¡°Grand challenge¡± research missions help to?improve universities¡¯ efficiency by?marshalling their resources, management consultants have concluded.

Nous Group¡¯s ÖйúAƬ principal Zac?Ashkanasy said that rather than allowing a?¡°free-for-all¡± of?research topics, universities should muster their efforts around a?handful of?¡°overarching¡± themes such as climate change, intergenerational policy or?defence and security, with ¡°critical mass¡± in?each.

¡°It allows a deeper investigation of what are very complex topics in society,¡± he said. ¡°It also helps to foster greater interdisciplinarity. Complex topics are a web that requires a web of ideas and disciplines to solve things.¡±

An analysis by Nous¡¯ benchmarking arm Cubane found that universities that focused on relatively few ¡°rated research areas¡± had mostly performed well in the Excellence in?Research for?Australia exercise. Institutions assessed in?40 or?fewer narrow disciplines generally bagged more ¡°above world class¡± rankings than those involved in?50 or?more.

ÖйúAƬ

Mr Ashkanasy said targeting research fields helped university administrators to allocate internal funds, select doctoral candidates and identify ¡°superstar¡± recruits. ¡°Do you¡­just give [grants] to whoever turns up and screams the loudest? Do you randomly poach academics in a topic that the university has absolutely no infrastructure and credibility around?¡± he asked.

¡°We need to build critical mass¡­on bona fide, [globally] important topics. If you¡¯re a psychologist, biologist, economist, art historian or educationalist, your research shouldn¡¯t be on random topic?x. It should be geared towards answering a component of that overarching theme. If you diversify your interest too much, you become a master of nothing. Good organisations have focus, and they know what their strengths are.¡±

ÖйúAƬ

A counterargument is that the role of universities is to generate and disseminate knowledge, irrespective of its applications. ¡°Some institutions can afford that more than others,¡± Mr Ashkanasy said. ¡°If you¡¯re letting a thousand flowers bloom, maybe it¡¯ll work. It?might?not.

¡°We¡¯ve got to have some boundaries around¡­our institutional focus and mission. We need about 80 academics working on [themes such?as] climate change, [potentially] across quite different disciplines. You don¡¯t need [them] completely intertwined with one another. They can still work in relative independence. But¡­we don¡¯t want people working in isolation. We know that working together creates a better outcome for?all.¡±

Nous has also identified a ¡°macro trend¡± of Australasian universities improving their research efficiency by centralising support staff. ¡°If?you spread your research administration thinly, you end up with duplicate functions [and] different processes that don¡¯t operate at?scale,¡± Mr Ashkanasy said.

¡°The evidence is pretty strong now. If you want critical mass, good career pathways [and] a?more efficient model, you centralise.¡±

ÖйúAƬ

This did not necessarily mean co-locating research support staff, he stressed. ¡°But they report into the centre and [have] standardised processes and technology platforms.¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com