The slow death of Aboriginal Research?
AIATSIS suspends research grants
The Australian Institute of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) website
says that it is:
…the
world’s premier institution for information and research about the cultures and
lifestyles of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, past and present.
The
Institute undertakes and encourages scholarly, ethical community-based
research, holds a priceless collection of films, photographs, video and audio
recordings and the world’s largest collections of printed and other resource
materials for Indigenous Studies, and has its own publishing house.
Its
activities affirm and raise awareness among all Australians, and people of
other nations, of the richness and diversity of Australian Indigenous cultures
and histories.
Fine words and noble ambitions that
AIATSIS has strived to fulfill over the past 50 or so years. From my own
research on Aboriginal bird knowledge I found the resources in the AIATSIS
library and archives an great source of information and inspiration.
But more than a few in the fields
of research – anthropology, linguistics, law and archaeology – central to the
very fine work that AIATSIS has sponsored over the years are dismayed at this
recent announcement in the AIATSIS Grants page:
With
the greatest reluctance, the AIATSIS Council has decided that applications for
research grants will not be invited for the 2012 year. Although an important
discretionary program, this will be the first time in over 20 years that grants
will not be available.
AIATSIS
funding from Government has fallen steadily over the past decade, in
inflation-adjusted terms. Submissions to Government for increased base funding,
or exemption from the efficiency dividend, have been unsuccessful. We have now
passed the point where all legislated functions can be delivered, and in this
context Council took the view that decisive action was called for.
Whilst
Council noted, and appreciates, the Government’s decision to exempt AIATSIS
from the additional 2.5% efficiency dividend in 2012-13, this will have no
positive impact on ongoing funding.
An
internal review of the grants program found that it isn’t meeting the intended
purposes.
It
has been substantially unchanged for over a decade, and would need to be
redesigned to meet current expectations from Indigenous communities,
researchers and AIATSIS priorities. In addition, the grants program is no
longer eligible for inclusion in the Australian Competitive Grants Register,
due to a Government policy decision in 2010.
For
these reasons, Council reluctantly decided that the grants program could not be
funded next year. Instead, the funds will be used to bolster research in
priority areas which are critically short of resources.
In the overall scheme of research
in Australia the AIATSIS small grants certainly provided bang for the public’s
buck. A quick look at the grants over the past few years reveals the depth and
breadth of the research funded by these grants – which at about $680,000 per
year are pretty modest. Follow the highlighted links for the 2011, 2010 and 2009 research
projects and see the breadth, depth and quality of the research for yourself.
Does any of this matter?
For mine it does. Very much.
I agree with the commentator who
noted that:
…for
very little money AIATSIS was able to tap into some of the latest research and
then ensure that outcomes were returned to the institution: manuscripts / audio
/ visual etc.
This
wonderful repository will no longer be fed by this emerging research. While the
networks and loyalties of researchers who are funded (such as myself for my PhD
field research in the mid 1990′s) will no longer be developed.
The
fact that AIATSIS has to manage with dwindling government funding cannot alone
explain this action. It is extremely disappointing.
Your thoughts are
welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.