‐Australian communities in New South Wales. The Group encourages interested students, in Arts and Economics & Business Faculties in particular, to make a study plan for a balance of South Asian courses and languages together with a discipline e.g., Anthropology, Economics, Government and Public Administration, History, Law, Political Economy, Politics, etc

The Group publishes a journal ‐ International Journal of Development Issues. The Group promotes both academic and applied research on South Asian countries, in the metropolitan area of Sydney, with seminars, library resources and publications. With the help of the business community and other institutions, the Group promotes community awareness of South Asia in Australia.

Sydney University Research Community for Latin America (SURCLA) Contact: Fernanda Penazola The main aim of SURCLA is to promote interdisciplinary research and teaching on Latin America as well as establishing the University of Sydney as the leading institution in Australia for the study of Latin America.

US Studies Centre (USSC) Contact: Geoff Garrett The mission of the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney is to increase understanding of the United States in Australia. Spanning the study of politics and policy, economics and business, culture and society, the core activities of the Centre include:  Postgraduate degrees and undergraduate teaching  Academic research and research training  Policy analysis and commentary  Business leadership forums Public education and community outreach

University of Sydney South Asia Research Network (Arts) Contact: Andrew McGarrity A recently announced initiative to bring together South Asia scholars across faculties for research activities.

Schools, Departments and Programs of study

Asian Studies Program (SLC – Arts) Mayfair Mei‐hui Yang

Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies (SLC – Arts) Ahmad Shboul

Department of Chinese Studies (SLC – Arts) Helen Dunstan/Jeff Riegel

Department of French Studies (SLC – Arts) Alice Caffarel

Department of Germanic Studies (SLC – Arts) Andrea Bandhauer

Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies (SLC – Arts) Suzanne Rutland

Department of Indian Sub‐continental Studies (SLC ‐ Arts) Mark Allon

Department of Indonesian Studies (SLC – Arts) Michele Ford

Department of Italian Studies (SLC – Arts) Paolo Bartolini/Antonia Rubino

Department of Japanese Studies (SLC – Arts) Elise Tipton

Department of Korean Studies (SLC – Arts) Ki‐Sung Kwak

Department of Modern Greek Studies (SLC – Arts) Vrasidas Karalis

Department of Spanish and Latin American Studies (SLC – Arts) Kathryn Crameri

Department of Studies in Religion (SLAM – Arts) Iain Gardner

Digital Cultures Program (SLAM – Arts) Chris Chesher

Discipline of Indigenous Health Studies (FHS) Freidoon Khavarpour

European Studies Program (SLC – Arts) Birte Giesler/Andrea Williams

Indigenous health (substance use) (SPH – Med) Kate Conigrave

Indigenous Health Promotion (SPH – Med) Shane Hearn

International and Comparative Literary Studies (ICLS) Program (SLC – Arts) Bronwyn Winter

6.3.2 List of researchers with an Area interest, as elicited during the Review

Name Area Faculty EMERY, David Africa Veterinary Science LANE, Patricia Africa Law SANTOS, Paulo Africa Agriculture WARD, Michael Africa Veterinary Science MCKENZIE, Kirsten Africa Arts ADAMS, Mark Africa Agriculture CUMMING, Robert Africa Medicine DICKMAN, Christopher Africa/Australia/Latin America Science HENSHER, David Africa/Europe/Latin America Economics MARSH, Kathryn Africa/Middle East Conservatorium CASSITY, Elizabeth Africa/Pacific Education NEGIN, Joel Africa/Pacific Medicine COLAGIURI, Ruth Africa/Pacific Medicine CHOWDHURY, Shyamal Africa/South Asia Agriculture BIKUNDO, Edwin Africa/Southeast Asia Law HERTZLER, Greg Africa/Southeast Asia Agriculture LAMBOURNE, Wendy Africa/Southeast Asia Arts ALISON, Jennifer Australia Health Sciences CASS, Alan Australia Medicine COLLEY, Sarah Australia Arts CONIGRAVE, Kate Australia Medicine CORN, Aaron Australia Arts DIXON, Robert Australia Arts ELIAS, Ann Australia SCA ELLEM, Bradon Australia Economics GALLEGUILLOS, Sharon Australia Koori Centre GARVEY, Nathan Australia Arts GOLDBERG, Michael Australia SCA GURRAN, Nicole Australia Architecture HEARN, Shane Australia Medicine HERMESTON, Wendy Australia Medicine HOBSON, John Australia Koori Centre IVISON, Duncan Australia Arts JACKSON, Michael Australia Arts LUI‐CHIVIZHE, Leah Australia Koori Centre MCCABE, Tricia Australia Health Sciences MINTER, Peter Australia Koori Centre MOONEY, Janet Australia Koori Centre O'BRIEN, Karen Australia Koori Centre PATMORE, Greg Australia Economics ROONEY, Brigid Australia Arts THORPE, Katrina Australia Koori Centre

WALSH, Michael Australia Arts WATERHOUSE, Richard Australia Arts WILSON, Aidan Australia Arts WISE, Marilyn Australia Medicine DIXON, Robert Australia/China Veterinary Science MARETT, Allan Australia/China/Japan Arts SIMPSON, Jane Australia/China/Southeast Asia Arts BARWICK, Linda Australia/Pacific/Southeast Asia Arts BERGHUIS, Thomas China Arts BRAY, David China Arts CELERMAJER, David China Medicine CHEN, Minglu China Arts CLARKE, Stephen China Medicine DONALD, Stephanie China Arts DUANFANG, Lu China Architecture DUNSTAN, Helen China Arts GOLDSMITH, Ben China Arts GOODMAN, David China Arts HEARN, Adrian China Arts HENDRISCHKE, Hans China Arts HERFORTH, Derek China Arts HOLENBERGH, Rosita China Education LU, Duanfang China Architecture MORRIS, Meaghan China Arts NIP, Joyce China Arts PATON, Michael China Economics RIEGEL, Jeff China Arts ROUFOGALIS, Basil China Pharmacy SHEN, Hui Zhong China Education STYLES, Chris China Economics TEIWES, Fred China Arts TSUNG, Linda China Arts WANG, Wei China Arts WANG, Yiyan China Arts WEI, Wang China Arts WELCH, Tony China Education WONG, John China Arts WOODROW, Lindy China Education WORONOV, Terry China Arts YANG, Gracy China Economics YANG, Mayfair China Arts YI, Zheng China Arts ZHAN, Wu China Economics China/Europe/Korea/Latin LANSBURY, Russell America/Southeast Asia Economics BATH, Vivienne China/Japan Law

REILLY, James China/Japan Arts ARMSTRONG, Peter China/Japan/Korea Architecture CLARK, John China/Japan/Southeast Asia Arts TRIGGS, Gillian China/Japan/Southeast Asia Law TREVENA, Lyndal China/Middle East Medicine BARCLAY, Lesley China/Pacific Medicine CHAPMAN, Simon China/Southeast Asia Medicine DUPONT, Alan China/Southeast Asia Economics FISHER, Tim China/Southeast Asia Economics DRYNAN, Ross China/Southeast Asia Agriculture CSAPO, Eric Europe Arts AHLQVIST, Anders Europe Arts ALDRICH, Robert Europe Arts BROWN, Chester Europe Law SADURSKI, Wojciech Europe Law WILLIAMS, Andrea Europe Arts TORMEY, Simon Europe Arts MCEWAN, Alistair Europe Engineering CRAWFORD, John Europe Agriculture PRYOR, John Europe Arts SEYMOUR, Richard Europe Economics GRAY, Sid Europe/China/Japan/North Am/South Asia Economics MCKILLOP, Bron Europe/Japan Law ZIEGERT, Klaus (Alex) Europe/Japan/Southeast Asia Law CANNING, John Europe/Latin America Science CAFFAREL, Alice France Arts COWLEY, Peter France Arts GRAUBY, Francoise France Arts LIPOVSKY, Caroline France Arts RECHNIEWSKI, Elizabeth France Arts ROYER, Michelle France Arts SANKEY, Margaret France Arts ANDERSON, Ross Germany Architecture BANDHAUER, Andrea Germany Arts DAVIDSON, Christina Germany SCA GIESLER, Birte Germany Arts JAEGER, Andreas Germany Arts LU, Yixu Germany Arts DRACOPOULOS, Anthony Greece Arts GROUTSIS, Dimitra Greece Economics KARALIS, Vrasidas Greece Arts NAZOU, Panayiota Greece Arts ALU, Giorgia Italy Arts BARTOLONI, Paulo Italy Arts BORGHESI, Francesco Italy Arts MAUCERI, M.Cristina Italy Arts

NEWBIGIN, Nerida Italy Arts RUBINA, Antonia Italy Arts BABICZ, Lionel Japan Arts BUTT, Peter Japan Law CARNEY, Terry Japan Law CLAREMONT, Yasuko Japan Arts COCKERILL, Hiroko Japan Arts DALRYMPLE, Rawdon Japan Arts EPSTEIN, Charlotte Japan Arts FAHEY, Stephanie Japan RIAP FINDLAY, Mark Japan Law KARLSSON, Mats Japan Arts LOUGHNAN, Arlie Japan Law MACDONALD, Gaynor Japan Arts MCCALLUM, Ron Japan Law MCCRACKEN, Sheelagh Japan Law NOTTAGE, Luke Japan Law SHAO, Chun‐fen Japan Arts SHELTON, Barrie Japan Architecture SPENCE, Michael Japan Vice‐Chancellor STAVROS, Matthew Japan Arts SUTER, Rebecca Japan Arts TIPTON, Elise Japan Arts VANN, Richard Japan Law WEISS, Linda Japan Arts WILLIAMS, Brett Japan Law YASUMOTO, Seiko Japan Arts PHILLIPS, Ruth Japan/Korea Education TIFFEN, Rod Japan/Korea/Southeast Asia Arts ANSART, Olivier Japan/Southeast Asia Arts JARKEY, Nerida Japan/Southeast Asia Arts BUTT, Simon Japan/Southeast Asia Law FARRAR, Salim Japan/Southeast Asia Law SAUL, Ben Japan/Southeast Asia Law BOER, Ben Japan/Southeast Asia/South Asia Law HOWARD, Keith Korea Conservatorium HWANG, Gyu‐Jin Korea Arts KIM, David Korea Economics KWAK, Ki‐Sung Korea Arts MOHAN, Panjak Korea Arts PARK, Duk‐Soo Korea Arts PETROV, Leonid Korea Arts ANDERSON, Tim Latin America Arts CASTILLO, Antonio Latin America Arts CONNELL, Raewyn Latin America Education CRAMERI, Kathryn Latin America Arts

LEWIS, Vek Latin America Arts O'DONNELL, Penny Latin America Arts OPPERMANN, Thiago Latin America Arts PENAZOLA, Fernanda Latin America Arts QUINTEROS, Veronica Latin America Arts READ, Peter Latin America Arts TAYLOR, Erin Latin America Arts TOVIAS, BLANCA Latin America Arts MCBRATNEY, Alex Latin America Agriculture MINASNAY, Budiman Latin America Agriculture HUMPHREY, Michael Latin America/Middle East Arts VERVOORT, Willem Latin America/South Asia Agriculture COPELAND, Les Latin America/South Asia/Southeast Asia Veterinary Science HAJJAR, Nijmeh Middle East Arts SHBOUL, Ahmad Middle East Arts DAVEY, Lucy Middle East Arts DOWLING, Jennifer Middle East Arts GILEAN, Yona Middle East Arts RUTLAND, Suzanne Middle East Arts YOUNG, Ian Middle East Arts PHILLIPS, Sarah Middle East Economics MASON, Rebecca Middle East Medicine BETTS, Alison Middle East Arts ALVAREZ‐MON, Javier Middle East Arts MASRI, Assaad Middle East Engineering BAROUD, Mahmoud Middle East Arts DA COSTA, Kate Middle East Arts BOURKE, Stephen Middle East Arts TIDMARSH, John Middle East Arts MADIGAN, Trish Middle East Arts BURNS, Ross Middle East Arts POTTS, Daniel Middle East/South Asia Arts PIGGOTT, Leanne Middle East/Southeast Asia Economics CHESHER, Chris North America Arts BLAKELY, Edward North America USSC BRENNAN, Patrick North America Health Sciences CLARKE, Frances North America Arts CORBOURLD, Clare North America Arts FAIRCHILD, Charles North America Arts GARDINER, Bruce North America Arts GARRETT, Geoffrey North America USSC GLEESON‐WHITE, Sarah North America Arts HILL, Jennifer North America Law IVESON, Kurt North America Science KELLY, David North America Arts KONINGS, Martijn North America Arts

LEVI, Margaret North America USSC MCDONNELL, Michael North America Arts O'CONNOR, Brendon North America USSC O'MALLEY, Pat North America Law PARK, Jane North America Arts POLs, Hans North America Science ROBERTSON, Stephen North America Arts ROBERTSON, Stephen North America Arts SMITH, Richard North America Arts STANCLIFFE, Roger North America Health Sciences SUN, Cecilia North America Conservatorium GAENSLER, Bryan North America Science BURNS, Lee Pacific Law CHIARELLA, Mary Pacific Nursing GIBSON, Ross Pacific SCA HAMMOND, Jeremy Pacific Arts LEEDER, Stephen Pacific Medicine LI, Mu Pacific Medicine MADDEN, Ros Pacific Health Sciences SHEA, Glenn Pacific Veterinary Science WAINWRIGHT, Elsina Pacific Economics WEBB, Michael Pacific Conservatorium WILKINS, Thomas Pacific Economics FOLEY, William Pacific/Southeast Asia Arts MACMAHON, Stephen Pacific/Southeast Asia Medicine PHONGSAVAN, Philayrath Pacific/Southeast Asia Medicine RAMMOHAN, Anu Pacific/Southeast Asia Economics ALLENDER, Tim South Asia Education ALLON, Mark South Asia Arts BROOM, Alex South Asia Health Sciences COURTNEY, Sheleyah South Asia Arts CRANGLE, Edward South Asia Arts DHAND, Navneet South Asia Veterinary Science FULLER, Paul South Asia Arts HILL, Elizabeth South Asia Arts HOSSAIN, Zakia South Asia Health Sciences MCGARRITY, Andrew South Asia Arts SHRESTHA, Krishna South Asia Architecture BENNET, Belinda South Asia Law CASTLES, Stephen South Asia Arts COX, Stephen South Asia Dentistry DAVIS, Joseph South Asia Engineering DURRANI, Hashim South Asia Arts GECZY, Adam South Asia SCA MASSELOS, Jim South Asia Arts MITRIKESKI, Drasko South Asia Arts

MONTOYA, Alejandro South Asia Engineering MUKHERJEE, Soumyendra South Asia Arts ODDIE, Geoffrey South Asia Arts OLDMEADOW, Peter South Asia Arts PATEL, Anushka South Asia Medicine PEARSON, Gail South Asia Law PECK, Christopher South Asia Dentistry SHARMA, Manju South Asia Science SHORT, Stephanie South Asia Health Sciences SHRESTHA, Krishna South Asia Architecture SITHARTHAN, Gomathi South Asia Science SRINIVASAN, Meenakshi South Asia Arts TAMBIAH, Yasmin South Asia Arts TOKACHICHU, Raju South Asia Agriculture DUTTA, Dilip South Asia/Southeast Asia Economics EVANS, Damian South Asia/Southeast Asia Arts PRITCHARD, Bill South Asia/Southeast Asia Science ANDERSON, Warwick Southeast Asia Arts BARRETT, Jennifer Southeast Asia Arts BOER‐MAH, Tessa Southeast Asia Arts BRUCE, Eleanor Southeast Asia Science BUSH, Russell Southeast Asia Veterinary Science BUTLER, Gavan Southeast Asia Arts CARSON, Lyn Southeast Asia USSC CELERMAJER, Danielle Southeast Asia Arts CHAIDAROON, Suwichit Southeast Asia Arts CONNOR, Linda Southeast Asia Arts DANIEL, Rosalie Southeast Asia Agriculture DIBLEY, Michael Southeast Asia Medicine DJENAR, Dwi Noverini Southeast Asia Arts DUNBAR‐HALL, Peter Southeast Asia Conservatorium FIONNA, Ulla Southeast Asia Arts FISHER, Robert Southeast Asia Science FLETCHER, Roland Southeast Asia Arts FORD, Michelle Southeast Asia Arts FOSTER, Kirsty Southeast Asia Medicine FRANKLIN, Nicola Southeast Asia Law GILLESPIE, Josephine Southeast Asia Science GRIFFITHS, Kate Southeast Asia Science GUEST, David Southeast Asia Agriculture HARBON, Lesley Southeast Asia Education HARRIS, Michael Southeast Asia Agriculture HARTNEY, Christopher Southeast Asia Arts HAWKEN, Scott Southeast Asia Architecture HIGH, Holly Southeast Asia Arts HIRSCH, Philip Southeast Asia Science

HOWIE, Leanne Southeast Asia Economics HUDSON, Bob Southeast Asia Arts HULSBOSCH, Marianne Southeast Asia Education HUNTER, Cynthia Southeast Asia Medicine INGLIS, Christine Southeast Asia Arts JACKSON, Elisabeth Southeast Asia Arts JEFFERY, Heather Southeast Asia Medicine KENNEDY, Ivan Southeast Asia Agriculture KING, Martin Southeast Asia Arts KING, Peter Southeast Asia Arts KINLEY, David Southeast Asia Law LYSTER, Rosemary Southeast Asia Law MCCONCHIE, Robyn Southeast Asia RIAP MCMINN, Peter Southeast Asia Medicine NEILSON, Jeffrey Southeast Asia Science O'REILLY, Dougald Southeast Asia Arts PENNY, Dan Southeast Asia Science RAHIM, Lily Southeast Asia Arts ROGERS, Gordon Southeast Asia Agriculture ROSE, Michael Southeast Asia Agriculture SCHOFIELD, Toni Southeast Asia Health Sciences SHEWAN, Louise Southeast Asia Medicine SONNEMANN, Till Southeast Asia Arts SOUTAR, Lindsay Southeast Asia Science STEVENSON, Mark Southeast Asia Medicine TILIOPOULOS, Niko Southeast Asia Science TIPTON, Frank Southeast Asia Economics TORIBIO, Jenny‐Ann Southeast Asia Veterinary Science VICKERS, Adrian Southeast Asia Arts WALTERS, Emma Southeast Asia RIAP WILLIAMS, Deby Southeast Asia Arts WILSON, Andrew Southeast Asia Arts WINTER, Bronwyn Southeast Asia Arts WINTER, Tim Southeast Asia Arts WORSLEY, Peter Southeast Asia Arts YEE, Danny Southeast Asia Medicine NELSON, Kathleen Spain Conservatorium WALSH, Anne Spain Arts

6.4 The factors that will ensure success

The Review Discussion Paper released in April 2009 asked specifically: what factors will be critical to the success of any Area Studies strategy? The following themes, or critical success factors, emerged from the written submissions and the four face‐to‐face consultation sessions.

The clarity of the objectives of the agreed strategy At the Arts, Education & Social Work and Law Faculties consultation session, for example, participants argued that the University’s ambitions for Area Studies should inform all decisions made about the structure and activities of any Area Studies centres. They stressed, for example, that if the objective is to improve the quality of postgraduate education, then this should be a driver for the activities and structure of the centre. They argued that clarity about objectives was critical because the achievement of different goals would require different people, approaches, operating and funding models (Appendix 6.2.2).

Many saw a lack of sustained funding and support as a possible pitfall, and so urged that assessment of costs and available funds be realistic from the beginning, so that the ambitions for the centre could be formed in line with the support available, and a centre would have ‘room to grow’ rather than be set up for failure.

The extent to which the strategy is academicled and supported This issue was raised in a number of contexts. First, in relation to the extent to which any strategy might be imposed by the University’s central administration, as opposed to being developed in close consultation with faculties, departments and their staff ‐ drawing on their knowledge and expertise. Second, it arose in relation to the appropriate role of the University’s International Portfolio in any Area Studies strategy. Third, it was raised in relation to the types of collaborative activities that Area Studies should pursue. Fourth, it arose in relation to the need to ensure that Area Studies centres complement and cooperate with existing units, rather than duplicate what they already do and compete with them. For example, in his submission to the Review, the Dean of the Faculty of Pharmacy, Professor Iqbal Ramzan wrote:

‘The following factors will be crucial: • establishing and maintaining mutual respect and trust from stakeholders; • maintaining transparency with regards to decision making and resource allocations; and • ensuring equal ownership (minimising dominance by one or two major players).’ Submission 44, Professor Iqbal Ramzan, Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy

Commenting on the role of the International Portfolio in any Area Studies strategy, Professor David Hensher, wrote:

‘It has been my experience that the key element to make these centres work is the one‐on‐one of particular people who have a common academic agenda. The International Portfolio can help only to the extent of supporting the individuals and ensuring the Centre is supported through the approval processes locally and internationally. Relying too much on the [University Central Administration] will not

work since the success must be demonstrated from the bottom up by those actively engaged daily in the centre’s ambition.’ Submission 10, Professor David Hensher, Director and Head of Discipline, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, Faculty of Economics and Business

Similarly, the Asian Studies Program wrote:

‘We believe that the university‐wide Area Studies strategy should be under an entirely separate organization from the University’s International portfolio. The Area Studies strategy is primarily targeted at enhancing research at the University, while the International Portfolio, with its Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific, the Confucius Institute, and offices for Europe and the Americas, has been focused on the university’s external relations, on university marketing in international education markets, and outreach activities to governments and businesses around the world.’ Submission 27, Asian Studies Program, on behalf of six Departments of Asian Studies, in the School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts

In the Health Faculties consultation session it was stressed that there is no point facilitating collaboration unless it is for a clear and widely supported purpose, because without academic ‘buy‐in’ the strategy will be destined to fail. Any strategy should therefore aim to foster collaboration with strategic intent and broad academic support across participating university units (Appendix 6.2.4).

The degree of focus on the highest quality research and teaching This issue was raised mostly in relation to the University’s expectations for centres to be self sustaining after a short period of seed or establishment funding. Professor Adrian Vickers (Submission 8) identified ‘long‐term commitment, assured infrastructure and critical mass’ as three factors that would be critical to success of any strategy. He went on to say that in his view:

‘RIAP demonstrated that an Institute that is set up to be income‐generating is quickly divorced from scholarship. My previous experiences have otherwise been with the Centre for Southeast Asian Social Transformation Studies (CAPSTRANS) at the University of Wollongong, and ARC Key Centre. While this was successful in terms of building up its international profile, and had a very good series of directors, the funding was never adequate to carry out all the planned projects, and CAPSTRANS could not have continued without the decision by the University of Wollongong to make it a research priority, so that it was given priority in appointments and deployment of internal research funding, including PhD scholarships. CAPSTRANS staff spent most of their time applying for external funding or pursuing other activities that were not necessarily core research. Expecting a Centre to operate on minimal funding usually sets it up for failure.’ Submission 8, Professor Adrian Vickers, Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts

The drive and quality of the academic leaders appointed to realise the strategy The importance of the quality of the people recruited to implement any Area Studies strategy was stressed, for example, at the Economics and Business Faculty consultation session. Participants in that session made the point that it matters little what model the University adopts unless the right people with the requisite drive and entrepreneurial skills are recruited. Great people can make a success of a

89 poor model, so long as there is clarity about the desired direction and enough flexibility in the framework to allow for development and innovation. On the other hand, a great model is likely to fail, regardless of how well it is funded, if not underpinned by the right academic leaders (Appendix 6.2.1).

The extent to which the strategy fosters academic entrepreneurialism and innovation Related to the need for any agreed strategy to be academic‐led and supported, this factor stressed the need to ensure that any strategy did not serve to stifle academic entrepreneurship and innovation by being too prescriptive about what model or models would be acceptable. The point was made that there should be capacity within the framework adopted to support different models, and to allow different groups to organise themselves in the way that works best for their area (Appendix 6.2.1).

The extent to which the strategy complements, rather than works against disciplinary strengths A concern that disciplinary strengths not be compromised by any Area Studies strategy was raised repeatedly in written submissions. Once again, Professor Hirsch’s submission was instructive in relation to this point:

Clearly the challenge for an Area Studies program is to maintain the disciplinary basis for teaching and research, while bringing together a multi‐disciplinary (rather than non‐disciplinary) critical mass of scholarship on key regions. Submission 32, Professor Philip Hirsch, Professor in the School of Geosciences, Faculty of Science, and Director of the Australian Mekong Resource Centre

The extent to which the strategy seeks to build on existing ‘area’ strengths As discussed elsewhere, a common theme throughout the consultations process was the extent of the University’s existing, but largely hidden, strengths in research and teaching relevant to different regions. For example, Professor Adrian Vickers argued in his submission, that any decision about areas of focus should be based on existing strengths, and a realistic assessment of our potential to achieve competitive advantage on the international scene (Submission 8).

The University’s ability to attract high quality domestic and international students to Area Studies programs This factor is again related to others above, but was considered critical by a number of respondents. Professor Robert Aldrich, for example, argued:

‘If Sydney is to be made into a leading institution for Area Studies, there also needs to be sufficient support to attract students (through scholarships and bursaries, as well as adequate work space and other necessities) and to promote academic interchange (for example, with exchange of teaching and research staff).’ Submission 22, Professor Robert Aldrich, Professor of European History, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts

The extent to which barriers to collaboration between University units and staff are removed Section 5.2, ‘Obstacles to success’, provided an overview of existing barriers to collaboration that exist within the University, highlighting the difficulties that staff and students currently face in obtaining information about colleagues’ areas of expertise and interest, along with the financial disincentives for collaboration that currently exist. The extent to which such internal barriers to cross‐unit and cross‐

90 disciplinary collaboration can be addressed will have a bearing on the success of any agreed strategy for Area Studies at Sydney.

The quality of the domestic and international linkages achieved Some respondents stressed the need for any strategy to ensure that our area centres or networks are engaged and linked with similar centres and groupings both in Australia and internationally. For example, Dr Luke Nottage wrote in his submission of how the Law Faculty’s involvement in the Australian Network for Japanese Law (ANJeL) had allowed the Australian network to leverage its membership, putting all the Australian institutions involved on the global map (Submission 12, Associate Professor Luke Nottage, Co‐Director, Australian Network for Japanese Law).

The extent and quality of ‘incountry’ placements and programs Discussed in Section 5.2, ‘Obstacles to success’, this success factor relates to the quality of domestic and international linkages – but focuses on the quality of linkages with institutions and organisations in the countries or regions of interest, and on the impact of these linkages on the education of students and research capacity. It stresses the importance of any strategy providing opportunities for ‘in‐country’ placements for students who are not from the country or region of interest; along with the importance of any Area Studies programs offering students from the area of interest access to a qualification from the University of Sydney, without necessarily having to come physically to the University to obtain it.

The extent to which the strategy bridges the divide between the teaching of languages and cultures and the location of disciplinary knowledge relevant to a culture or region Professor Philip Hirsch addressed this issue in his submission as follows:

At the University of Sydney, a longstanding weakness of Area Studies has been that the institutionalisation of area‐specific expertise has been in the School of Languages and Cultures…, while much of the discipline‐based expertise has been dispersed with no area‐studies focus apart from RIAP, which has been outside the main teaching and research game. As such, there has been a divide between the teaching of languages and associated cultural studies, on the one hand, and the location of area‐specific knowledge in economics, history, geography, agriculture, anthropology and so on. Submission 32, Professor Philip Hirsch, Professor in the School of Geosciences, Faculty of Science, and Director of the Australian Mekong Resource Centre

The extent to which language education at the University is integrated and enhanced Dr Birte Giesler wrote in her submission on behalf of academic staff involved in European Studies:

‘Geographical/cultural Area Studies need a strong emphasis on relevant languages, as knowledge in the field will otherwise be very limited and at risk of obsolescence due to an inability to keep conversant with international developments. Therefore the University of Sydney needs to foster its language programs if it aims to achieve success in a particular geographical/cultural area. Submission 41, Dr Birte Giesler, Lecturer, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts

The Asian Studies Program, on behalf of six Departments of Asian Studies, in the School of Languages and Cultures argued similarly that:

‘a key to the success of Area Studies is a deep knowledge of the area’s languages, and an academic body who can interact with and read the writings of native scholars from the area being studied. Competence and versatility with the languages and scripts of the relevant area will enable Area Studies at the University of Sydney to get past simplistic categories of thought in approaching the Area concerned, and increase the opportunities for truly international engagement with native scholars from the Area of specialization.’ Submission 27, Asian Studies Program, on behalf of six Departments of Asian Studies, in the School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts

The Panel endorses the projects that the Working Party on ‘Second Language’ Acquisition is undertaking to better integrate language acquisition in professional programs in particular, to enhance ‘in‐country’ language immersion opportunities, and to promote the study of languages in schools.

The extent to which the Area Studies centres lead and inform public debate about Australia’s relations with key regions and countries and the development of public policy in relation to these areas Internationally, leading Area Studies centres have an external mandate as a core part of their missions and have their performance assessed against criteria such as the extent to which they inform public debate about the area, work with Governments to improve public policy in relations with the country or region in question and have a profile in the media. In the Panel’s view, the success of the University’s Area Studies strategy as a whole and of individual centres should include periodic assessment against these ‘public engagement’ objectives.

The extent to which the Area Studies centres connect with local migrant communities In his submission to the Review, Professor Warwick Anderson wrote:

One of the criticisms of Area Studies in the United States has been the artificially bounded character of their expertise, in particular, the way in which they ignore contemporary migrations and diasporas … Here at Sydney we too have the opportunity to engage local communities from the regions in our Area Studies scholarship. Not only does this suggest improvements in research and teaching (especially for undergraduates with family connections to these areas), but it also gives access to potential sources of funding.’ Submission 36, Professor Warwick Anderson, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Values, Ethics and Law in Medicine, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, Faculty of Arts

The Panel endorses this suggestion for the University’s Area Studies centres to engage with local migrant communities from relevant regions or countries.

6.5 List of submissions to the Review

The following people or groups made submissions to the Review:

Submission Submission number 1 Ms Kathryn Bartimote‐Aufflick (Lecturer, Institute for Teaching and Learning)

2 Professor Stephanie Donald (Professor of Chinese Media Studies, Media and Communication)

3 Dr Andreas Jaeger (Lecturer, Germanic Studies, School of Languages and Cultures)

4 *Mr Alex Maitland (Group Secretary, Office of General Counsel)

5 Professor Philip Hirsch (Director, Australian Mekong Resource Centre) – notes from a postgraduate seminar

6 Dr Alex Broom (Senior Lecturer, Discipline of Behavioural and Social Sciences in Health)

7 Dr Ben Saul (Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law; Director, Sydney Centre for International Law)

8 Professor Adrian Vickers (Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, School of Languages and Cultures)

9 Professor Anthony Welch (Professor of Education, Faculty of Education and Social Work)

10 Professor David Hensher (Director and Head of Discipline, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies)

11 Professor David Goodman (Director, Institute of Social Sciences)

12 Dr Luke Nottage (Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Co‐Director, Australian Network for Japanese Law (ANJeL))

13 Mr David Morris (Director, Government Relations in the Office of the Vice‐ Chancellor)

14 Mr Richard Ouvrier (Postgraduate Student)

15 *Ms Amanda Shapiro (Postgraduate Student, MVSc, Veterinary Science)

16 Mr William Sutton (Postgraduate Student)

17 Mr Robbie Reid (Postgraduate Student, Strategic Public Relations)

18 Mr Peter Smith (Postgraduate Student, Centre for Developmental Disability Studies)

19 Ms Lijuan Tang (Postgraduate Student, MCom/Acct, Economics and Business)

20 “Chris” (Postgraduate Student)

21 Professor Raewyn Connell (Faculty of Education and Social Work)

22 Professor Robert Aldrich (Professor of European History, Department of History)

23 Ms Caroline Franks (Postgraduate Student)

24 Dr Michael Paton (Teaching Quality Fellow, Office of Learning and Teaching in Economics and Business)

25 Ms Anita Chan (Researcher and Candidate Manager, Senior Academic Appointments)

26 Professor Roland Fletcher (Professor of Theoretical and World Archaeology, Department of Archaeology)

27 Asian Studies Program (Representing 6 Departments in the School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts)

28 Mr Robin Branson (Postgraduate (PhD) Student, School of Geosciences)

29 Dr Hans Pols (Senior Lecturer, Unit for History & Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Science)

30 *Professor Helen Dunstan (Professor of Chinese History, Department of History) – confidentiality requested for parts.

31 Mr Eli Oshorov (Postgraduate Student, Masters in International Studies)

32 Professor Philip Hirsch (Professor of Human Geography and Director, Australian Mekong Resource Centre)

33 Mr Thomas Barnes (Postgraduate Student (PhD, Discipline of Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences)

34 Dr Sarah Colley (Senior Lecturer, Department of Archaeology) – submission on behalf of Archaeology

35 Dr Sarah Colley (Senior Lecturer, Department of Archaeology) – individual comment

36 Professor Warwick Anderson (Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for

Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Department of History)

37 Professor Stephen Leeder and Associate Professor Ruth Colagiuri (Menzies Centre for Health Policy)

38 Professor Margaret Miller (Arthur and Renee George Professor of Classical Archaeology, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry)

39 Dr Vek Lewis and Dr Fernanda Peñaloza (Lecturers, Latin American and Spanish Studies in the School of Languages and Cultures)

40 Dr Michael Harris (Senior Lecturer and Discipline Leader, Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources)

41 Dr Birte Giesler (Lecturer, School of Languages and Cultures), on behalf of European Studies

42 Mr Michael Webb (Postgraduate Student (PG Dip), Faculty of Law)

43 Dr Kathryn Crameri (Senior Lecturer, Spanish and Latin American Studies, School of Languages and Cultures)

44 Professor Iqbal Ramzan (Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy)

45 Mr Scott Hawken (PhD Candidate, Greater Angkor Project / Living With Heritage)

*Confidentiality requested

A hard copy of all submissions, including those marked as confidential, or with confidential sections, will be provided to the Vice‐Chancellor.

A large pdf document which contains all non‐confidential written submissions to the Review is available to staff of the University of Sydney on the Review of Area Studies website: http://www.usyd.edu.au/staff/leadership_strategy/work_slate/area_studies.shtml

Electronic copies of this report and all other documents relevant to the Review may also be requested from:

Mr Tim Payne, Director, Policy Analysis and Communication: [email protected], ph: 02 9351 4750.