Letter from the editor

Ian R Dobson

Another year is upon us! Time for more scholarship and opinion to be aired in the Australian Universities’ Review. Not to mention a few book reviews.

This issue, we have started with a pair of ‘quantoid’ papers, research and commentary that are built around how we ‘measure’ aspects of Australian higher education. First, Adam Possamai and Gary Long examined research into the Field of Research Code for ‘Religion and Religious Studies’. They found that there has been an apparent drop in quality of research in this field and decided that this could be due to the way this code has been constructed. Will you lose faith as well?

Meanwhile, Philip Hider and Mary Coe compared the national classification of disciplines with the organisational structures of Australian universities. Their analysis showed ‘…a fair degree of alignment…’ between classification schemes and faculty structures in the sample of universities they examined. Similarly, there had been little change of alignment between the current and previous research classifications.

Next, Angel Calderon, the numbers whiz from RMIT, has examined Australian higher education since the so-called Dawkins reforms in the late 1980s, and considers the challenges that our sector might face in coming years. He looks at two major drivers: dependence on the revenue stream from international students, and the changing demographic pattern of the Australian population.

Marg Rogers and her colleagues from the University of New England have examined what universities say about themselves in their mission statements and self-promotional glossies and consider the similarities and differences between such published materials with the ‘lived reality’ of the workers. What universities say about themselves ought to be ‘true to the narratives… [and] …an accurate representation of what happens’. How is it at your university?

In the last issue, we published a paper by Kim Osman and Stuart Cunningham about ‘amplifier platforms’. This expression was a new one for me, but after reading the paper I felt that I knew quite a bit about the topic. This issue, they have followed up, with a piece on how Australian scholars use one such platform, The Conversation. Every morning, my e-day starts with The Conversation, and I’m sure I’m not alone there. Do universities support their scholars in their societal engagement activities via The Conversation (and others)? Unfortunately, such institutional support ‘… is uneven and underdeveloped’.

And so, to opinion pieces! Although publication of peerreviewed scholarly papers in journals is what results in brownie

Letter from the editor Ian R Dobson points for academics and universities, this is not the only way to get a message out on the street. Amplifier platforms are one way to send a message, and opinion published in AUR is another way. This issue, we have four sets of opinion, starting with Richard Hil, author of those must-reads Whackademia, and Selling Students Short. Richard points to ‘the great university implosion’, just down the track. Perhaps following Angel Calderon’s commentary on overseas students, he says ‘…it has become glaringly obvious that Australian universities are massively over-reliant on overseas students for their income and face an epic implosion when this revenue stream… dries up.’ And of course, universities would never pressure academics to increase the marks they give to some students!

Tim Moore reports on an analysis of journal article titles. As he puts it ‘The research is complete, the article written, there’s just one last job – think of a great title, one that not only elegantly summarises your research, but that is also going to grab the attention of a fickle and perpetually time-poor readership’. Read this paper to learn about ‘the ubiquitous colon’, the dos and don’ts of article titles, and marvel at the 48-word title of a DNA-related paper from about 30 years ago.

Writing about precarious employment in universities, TheAcademicPrecariat (‘a collective that writes about precarious academic employment from the perspective of those who have and continue to experience it’), ‘…offer suggestions to ongoing academics on how to improve the working lives and conditions of precarious colleagues’. Enough said!

Final word this issue (apart from the book reviews) goes to Arthur O’Neill, who daubs an interesting canvas by picking up on what (mostly) universities have said about themselves. If you hadn’t heard of the University of Central Tasmania before, well, you will have now! Move over, Hitchhiker’s Guide. On to the book reviews. You will notice the ever-presence of serial reviewer Thomas Klikauer. When does this man sleep? Thomas has provided three reviews this issue. Of course, Andrys Onsman is no slouch either. Read on, and then visit a book shop or library near you.

Finally, I should like to thank the authors and peer reviewers for their work, and many thanks are also due to the production and editorial team that work so hard to put AUR together. We’ll be back in September with more scintillating material for your edification and amusement.