university research and research training performance€¦ · university research and research...

Compiled by Strategy and Planning, Division of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

University Research and Research Training

Performance

Report on

University Research and Research Training Key Performance Indicators

For the University Research Committee

April 2007

Table of Contents ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

University Research and Research Training Performance Report: April 2007 i

Ta

ble

of C

on

ten

ts

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................. iii Publications

National Benchmark: Share of Weighted Publications ..........................................................................................................................1 Total Weighted Publications ..................................................................................................................................................................2 National Benchmark: Weighted Publications per Academic FTE..........................................................................................................3 Total Weighted Publications per Academic ...........................................................................................................................................4 Academic Staff Levels B to E, Teaching & Research and Research Only............................................................................................5 Percentage of Academic Staff Publishing .............................................................................................................................................6

Research Revenue National Benchmark: Share of National Total University Research Revenue.......................................................................................7 University Research Revenue by Category...........................................................................................................................................8 Research Revenue All Categories by Faculty .......................................................................................................................................8 Category 1 Research Revenue by Faculty............................................................................................................................................9 Category 2 Research Revenue by Faculty............................................................................................................................................9 Category 3 Research Revenue by Faculty..........................................................................................................................................10 Category 4 Research Revenue by Faculty..........................................................................................................................................10 Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Category.....................................................................................................................11 Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Category.....................................................................................................................11 Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Category.....................................................................................................................12 Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Faculty........................................................................................................................12 Category 1 Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Faculty .....................................................................................................13 Category 2 Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Faculty .....................................................................................................13 Category 3 Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Faculty .....................................................................................................14 Category 4 Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Faculty .....................................................................................................14 Share of University Total Research Revenue by Faculty....................................................................................................................15 Share of University Category 1 Research Revenue by Faculty ..........................................................................................................16 Share of University Category 2 Research Revenue by Faculty ..........................................................................................................16 Share of University Category 3 Research Revenue by Faculty ..........................................................................................................17 Share of University Category 4 Research Revenue by Faculty ..........................................................................................................17

Higher Degree by Research Load National Benchmark Domestic Higher Degree Research Load ..........................................................................................................18 Domestic Higher Degree Research Load............................................................................................................................................19 International Higher Degree Research Load.......................................................................................................................................19 Commencing Domestic Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty ....................................................................................20 Commencing International Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty ...............................................................................20 Continuing Domestic Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty ........................................................................................21 Continuing International Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty ...................................................................................21 Total Domestic Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty .................................................................................................22 Total International Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty.............................................................................................22 National Benchmark: Higher Degree by Research Load per FTE ......................................................................................................23 University Domestic Higher Degree Research Load per FTE.............................................................................................................24 University International Higher Degree Research Load per FTE ........................................................................................................24 Commencing Domestic Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty ......................................................................25 Commencing International Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty .................................................................25 Continuing Domestic Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty ..........................................................................26 International Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty........................................................................................26 Total Domestic Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty ...................................................................................27 International Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty........................................................................................27 National Benchmark: Higher Degree Research Load as a portion of Total Load ...............................................................................28 Higher Degree Research Load as a portion of Total Load..................................................................................................................29

Progression from Honours Graduation to Higher Degree Research Enrolment ..............................................................................30 Higher Degree by Research Completions ............................................................................................................................................31

National Benchmark: Total Higher Degree by Research Completions ...............................................................................................31 National Benchmark: Share of National Higher Degree by Research Completions............................................................................31 Higher Degree by Research Completions by Enrolment Faculty ........................................................................................................32 HDR Completion for the 1996 Commencing Cohort ...........................................................................................................................33 Completion Rates for Annual Commencing Cohorts...........................................................................................................................33 Percentage of Higher Degree Research Commencement Cohort Completed....................................................................................34 Commencing Higher Degree by Research Cohort Size......................................................................................................................34 Proportion of PhD by Research Commencement Cohort Completed .................................................................................................35 Commencing PhD by Research Cohort Size ......................................................................................................................................35 Proportion of Masters by Research Commencement Cohort Completed ...........................................................................................36 Commencing Masters by Research Cohort Size.................................................................................................................................36 Performance on Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire..................................................................................................37 Performance on Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire by Faculty ................................................................................38 Appendix 1: Items contributing to each Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire ..............................................................39

Introduction ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

University Research and Research Training Performance Report: April 2007

Intro

du

ctio

n

ii

Background

The Working Party on Institutional Planning and Performance Framework has proposed a number of Key Performance Indicators for research. A subset of these is used as part of the annual “Report on Key Performance Indicators” considered by the University Council. Trends in University performance at Faculty level against each of these performance indicators is now provided to support institutional planning and the strategic management of research performance. Many of the research measures in the Report are likely to play an important part in the Research Quality Framework (RQF). It is important to understand our particular strengths and challenges in the national context in order to develop strategies that will optimise the reputation and funding outcomes for the University. For example, the University will be focussing on its performance in attracting Category 1 research income and a more detailed analysis has already been undertaken on income received from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). In addition, the University Research Committee has set up the RQF Steering Group with representation from each faculty to ensure that the University is well positioned to respond to whatever performance measures are introduced under the RQF.

Structure and Format of the Report

The report has been structured around the six key reporting areas of publications output, research revenue, higher degree by research student load, progression from honours to higher degrees by research, higher degree by research completions and the feedback from the Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire (PREQ). It provides an overall assessment of performance in each of these areas, and within each area, so that there is sufficient information to identify trends and outcomes at a faculty level. The development and use of the KPI framework demonstrates that the University monitors its research activities and outcomes, which is an important part of both the quality audit process and our preparation for the RQF. The Research and Research Training Performance Report will provide a framework for ensuring that data is analysed, that trends are identified and that any issues resulting from this analysis are able to be addressed.

Executive Summary ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________University Research and Research Training Performance Report: April 2007

Ex

ec

utiv

e S

um

ma

ry

iii

Executive Summary Publications

Over the period 2001 to 2005 the University’s publications output has risen, partly due to increased staff numbers and partly due to more rigorous recording of eligible publications. The percentage of staff publishing has remained stable at around 60%, with Sciences and ECMS being the most active in this regard, with over 70% of staff publishing in 2004 and 2005. Sciences clearly have the highest level of weighted DEST points per FTE, well above the University average, although there has been a slight reduction in this ratio for Sciences since 2003.

Research Revenue

Total research revenue has been increasing steadily since 2001, particularly in Category 1 and Category 2 income. Category 3 income has been falling and Category 4 income has shown slight growth (and comprises a relatively small proportion of the total). The biggest contributors to overall growth in research income have been the faculties of Sciences and Health Sciences and this is also reflected in the research income per FTE analyses and in the relative share of total University research revenue. All faculties have experienced declining Category 3 income. Category 4 income is earned mainly by ECMS and Sciences and has generally increased in recent years.

Higher Degree by Research Student Load

The University has increased its total HDR load since 2002 in line with the objectives set out in the Strategic Plan. Commencing load has increased to be just over 200 EFTSL p.a. for domestic students and around 50 EFTSL for international students. Continuing load is showing a corresponding upward trend to around 850 EFTSL for domestic students and over 150 EFTSL for international research students. The growth has occurred primarily in Health Sciences, Sciences and H&SS. Sciences and Health Sciences are the most research intensive of the faculties as measured by the ratio of HDR student load to total student load, with both of these faculties easily exceeding the overall University target of a ratio of 9% HDR load as a proportion of total load.

Progression from Honours to HDR

Professions and ECMS have shown some decline in conversion of honours students to HDR, with the remaining faculties having a steady progression rate of two or less honours students relative to each commencing HDR student.

HDR Completions

Despite growth in HDR load since 2002, the University is yet to see an increase in the number of completions. Looking at the last decade, for students commencing in 1996, only 61% have since completed their higher degree. For those commencing in 2000, completions represent just under 40%. Overall, completion rates tend to be higher in Sciences and Health Sciences compared with the other faculties. Given the impact on Federal funding for research training, HDR completions performance is a serious issue for the University.

The Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire (PREQ)

Satisfaction with the research experience is quite high at the University of Adelaide (and slightly above the national average). Making allowances for relatively small numbers of responses in some instances, the areas of some concern were the relatively lower levels of satisfaction with the ‘intellectual climate’, ‘supervision’ and ‘infrastructure’ but in all cases the overall level of satisfaction was still above the national average.

Key Performance Indicator: Publications ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h O

utp

ut

1

National Benchmark: Share of Total Weighted Publications

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Natio

nal S

hare

of W

eighte

d Pub

licati

ons

Melbourne Go8 Average Adelaide Western Australia

Definition: The y-axis shows national share of DEST weighted publications as reported from 2001 to 2005. The total weighted score for a book is 5 while book chapters, journal articles and conference proceedings are 1. The DEST score allocated is based on the fraction of the total number of authors for a given publication that list a given University in their by-line. Points earned by students and clinical and affiliate title holders are included. The chart shows the University of Adelaide, Go8 average and the highest and lowest Go8 Universities excluding Adelaide.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h O

utp

ut

2

Measure: Total Weighted Publications

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Weig

hted D

EST

Point

s

EC&MS Health Sciences Hum&SS

Professions Sciences University

Definition: The y-axis shows DEST weighted publications as reported from 2001 to 2005. The total weighted score for a book is 5 while book chapters, journal articles and conference proceedings are 1. The DEST score allocated is based on the fraction of the total number of authors for a given publication that list The University of Adelaide in their by-line. Points earned by students and clinical and affiliate title holders are included. A small number of weighted points attributed to Central Areas are not included in Faculty outputs but do contribute to the University total.

Source: DEST Publication Submissions 2001-2005


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h O

utp

ut

3

National Benchmark: Weighted Publications per Academic FTE (Level B-E)

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.8

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Point

s per

FTE

ANU Adelaide Western Australia Go8 Average

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 ANU 2.10 2.15 2.31 2.50 2.62 Melbourne 1.50 1.74 1.68 1.88 2.05 Queensland 1.61 1.71 1.90 1.90 2.01 Adelaide 1.91 1.82 1.86 2.00 1.91 UNSW 1.36 1.58 1.62 1.77 1.81 Sydney 1.42 1.61 1.63 2.05 1.80 Monash 1.25 1.39 1.45 1.60 1.72 Western Australia 1.57 1.68 1.75 1.73 1.70 Go8 Average 1.59 1.71 1.77 1.93 1.95

Definition: The y-axis shows the total weighted publications reported to DEST divided by FTE

academic staff Levels B-E, excluding Teaching Only staff, benchmarked against Go8 Universities (the highest and lowest ranking Go8 institutions in 2005 are included in the graph). The table is ranked according to 2005 performance. DEST weights a book five times higher than an individual book chapter, a journal article or inclusion in conference proceedings.

Source of data: DEST Higher Education Research Data Collection and Block Grant advice, DEST Aggregated Staff data.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h O

utp

ut

4

Measure: Weighted Publications per Academic FTE (Level B-E)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Weig

hted D

EST

Point

s per

FTE

Leve

l B to

E


Professions Sciences University Average

Definition: The y-axis shows DEST weighted publications as reported from 2001 to 2005 divided by the number of Full Time Equivalent Staff (FTE). The total weighted score for a book is 5 while book chapters, journal articles and conference proceedings are 1. The DEST score allocated is based on the fraction of the total number of authors for a given publication that list The University of Adelaide in their by-line. Points earned by students and clinical and affiliate title holders are included. A small number of weighted points attributed to Central Areas are not included in Faculty outputs but do contribute to the University total.

Staff FTE is as reported from 2001 to 2005 with the following characteristics: Academic, Level

B to E, Research & Teaching or Research Only, Not DEST controlled entities, Fractional Full-time or Full-time, Higher Education Sector, Not Central Areas DEST Faculty. The annual census date for staff reporting is March 31st each year. Staff members on unpaid leave on the census date and affiliate staff are not included.

Source: DEST Publication Submissions 2001-2005 DEST Staff Submissions 2001-2005

Key Performance Indicator: Staff Publishing ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h O

utp

ut

5

Measure: Total Academic Staff Levels B to E, Teaching & Research and Research Only

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Staff

Cou

nt


Professions Sciences

Faculty 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 EC&MS 113 108 131 141 147 Health Sciences 200 204 225 245 258 Hum&SS 128 133 123 125 132 Professions 99 96 95 96 109 Sciences 212 213 203 199 212 University 752 754 777 806 858

Definition: The y-axis shows the number of staff as reported from 2001 to 2005 with the following characteristics: Academic, Level B to E, Research & Teaching or Research Only, Not DEST controlled entities, Fractional Full-time or Full-time, Higher Education Sector, Not Central Areas DEST Faculty. The annual census date for staff reporting is March 31st each year. Staff members on unpaid leave on the census date and affiliate staff are not included.

Source: DEST Staff Submissions 2001-2005

Key Performance Indicator: Staff Publishing ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h O

utp

ut

6

Measure: Percentage of Academic Staff Publishing

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Perce

ntage

of S

taff w

ith P

ublic

ation

s


Professions Sciences University

Faculty 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 EC&MS 66% 70% 64% 72% 76% Health Sciences 67% 62% 58% 57% 53% Hum&SS 41% 45% 39% 48% 50% Professions 45% 47% 51% 53% 58% Sciences 73% 74% 74% 71% 72% University 61% 62% 59% 61% 62%

Definition: The y-axis shows the percentage of staff with a publication is a given year. The number of staff is as reported from 2001 to 2005 with the following characteristics:

Academic, Level B to E, Research & Teaching or Research Only, Not DEST controlled entities, Fractional Full-time or Full-time, Higher Education Sector, Not Central Areas DEST Faculty. The annual census date for staff reporting is March 31st each year. Staff members on unpaid leave on the census date and affiliate staff are not included.

The count of staff with at least one publication in a given year is taken from DEST Publications

Submissions from 2001 to 2005 Source: DEST Staff Submissions 2001-2005 DEST Publications Submissions 2001-2005

Key Performance Indicator: Research Revenue by Category ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h R

eve

nu

e

7

National Benchmark: Share of National Total University Research Revenue

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Natio

nal S

hare

of R

esea

rch In

come

The Australian National University The University of AdelaideThe University of Melbourne Go8 Average

Definition: The y-axis show national share of total research income as reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collections from 2001 to 2005. The chart shows the University of Adelaide, Go8 average and the highest and lowest Go8 Universities excluding Adelaide.

Source: HERDC Consolidated Research Income Returns 2001-2005


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h R

eve

nu

e

8

Measure: University Research Revenue by Category

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Millio

ns ($

)

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Measure: Research Revenue All Categories by Faculty

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Millio

ns ($

)

EC&MS Health Sciences Hum&SS Professions Sciences

Definition: The y-axes show research income as reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collections from 2001 to 2005. This includes income derived through Faculties of the University, Adelaide Research Innovation (ARI) and South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (SACES).

Research Income Category Definitions: Category 1 = National Competitive Grants (Commonwealth Competitive Grants & Non-Commonwealth Competitive Grants) Category 2 = Other Public Sector Funding (Local Government; State Government & Other Commonwealth Government) Category 3 = Industry and Other Funding (Australian Contracts; Australian Grants; Donations, Bequests and Foundations; International Funding & Other Funding) Category 4 = Cooperative Research Centre Funding

Source: HERDC Consolidated Research Income Returns 2001-2005


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h R

eve

nu

e

9

Measure: Category 1 Research Revenue by Faculty

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Millio

ns ($

)



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Millio

ns ($

)


Definition: The y-axes show research income as reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collections from 2001 to 2005. This includes income derived through Faculties of the University, ARI and SACES.

Research Income Category Definitions: Category 1 = National Competitive Grants (Commonwealth Competitive Grants & Non-Commonwealth Competitive Grants) Category 2 = Other Public Sector Funding (Local Government; State Government & Other Commonwealth Government)

Source: HERDC Consolidated Research Income Return 2001-2005


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h R

eve

nu

e

10


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Millio

ns ($

)



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Millio

ns ($

)

EC&MS Health Sciences Sciences

Definition: The y-axes show research income as reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collections from 2001 to 2005. This includes income derived through Faculties of the University, ARI and SACES.

Research Income Category Definitions: Category 3 = Industry and Other Funding (Australian Contracts; Australian Grants; Donations, Bequests and Foundations; International Funding & Other Funding) Category 4 = Cooperative Research Centre Funding


Key Performance Indicator: Research Revenue per FTE Level B to E ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h R

eve

nu

e

11

Benchmark: University Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Category

Per Capita Category 1 Research Income

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Thou

sand

s

Adelaide ANU Monash Go8 Average

Per Capita Total Category 1-4 Research Income

$0

$50

$100

$150

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Thou

sand

s

Adelaide Melbourne Monash Go8 Average

Definition: The y-axes show research income as reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collections from 2001 to 2005 per staff FTE.


B to E, Research & Teaching or Research Only, Not DEST controlled entities, Fractional Full-time or Full-time, Higher Education Sector, Not Central Areas DEST Faculty. The annual census date for staff reporting is March 31st each year. Staff members on unpaid leave on the census date and affiliate staff are not included. The charts show the University of Adelaide, Go8 average and the highest and lowest Go8 Universities excluding Adelaide.

Research Income Category Definitions: Category 1 = National Competitive Grants (Commonwealth Competitive Grants & Non-Commonwealth Competitive Grants) Category 2 = Other Public Sector Funding (Local Government; State Government & Other Commonwealth Government) Category 3 = Industry and Other Funding (Australian Contracts; Australian Grants; Donations, Bequests and Foundations; International Funding & Other Funding) Category 4 = Cooperative Research Centre Funding

Source: HERDC Consolidated Research Income Return 2001-2005 DEST Staff Submissions 2001-2005


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h R

eve

nu

e

12

Measure: University Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Category

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Thou

sand

s ($)

per F

TE Le

vel B

to E

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Measure: Total Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Faculty

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Thou

sand

s ($)

per F

TE Le

vel B

to E


Definition: The y-axes show research income as reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collections from 2001 to 2005 per staff FTE. This includes income derived through Faculties of the University, ARI and SACES.



Research Income Category Definitions: Category 1 = National Competitive Grants (Commonwealth Competitive Grants & Non-Commonwealth Competitive Grants); Category 2 = Other Public Sector Funding (Local Government; State Government & Other Commonwealth Government); Category 3 = Industry and Other Funding (Australian Contracts; Australian Grants; Donations, Bequests and Foundations; International Funding & Other Funding); Category 4 = Cooperative Research Centre Funding



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h R

eve

nu

e

13

Measure: Category 1 Research Revenue per FTE (Level B to E) by Faculty

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Thou

sand

s ($)

per F

TE Le

vel B

to E



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Thou

sand

s ($)

per F

TE Le

vel B

to E





Research Income Category Definitions: Category 1 = National Competitive Grants (Commonwealth Competitive Grants & Non-Commonwealth Competitive Grants); Category 2 = Other Public Sector Funding (Local Government; State Government & Other Commonwealth Government)



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h R

eve

nu

e

14


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Thou

sand

s ($)

per F

TE Le

vel B

to E



0

5

10

15

20

25

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Thou

sand

s ($)

per F

TE Le

vel B

to E





Research Income Category Definitions: Category 3 = Industry and Other Funding (Australian Contracts; Australian Grants; Donations, Bequests and Foundations; International Funding & Other Funding) Category 4 = Cooperative Research Centre Funding


Key Performance Indicator: Share of University Research Revenue ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h R

eve

nu

e

15

Measure: Share of University Total Research Revenue by Faculty

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Shar

e of U

niver

sity R

esea

rch R

even

ue


Definition: The y-axis shows Faculty share of University total research income as reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collections from 2001 to 2005. This includes income derived through Faculties of the University, ARI and SACES.



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h R

eve

nu

e

16

Measure: Share of University Category 1 Research Revenue by Faculty

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Shar

e of U

niver

sity R

esea

rch R

even

ue



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Shar

e of U

niver

sity R

esea

rch R

even

ue


Definition: The y-axes show Faculty share of University total research income as reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collections from 2001 to 2005. This includes income derived through Faculties of the University, ARI and SACES.



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re

se

arc

h R

eve

nu

e

17


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Shar

e of U

niver

sity R

esea

rch R

even

ue



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Shar

e of U

niver

sity R

esea

rch R

even

ue


Definition: The y-axes show Faculty share of University total research income as reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collections from 2001 to 2005. This includes income derived through Faculties of the University, ARI and SACES.


Key Performance Indicator: Higher Degree by Research Load ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

18

National Benchmark: Higher Degree by Research Load

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HDR

Load

(EFT

SL)

Melbourne Western Australia Adelaide Go8 Average

Definition: The y-axis show Higher Degree Research Load per FTE. The chart shows the University of Adelaide, Go8 average and the highest and lowest Go8 Universities excluding Adelaide.



Source: DEST Student Submissions DEST Staff Submissions 2001-2006


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

19

Measure: University Domestic Higher Degree Research Load

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

(EFT

SL)

Commencing Continuing Total

Measure: University International Higher Degree Research Load

0

50

100

150

200

250

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

(EFT

SL)


Definition: The y-axes show Higher Degree Research Equivalent Full-Time Student Load (EFTSL) from the student profiling in the University’s data warehouse as at 15/9/2006. 2006 loads are projected; some small variances end of year actual can be expected. A small amount (0.62 EFTSL) of ‘Unknown Faculty’ and ‘Central Administration’ load is not included.

Source: Student Profiling in Data Warehouse 15/9/2006


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

20

Measure: Commencing Domestic Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

(EFT

SL)


Measure: Commencing International Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

(EFT

SL)





______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

21

Measure: Continuing Domestic Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

(EFT

SL)


Measure: Continuing International Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

(EFT

SL)





______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

22

Measure: Total Domestic Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

(EFT

SL)


Measure: Total International Higher Degree Research Load by Teaching Faculty

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

(EFT

SL)




Key Performance Indicator: Higher Degree by Research Load per FTE ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

23

National Benchmark: Higher Degree by Research Load per FTE

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

1.50

1.70

1.90

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Load

per F

TE (E

FTSL

)

Queensland Adelaide Monash Go8 Average

Definition: The y-axis shows Higher Degree Research Load per FTE. The chart shows the University of Adelaide, Go8 average and the highest and lowest Go8 Universities excluding Adelaide.



Source: DEST Student Submissions DEST Staff Submissions 2001-2006


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

24

Measure: University Domestic Higher Degree Research Load per FTE

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

per F

TE (E

FTSL

)


Measure: University International Higher Degree Research Load per FTE

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

per F

TE (E

FTSL

)


Definition: The y-axes show Higher Degree Research Load per FTE. Higher Degree Research Equivalent Full-Time Student Load (EFTSL) is extracted from the

student profiling in the University’s data warehouse as at 15/9/2006. 2006 loads are projected; some small variances end of year actual can be expected. A small amount (0.62 EFTSL) of ‘Unknown Faculty’ and ‘Central Administration’ load is not included.



Source: Student Profiling in Data Warehouse 15/9/2006 DEST Staff Submissions 2001-2006


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

25

Measure: Commencing Domestic Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

per F

TE (E

FTSL

)


Measure: Commencing International Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

per F

TE (E

FTSL

)








______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

26

Measure: Continuing Domestic Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

per F

TE (E

FTSL

)


Measure: Continuing International Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

per F

TE (E

FTSL

)








______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

27

Measure: Total Domestic Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

per F

TE (E

FTSL

)


Measure: Total International Higher Degree Research Load per FTE by Teaching Faculty

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Load

per F

TE (E

FTSL

)







Key Performance Indicator: Ratio of Total Load/HDR Load ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

28

National Benchmark: Higher Degree Research Load as a portion of Total Load

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HDR

Load

as P

ortio

n of T

otal L

oad

ANU Adelaide Monash Go8 Average

Definition: Higher Degree by Research Equivalent Full-Time Student Load (EFTSL) DEST benchmarking data.

Source: Data Warehouse DEST Load Benchmarking, 2005 from DEST website.

Key Performance Indicator: Ratio of Total Load/HDR Load ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

29

Measure: Higher Degree Research Load as a portion of Total Load

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

HDR

Load

as P

ortio

n of T

otal L

oad

EC&MS Health Sciences Hum&SSProfessions Sciences University

Definition: Higher Degree by Research Equivalent Full-Time Student Load (EFTSL) from the student profiling in the University’s data warehouse as at 15/9/2006. 2006 loads are projected; some small variances to end of year actual can be expected. A small amount (0.62 EFTSL) of ‘Unknown Faculty’ or ‘Central Administration’ load is not included. The University target for HDR to total load ratio is 8-9% and has been rising steadily and currently sits at 8.7%.


Key Performance Indicator: Progression of Honours to Higher Degree Research ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

30

Measure: Progression from Honours Graduation to Higher Degree Research Enrolment

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006

Ratio

Hon

ours

to HD

R

EM&CS Health Sciences Hum&SS Professions Sciences

Definition: The honours progression ratio is the number of honours graduates in one year divided by the number of commencing HDR students in the subsequent year. The count of honours graduates was taken from graduations records recorded in the student information system. The commencing HDR head count is from student profiling in the data warehouse. For the University as a whole there are about 2 honours students for each commencing HDR student.

Source: PeopleSoft query DM_Grads_Graduate_Honours Student profiling in data warehouse 10/092006


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

31

National Benchmark: Total HDR Completions All Go8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HDR

Comp

letion

s

Go8 Average Monash ANUAdelaide Melbourne NSWUQ Sydney UWA

National Benchmark: Share of National Higher Degree by Research Completions

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HDR

Comp

letion

s Nati

onal

Shar

e

ANU Adelaide Melbourne Go8 Average

Definition: Higher degree by research completions are summarised by the year of the final result effective date. This does not correspond to DEST reporting years used in other University data but gives a clearer indication of the number of HDR completions per year. Total HDR completions show all Go8 institutions while National share shows Adelaide and the highest and lowest Go8 institutions excluding Adelaide.

Source: DEST funding advice


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

32

Measure: Higher Degree by Research Completions by Enrolment Faculty

0

50

100

150

200

250

2002 2003 2004 2005

HDR

Comp

letion

s (pe

rsons

)

EM&CS Health Sciences Hum&SSProfessions Sciences University

Definition: Higher degree by research completions are summarised by the year of the final result effective date. This does not correspond to DEST reporting years used in other University data but gives a clearer indication of the number of HDR completions per year.

Source: PeopleSoft query GC_Completions

Key Performance Indicator: HDR Completions ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

33

Measure: HDR Completion for the 1996 Commencing Cohort

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Australian International Total

% C

omple

ted by

31/12

/2005

PhD Masters Total

Measure: Completion Rates for Annual Commencing Cohorts

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

% C

omple

ted as

of 31

/12/20

05

PhD Masters Total

Definition: HDR commencements and completions were extracted from the relevant DEST submission

files. Where students had more than one commencement listed they were handled as follows. Where students had down-grades (PhD to a Masters) and cross-grades (transfer to different program at the same level) in the commencing year, only the most recent was counted unless previous was recorded as completed. When a student up-graded (transferring from Masters to PhD) within 5 years of the Masters commencement only PhD commencement is counted with the commencing year of the Masters defining the PhD cohort unless a completion was registered against the Masters. Down-grades and cross-grades outside the commencing year were all counted as bona fide commencements.

Only completions listed for students reported as commencing in the 1995-2005 DEST load

submission and reported as completed before 31/12/2005 were counted. Source: DEST Course Completions and DEST Student Load Submissions 1995-2005

PhD Masters Total Australian 62% 56% 60% International 71% 69% 71% Total 63% 58% 61%


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

34

Measure: Percentage of Higher Degree Research Commencement Cohort Completed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Commencement Year

Perce

ntage

of C

ohor

t Com

pleted


Measure: Commencing Higher Degree by Research Cohort Size

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 EC&MS 57 55 63 50 60 50 40 68 89 68 55 Health Sciences 53 64 53 72 74 68 79 74 78 102 104 Hum&SS 41 71 69 80 69 77 60 69 62 71 70 Professions 11 12 21 18 21 23 17 25 35 31 17 Sciences 134 112 121 130 121 108 111 97 161 135 136 University 296 314 327 350 345 326 307 333 425 407 382

Definition: The y-axis shows the percentage of each commencing Higher Degree by Research (HDR)

cohort that has completed as of 31/12/2005. The table shows the number of students commencing HDR programs.

HDR commencements and completions were extracted from the relevant DEST submission files. Where students had more than one commencement listed they were handled as follows. Where students had down-grades (PhD to a Masters) and cross-grades (transfer to different program at the same level) in the commencing year, only the most recent was counted unless previous was recorded as completed. When a student up-graded (transferring from Masters to PhD) within 5 years of the Masters commencement only PhD commencement is counted with the commencing year of the Masters defining the PhD cohort unless a completion was registered against the Masters. Down-grades and cross-grades outside the commencing year were all counted as bona fide commencements.




______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

35

Measure: Proportion of PhD by Research Commencement Cohort Completed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Perce

ntage

of C

ohor

t Com

pleted


Measure: Commencing PhD by Research Cohort Size


Definition: The y-axis shows the percentage of each commencing PhD level Higher Degree by Research

(HDR) cohort that has completed as of 31/12/2005. The table shows the number of students commencing PhD level HDR programs.





______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt D

em

an

d/P

rog

ressio

n

36

Measure: Proportion of Masters by Research Commencement Cohort Completed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Perce

ntage

of C

ohor

t Com

pleted


Measure: Commencing Masters by Research Cohort Size


Definition: The y-axis shows the percentage of each commencing Masters level Higher Degree by

Research (HDR) cohort that has completed as of 31/12/2005. The table shows the number of students commencing Masters level HDR programs.




Key Performance Indicator: Postgraduate Research Questionnaire (PREQ) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt E

xp

erie

nc

e

37

Measure: University % Agreement for Each Performance Scale Relative to the National Average

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2003 2004 2005

Survey Year

% A

gree

ment

Relat

ive to

Nati

onal

Aver

age

Supervision Intellectual Climate Skill DevelopmentInfrastructure Thesis Examination Goals and ExpectationsOverall Satisfaction

Definition: The y-axis shows the percentage agreement relative to the national percentage agreement.

For instance in 2005 Adelaide graduates report 71% agreement with statements associated with a positive intellectual climate on the Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire (PREQ) while nationally 58% agreement is reported, for this point the figure shows +13% for Adelaide relative to national average. The percentage agreement is the proportion of agree or strongly agree responses to items within each scale. Survey items contributing to each scale defined in Appendix 1. Annual results correspond to all students completing HDR programs in the previous year.

Source: Postgraduate Research Experience 2004 & 2005, Graduate Careers Australia Adelaide Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire Submitted Results


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt E

xp

erie

nc

e

38

Measure: % Agreement for Each Performance Scale Relative to the National Average by Faculty

Responses 2003 2004 2005 Overall Satisfaction 2003 2004 2005 EC&MS 22 17 EC&MS 90% 82% Health Sciences 42 28 Health Sciences 86% 81% Hum&SS 17 12 Hum&SS 93% 100% Professions 8 8 Professions 100% 67% Sciences 77 60 Sciences 84% 88% University of Adelaide 88 166 125 University of Adelaide 80% 87% 85% National Total 2590 2689 3019 National Average 82% 84% 83% Supervision 2003 2004 2005 Intellectual Climate 2003 2004 2005 EC&MS 76% 76% EC&MS 65% 66% Health Sciences 71% 73% Health Sciences 58% 75% Hum&SS 77% 68% Hum&SS 52% 68% Professions 91% 59% Professions 83% 70% Sciences 70% 84% Sciences 70% 71% University of Adelaide 72% 73% 77% University of Adelaide 63% 65% 71% National Average 71% 73% 74% National Average 56% 58% 58% Skill Development 2003 2004 2005 Infrastructure 2003 2004 2005 EC&MS 90% 94% EC&MS 78% 84% Health Sciences 95% 99% Health Sciences 71% 84% Hum&SS 97% 98% Hum&SS 72% 58% Professions 100% 74% Professions 83% 74% Sciences 96% 97% Sciences 78% 79% University of Adelaide 86% 95% 96% University of Adelaide 72% 76% 79% National Average 90% 91% 91% National Average 67% 68% 70% Thesis Examination 2003 2004 2005 Goals and Expectations 2003 2004 2005 EC&MS 83% 80% EC&MS 93% 86% Health Sciences 87% 85% Health Sciences 90% 94% Hum&SS 79% 90% Hum&SS 83% 81% Professions 89% 79% Professions 100% 84% Sciences 83% 87% Sciences 94% 91% University of Adelaide 78% 84% 85% University of Adelaide 92% 92% 90% National Average 75% 77% 79% National Average 89% 90% 90%

Definition: The percentage agreement is the proportion of agree or strongly agree responses to PREQ

items within each scale. Items contributing to each scale defined in Appendix 1. The annual results correspond to all students completing HDR programs the previous year. Faculty breakdowns are available for 2004 and 2005 only.

Source: Postgraduate Research Experience 2004 & 2005, Graduate Careers Australia Adelaide Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire Submitted Results


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Stu

de

nt E

xp

erie

nc

e

39

Appendix 1: Items contributing to each Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire

Supervision Supervision was available when I needed it My supervisor/s made a real effort to understand difficulties I faced My supervisor/s provided additional information relevant to my topic I was given good guidance in topic selection and refinement

My supervisor/s provided helpful feedback on my progress I received good guidance in my literature search

Intellectual Climate The department provided opportunities for social contact with other postgraduate students I was integrated into the department’s community The department provided opportunities for me to become involved in the broader research culture A good seminar program for postgraduate students was provided The research ambience in the department or faculty stimulated my work Skill Development My research further developed my problem-solving skills I learned to develop my ideas and present them in my written work My research sharpened my analytic skills Doing my research helped me to develop my ability to plan my own work As a result of my research, I feel confident about tackling unfamiliar problems Infrastructure I had access to a suitable working space I had good access to the technical support I needed I was able to organise good access to necessary equipment I had good access to computing facilities and services There was appropriate financial research activities Thesis Examination The thesis examination process was fair I was satisfied with the thesis examination process The examination of my thesis was completed in a reasonable time Goals and Expectations I developed an understanding of the standard of work expected I understood the required standard for the thesis I understood the requirements of thesis examination Overall Satisfaction Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of my higher degree research experience

Source: Postgraduate Research Experience 2004 & 2005, Graduate Careers Australia

university research and research training performance€¦ · university research and research...

Documents