Paper to be presented at the DRUID Summer Conference 2004 on

INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS, INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Elsinore, Denmark, June 14-16, 2004

Theme A: Systems of Innovation, Growth & Development

INNOVATION AGENTS AND INNOVATION TRACKS: THE PLACE OF RESEARCH SCIENTISTS IN THE AUSTRALIAN

NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INNOVATION

Jane Marceau Tim Turpin

Richard Woolley

Australian Expert Group in Industry Studies (AEGIS) University of Western Sydney (UWS),

City Research Centre Level 8, 263 Clarence St. Sydney NSW

Australia

May 9th 2004

Increasing attention is being paid in Australia to the role of human capital in the national innovation system (NIS). This paper summarises recent policy initiatives and what they have to say about the development and maintenance of the science and technology workforce. It then goes on to report selected data from an AEGIS study of scientists in Australia. The uncertainty that appears to confront many scientific researchers is considered in the context of a wider discussion of the implications for innovation and NIS policy.

Keywords: innovation system, human resource development, HRST, science careers.

1

INNOVATION AGENTS AND INNOVATION TRACKS: THE PLACE OF RESEARCH SCIENTISTS IN THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL

SYSTEM OF INNOVATION Jane Marceau, Tim Turpin and Richard Woolley Australian Expert Group in Industry Studies (AEGIS) University of Western Sydney (UWS)

1. Introduction It is universally recognised that innovation is the key to sustained economic growth in industrialised countries in the twenty first century (OECD 1996, 1999). It is also now well understood that innovation occurs best when all aspects of a nation’s innovation system (NIS) are functioning in a coherent manner (Lundvall 1992; OECD 1999). The major aspects of NIS studied so far include research and training institutions (OECD 2000) and taxation regimes (OECD 2000). Increasingly, however, OECD countries realise that they must both generate technologies and diffuse them rapidly and efficiently, leading to the recognition that more attention must be paid to innovation personnel and their careers (see Rosengren 1998) as major agents in both the generation and transmission of innovation knowledge. In 1999-2000 the OECD ran a pilot international project on the mobility patterns of highly qualified personnel (Graverson 2000; OECD 2001). The present paper sets the study of the career patterns of scientists in Australia and their role as innovation agents in the context of other aspects of the research and business systems in which scientists work. The paper also aims to illuminate the shifts and changes that have taken place in the opportunity structure within both public and private sectors and the effects these have on research science careers in Australia. Insofar as innovation relies on science and technology, these are critical issues.

2. Background: the government’s new policies in relation to innovation In recent years, the Australian government has increased funding to research and development, notably through the Australian Research Council and associated schemes, and a further scheme is to be announced in May 2004. Both major Australian political parties are now committed to further investing in knowledge generation and transmission and incorporating ‘knowledge’ into models of how economies might work in the future. Many new policies in relation to economic development are likely to be put into place over the next few years, probably at an accelerating rate. Many of these will involve scientists. This means that issues of personnel are becoming critically important in Australia. Current science policies, however, are largely built on a knowledge supply-driven model of how innovation takes place, with a focus on the ‘commercialisation of research’, and show little understanding of the effective choices facing scientifically-trained personnel as they seek to make their careers in the public and private sectors and generate both scientifically and economically useful knowledge in Australia. Desirable as the new monies for research are in Australia, grants remain extremely hard to get, especially by the young, and students in science have been few for many years, leading to few new staff opportunities in university/teaching research jobs as these positions are based on student numbers. Indeed, the issue of staffing for science research in universities in Australia is becoming more and more acute: as staff-student ratios become increasingly unfavourable for teaching and research staff, the personnel available for research in any discipline are becoming stretched

2

and find that research is the first area of endeavour that has to give way to crowded teaching timetables. The May 2004 federal budget will place even greater emphasis on commercialization of research results. It seems that this focus will be funded at the expense of ‘public good’ research and nineteen Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) have already lost their funding. The impact of new monies for research depends greatly on the willingness and capacity of scientific researchers to respond positively to opportunities presented and to incorporate these into their perceptions of the possibilities of acceptable career paths in Australia. Potential researchers’ choices also depend on the policies of the private sector as to the location of centres of R&D and the associated scientists and technologists. And yet for the critical human resources concerned we have so far had little baseline data on which to judge how well we are travelling and how far we still have to go in a few years’ time. Nor have we had much systematic knowledge about the changes taking place in the organisations providing positions for scientists, especially in the private sector. Important changes are also taking place in relation to the funding of scientific research in Australia. The government currently provides ‘block’ or fixed funding for research in the principal national research organization, the CSIRO, and a number of public institutes for research, notably in the field of defence but also in relation to marine science and areas such as research into issues concerning the Antarctic. In addition, some block funding for research is provided to universities as a proportion of their total funding and to the Institute of Advanced Studies at the Australian National University. Much of the justification for this funding was related, more or less directly, to notions of serving the national interest but the organisations concerned were largely left to develop their own agendas. This independence is increasingly being questioned by the federal government. Over the last few decades there has been a considerable shift in policies for research, with the common thread of increased contestability and ‘user pays’ as major distribution components. In the 1980s, the Labor government introduced special funding arrangements to encourage research in rural industries, with the creation of specific Rural R&D Corporations partly funded through levies on primary industry producers. More recently, from 1990, came the first elements of public-private ‘hybridization’ with the creation of new types of Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs), funded partly by government, partly by industry and partly universities and other public sector research organizations (PSR). These were soon joined by new schemes administered by the Australian Research Council (ARC) in the form of grants which involved industry-researcher partnerships and ARC-industry co-funding. These have recently been expanded through the creation of national centers of excellence in biotechnology and IT and some new centers for specialist sciences which require industry funding participation. Over the last few years, the ANU Institute of Advanced Studies has lost some of its block funding while CSIRO has been under pressure to make its research more ‘relevant’ and to acquire 30% of its income from external sources, the assumption being that this would force the organization to look outwards to its ‘customers’ as guides to what to research (this was apparently successful as the 30% funding target has recently been withdrawn as a requirement). Current proposals are to extend the contestability requirement more broadly. The ARC has been the arbiter of excellence in research projects since its creation in 1988 and has provided Australian university researchers with a source of project funds for basic as well as more strategic and applied research and for some doctoral scholarships and a small number of post-doctoral and more senior fellowships. The criteria for ARC funding have always been

3

peer-review and ‘academic excellence’, in particular for the schemes aiming to fund more basic research. The problem with ARC grants has always been the low success rates (20% or less), the very slow process (one application date a year for most schemes) and the very small size of grants awarded. The size of ARC ‘Large’ grants (the major basic research scheme) for the social sciences, for example, a decade ago was roughly the same as the Economic and Social Research Council ‘small’ grants in the UK. The process of budget-cutting that has taken place in the last few years as competition for grants increased nationally has ensured that many if not all grants lose a very high proportion of the budget proposed which in turn affects personnel that can be employed in the grants and the scope of research feasible. The grants problems are thus issues both for research personnel and ultimately for quality of research and scale of the field that can be covered. The two remaining major sources of grant fund are federal, state and lower level governments and industry. Grants from these are almost always in the form of tenders for particular pieces of highly focused, problem-oriented research and are short in duration (one to five months very often). Australia lacks both the not-for profit and foundation sources for research common in the USA and direct access to funding from the European Union, although some arrangements for participation in the latter have recently been put in place. Industry in Australia is the single biggest spender on research but the number of industry sectors undertaking research is very limited, the scale of research activity is small and reducing and overall the proportion of funding for research spent by industry is lower in Australia than the OECD average. The trends in the research-funding patterns of the public sector described above are major components of the professional world affecting researchers, especially the young, considering embarking on a research career, but also affect more established scientists who may be losing security of tenure, looking at low salary levels (much lower than in the public service in many cases) and facing increased demands for accountability in the form of publications, grants received and, more and more, the commercial value of what they produce. These trends are thus elements in the career choices facing scientists seeking to undertake research careers in the public sector. They can be summarized as position uncertainty, low pay and short term project dependence. The private sector in Australia is increasingly being restructured as the country opens its borders further to world trade and corporations lose the advantage they had of relatively protected location in a sophisticated and growing market. In many industries, this national and international restructuring has meant the decision by firms, especially those headquartered overseas, to reduce their expenditure on R&D laboratories in Australia. The Australian Industry Research Group (AIRG), which represents companies with research laboratories, has been losing members fast over the last few years, the number of organisations affiliated reducing by half, from 80 to 40, between 1999 and 2003. Indeed, quite a significant proportion of the 40 remaining are in fact public sector organizations, notably ANSTO, the Australian nuclear research organization. What also seems to be happening is that, with the major world movement of mergers and acquisitions, even companies retaining laboratories in Australia are altering the focus of the work undertaken there. The labs have been reduced in size and the position of research managers in the direction of the company, especially in strategic decision-making, has been downgraded, in many cases such managers no longer playing senior roles. In addition, the work of the scientists employed has been refocused more directly onto product development

4

and market-related research and away from the more basic investigations that many thought important to commercial success as well as scientific advance. Downsizing of research facilities and refocusing the research that remains have been spectacular in one of Australia’s strongest fields, agricultural production and processed foods. In the latter, worldwide there is a trend towards firms adopting a competitive strategy based on new product development via R&D but in Australia this is not occurring (see AEGIS study of the processed food industry in 2001 and the interviews with private sector scientists from that sector carried out for the project described here). The same trends are apparent in other fields as well. These trends in the private sector thus suggest the increasing dependence for their career progression of ‘new’ as well as more experienced scientific personnel on positions in the public sector. The study described here indicates something of the ‘shape’ of careers currently underway in the public sector, with some information gathered from the private sector. A broad conclusion we have come to in undertaking this study is that scientists as ‘innovation agents’ in Australia are finding that their roles are changing and that their career tracks have narrowed. Given that most companies undertaking R&D in Australia are focused on product development and employ very few scientists it is increasingly difficult for those science-trained personnel who do remain in, or enter, the sector and who are seeing their effectiveness as innovation agents reducing. The influence they have on company competitiveness strategies seems to be diminishing while their ability to undertake cutting edge science research is being eroded due to the downsizing of most private sector laboratories and the redoubled focus on applied research, in practice much of it relatively simple testing rather than broader knowledge development. Even their capacity to train the younger generation of researchers is declining as the number of positions in the labs is reducing and many younger scientists soon migrate to management positions, losing their scientific ‘absorption’ capacity as they lose their proximity to cutting edge science.

3. Research scientists in Australia: an overall view In the context of transformations associated with the move toward a ‘knowledge economy’ (Stehr & Meja 2000) Australian government innovation policy has increasingly acknowledged the importance of knowledgeable and skilled personnel. Human capital has been recognised as integral to the generation of new ideas and the capacities to both manage and to capitalise upon innovation (MASI 2003: 188). The Report of the Federal Government initiative Mapping Australian Science & Innovation (MASI 2003) identified human capital as a key aspect of the national science and innovation capability. As part of this mapping process national statistics on human resources in highly skilled and technical occupational groups have been collated in their most systematic form to date (ABS 2003). At the same time a more systematic and sophisticated framework has been developed in analysing inputs to the education system in science and technology fields (CRTTE 2003; DEST 2002, 2003a), and studies have been undertaken to assess the workplace skill utilisation of Australian-trained workers (CPUR 2003), and in monitoring net gains and losses of skilled personnel through migration (MASI 2003: 231-4). Official data on HRST personnel in Australia form the context for discussion of the AEGIS study and are presented first.

5

The trend in the stock of researchers1 involved in research and development (R&D) in Australia over the past decade is shown in Table 1, below. This table shows that the number of scientific personnel working in business increased between 1991 and 2001, although dropping back somewhat in 1988-99, while the numbers working in public sector research organizations (PSR) remained stable except in higher education where the number of science and technology personnel increased greatly. Positions in that sector, however, are mainly both teaching and research and not research alone, although those numbers may also have been increasing. Numbers working for the Commonwealth rose in the early 1990s, dropped back considerably over the next three and then rose somewhat in 2000-2001, although still remaining below the 1990-91 level. State government scientific and technological personnel numbers rose and fell somewhat differently, ending the decade higher than in the beginning. Private non-profit numbers more than doubled, but from a very low base.

Table 1. Researchers by sector of R&D performance, Aust. 1990-01 to 2000-01 (person years)

Sector 1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01

Business 12,604 13,943 14,903 15,259 14,772 16,124

C’wealth Govt. 4,988 5,522 4,431 4,526 3,989 4,524

State Govts. 4,292 4,091 4,376 4,498 4,768 4,448

Government 9,280 9,613 8,807 9,024 8,757 8,972

Higher education* 20,666 27,914 32,272 35,472 38,137 39,507

Private non-profit 624 687 892 1,286 1,382 1,496

TOTAL 43,174 52,157 56,874 61,041 63,048 66,099 Data source: DEST 2003a, p. 30 (Chart 27). * Excludes post-graduate research students Figure 1, below, shows the proportion of the population with PhD qualifications who are working in selected occupations. In the two occupation categories of Specialist Managers (ASCO major group 1) and Professionals (ASCO major group 2) (ABS 1997) holders of doctoral degrees made up 73.5%, or approximately 50,000 persons, of the total number of doctoral degree holders in the Australian population in 2001 (approximately 68,000 persons). After Education and Health Professionals, holders of PhD qualifications are most likely to be working as Natural and Physical Science Professionals. Persons working in natural and physical science occupations comprised thus approximately 13.2% of the total number of doctoral degree-holders in the Australian population in 2001, whilst those working in Computing Professionals occupations comprised approximately 2.9% (ABS 2003a:12-3).

1 Researchers are defined as ‘professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems and also in the management of the projects concerned’ (OECD 2002, 93).

6

Figure 1. Proportion of PhD qualifications, by selected occupations, Australia 2001

Computing professionals

3.9%

Building & engineering

professionals2.0%

Natural & physical science

professionals17.6%

Specialist managers

7.8%

Other professionals

15.7%

Education29.4%

Health23.5%

Source: ABS 2003a, Cat. 8149.0. The Natural and Physical Science Professionals occupational group is a key component of Australia’s human resources in relation to innovation and technology.2 There were a total of 41,848 individuals with selected tertiary qualifications3 working in this occupational group as at 2001 (ABS 2003a). Those with PhDs make up slightly more than one-fifth of those employed as Natural and Physical Science Professionals who hold selected tertiary qualifications. This compares to all occupations, in which only three per cent of those with selected qualifications held doctoral degrees (ABS 2003a: 18). In Table 2, below, holders of PhDs are categorised into more specialised occupational sub-groups to highlight the proportions of different disciplines. Due to problems in Census2001 data collection, 26.2 per cent (2,307 persons) of the total group of 8,796 persons who held PhD qualifications and were employed as Natural and Physical Science Professionals could not be further classified into specialist sub-categories and are excluded from the analysis shown.

2 The Natural & Physical Science occupational group includes the following ASCO sub-groups: 2111 Chemists; 2112 Geologists & Geophysicists; 2113 Life Scientists; 2114 Environmental & Agricultural Scientists; 2115 Medical Scientists; and 2119 Other Natural & Physical Scientists. 3 Selected qualifications as defined by the ABS (2003) Cat. 8149.0: Doctoral degree; Master’s degree; Graduate diploma; Graduate certificate; Bachelor degree; and Advanced diploma.

7

Table 2. Natural and physical science professionals, occupational sub-categories, Australia 2001 Occupations: Natural and Physical Sciences (ASCO category 211)

ASCOsub-category

No. %

Chemists 2111 515 7.9

Geologists & Geophysicists 2112 664 10.2

Life scientists 2113 1,353 20.9

Environmental & agricultural science professionals 2114 1,282 19.8

Medical scientists 2115 1,922 29.6

Other natural & physical science professionals 2119 753 11.6

TOTAL 6,489 100 Source: ABS 2003b, special data service. Note: 2,307 (26.2%) individuals with doctoral qualifications and in natural and physical science professional occupations who could not be categorised further than ASCO group 211 in Census2001 data. Medical sciences dominate the picture. Almost one-third of the national stock of PhD-trained scientists working in natural and physical science professional occupations in Australia work in the medical science field. They are followed by smaller proportions working in the life sciences and in environmental and agricultural science. In contrast, chemists, geologists and geophysicists are occupations in which there are relatively small numbers. These figures reveal much about the occupational opportunities available to doctoral graduates in the different fields and thus to research scientists in Australia. The age structure of those with PhD qualifications is shown in Table 3, below, in comparison to all Natural and Physical Science Professionals who hold selected tertiary qualifications.

Table 3. Age structure of the workforce with selected qualifications, Natural & Physical Science Professionals, Australia 2001 (n)

Age 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55 + Total a. Ph.Ds 7 2,080 3,367 2,239 1,103 8,796

b. Total 3,462 14,362 12,202 8,367 3,455 41,848

a/b - 14.5% 27.6% 26.8% 31.9% 21.0% Source: ABS 2003a, Cat. 8149.0 Doctoral holders are concentrated in the older age groups (35-44 and 45-54 years) within the Natural and Physical Science Professionals workforce while overall, the largest age cohort in the tertiary qualified element of that field is the 25-34 years group. The oldest age cohort (55+ years) has the highest ratio of PhD holders almost one-third compared to a ratio of just over one-fifth for the total tertiary qualified workforce in these occupations. Figure 2, below, illustrates the age and gender characteristics of those with doctoral qualifications working in natural and physical science occupations.

8

Figure 2. Natural and physical science professionals, gender and age cohorts, Australia 2001 (n)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55+ years Age

No.

Females Males

Source: ABS 2003b, special data service. Note: a total of seven PhDs (two female, five male) held by those aged 24 years of less are omitted from this Figure. Males dominate occupations amongst Natural and Physical Science Professionals with selected tertiary qualifications, making up 63% of the population (ABS 2003: 32). This gender imbalance is further accentuated amongst those who hold PhDs in these occupations. Males comprised 72.2% (6,354 persons) in 2001, compared to 27.8% (2,442 persons) females. However, perhaps the most significant characteristic of these data is the apparent transformation in the proportional representation of women in the younger age cohorts of natural and physical scientists. The cohort of females in the 25-34 years age group (862) is proportionally the most significant, equivalent to 41.4 per cent of this age group. These figures are in contrast to the 45-54 and 55+ years age groups, in which women make up 19.9 per cent (446) and 12.1 per cent (134) of the total age cohort respectively (ABS 2003b). These data suggest that greater numbers of females are now entering the science sector (ABS 2003b).

4. The picture at entry to potential research careers in science The importance of human actors as ‘innovation agents’ in the creation and circulation of scientific and technical knowledge has become increasingly recognized and government interest in mapping the position in Australia in 2003 resulted in a ‘mapping’ exercise (DEST 2003; MASI 2003). Recognition of changing modes of knowledge production, dissemination and use (Nowotny et al. 2001; Kleinman & Vallas 2001) has increased interest in the production of tertiary qualified science personnel and the transformation of labour markets for science and technology researchers. In particular, attention has been paid to undergraduate and research training in the sciences, the primary arena both for the development of basic scientific competences and the scientific habitus (Bourdieu 1975, 1990). At present, training is assumed to take place primarily in the public sector and little is known either about private sector training practices or mode of transition from research training into the several science and technology labour markets. However, concerns have been voiced whether there are

9

‘enough’ recruits to the stock of scientific research and innovation personnel. This section therefore focuses on formal training.

Students The Australian Council of Deans of Science (ACDS) recently highlighted an ‘alarming’ decline in the numbers of young people undertaking basic science subjects, particularly physics and comparison with other fields of study, a decline observable at both the secondary school and university level (ACDS 2003). Only relatively few Year 12 (last year of high school) students are pursuing the combinations of science subjects viewed as an essential pathway to tertiary science studies (ASCD 2003; MASI 2003). The already low percentage of Year 12 students studying the basic combination of physics and chemistry also fell from 11.4%in 1998 to 9.7%in 2001 (CRTTE 2003: 8).

Table 4. Commencing students by level of course and gender, natural and physical sciences, Australia 2001/2002

Female Male Total

Level of science course 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002

Bachelor’s Pass 9,934 10,427 8,145 8,441 18,079 18,868

Bachelor’s Honours 479 387 347 307 826 694

Doctorate by Research 633 661 696 741 1,329 1,402

TOTAL 11,046 11,475 9,188 9,489 20,234 20,964

Master’s by Research 178 151 225 204 403 355 Source: DEST 2002; 2003a. The data shown in Table 4, above, shows details of the numbers of commencing students in the science higher education ‘pipeline’. Those who emerge from this pipeline with PhD. qualifications can be considered as constituting a highly significant inward ‘flow’ into the national stock of science researchers.4 It should be noted that agricultural sciences are excluded from the educational data shown in Table 5.5 in line with the new ASCO occupational classification. The data highlight the rates of attrition evident at each stage of the higher education process. Only a very small proportion of the pool of Bachelor’s Pass students in a given year progress to Bachelor’s Honours degrees. The larger size of the cohort commencing Doctorate by Research degrees in comparison to Bachelor’s Honours degrees is due partly to the institutional arrangements that students can apply for postgraduate scholarships such as APAs and APAIs for up to two years after receipt of an Honours degree and partly by the transfer of Master by research candidates to a doctoral degree. The gender composition of the population is strongly biased toward females in the first two stages of the pipeline, where in 2002 more than half the student population (55.3%) were

4 The Australian Standard Classification of Education (ASCED) broad field of education ‘Natural and Physical Sciences’ (01.01.00) matches broadly the ASCO classification of occupations ‘Natural and Physical Sciences’ (211). 5 In the new ASCED classifications that came into effect in 2001, ‘Natural and Physical Sciences’ excludes the detailed fields of education Agricultural Science (05.01.01) and Wool Science (05.01.03), fields of education likely to lead to occupational areas of importance to the science and innovation system.

10

female. This proportion continued among students commencing Bachelor’s Honours degrees in 2002.

Advanced students Research training is an integral part of maintaining and adding to a national stock of science and innovation research personnel. The number of student preparing doctorates seems to be rising. In 2002, for example, 1,402 doctorates were commenced in the natural and physical sciences, an increase of 28.7 per cent from the previous year (DEST 2003a). The gender balance at the level of doctoral training is biased toward males, in contrast to the undergraduate level. This probably reflects a number of factors, including traditional male dominance in science research, the course preferences of elite female students on entry to university and the time for the increased numbers of female undergraduates to ‘filter through’ to the upper levels of research training.

Migrants

At national level, the pipeline of HRST depends also on the net gains and losses of qualified individuals through temporary and permanent migration. In 2001-02, 2,324 people who were natural and physical science professionals arrived in Australia, for either a permanent or long-term stay (ABS 2003a). A proportion of these are likely to hold PhD qualifications. The extent to which these arrivals constitute an inflow to the national stock of scientific researchers is unclear but likely to be positive to some extent at least. In the same period, almost the same number of people (2,030) who were natural and physical science professionals departed Australia, either permanently or for the long-term, representing a net migration gain of only 294 persons (ABS 2003a). The trend over the last decade amongst incoming natural and physical science professionals as residents, settlers and long-term visitors seems to be toward a net inflow of personnel (MASI 2003: 232); worryingly perhaps, however, amongst Australian residents the trend is toward a growing net outflow of similar science-trained personnel (MASI 2003: 233), although we do not know their level of qualifications.

5. Getting into the labour market Some data are available on the jobs obtained by graduates with science and technology training as they enter the labour market. Data on those exiting the higher education system are collected through the Graduate Careers Council of Australia’s annual Graduate Destination Survey (GDS). The GDS data for 2003 revealed that for bachelor degree graduates who completed their degree in 2002, 80.1 per cent were in full-time employment within four months of completing their degrees, 12.1 per cent were in part-time employment whilst seeking full-time work and 7.8 per cent remained unemployed but continuing to seek full-time work (GCCA 2003, p.1). Data for those exiting the higher education system with Masters’ or PhD research qualifications in 2002 are shown in Table 5, below, for selected science and technology fields of study.

11

Table 5. Summary of Graduate Destination Survey, Masters’ Research/PhD 2002, selected science and technology fields of study

Median Salary($)*

Field of Study Employ-ment

(%) 1998 2002

Main Occupation

(%)

IndustrySector

(%)

Agriculture 90.9 41,500 50,000 Science prof. 53.8 Teaching prof. 15.0

Management & Administration 12.5

Government 45.0 Education 35.0

Private 17.5 Other 2.5

Chemistry 87.7 41,000 48,000 Science prof. 58.0 Teaching prof. 10.0

Technical officer 10.0

Education 58.0 Private 22.0

Government 18.0 Computer Science

93.6 50,000 62,000 Management & Administration 54.8 Business prof. 21.9 Teaching prof. 16.4

Government 54.8 Education 23.3

Private 21.9

Geology 93.8 48,900 51,500 Science prof. 70.0 Teaching prof. 10.0

Technical officer 10.0

Education 33.3 Government 33.3

Private 33.3 Life Sciences 85.7 42,000 49,000 Science prof. 37.9

Technical officer 16.3 Teaching prof. 15.9

Education 38.6 Government 28.8

Private 21.6 Health 7.2

Mathematics 88.2 43,800 51,600 Other prof. 26.7 Teaching prof. 23.3

Management & Administration 16.7

Education 50.0 Government 40.0

Private 10.0

Medicine 93.3 52,500 60,000 Health prof. 39.2 Science prof. 29.9

Teaching prof. 10.3

Health 38.1 Education 24.7

Private 24.7 Government 10.3

Physical Sciences

90.2 43,000 49,500 Science prof. 47.3 Teaching prof. 16.4

Other prof. 9.1

Education 50.9 Government 20.0

Private 20.0 Health 5.5

Data Source: GCCA Graduate Destination Survey 2003. * Nominal dollar figures. Holders of research higher degrees in the natural sciences did better at entry to the labour market than did the graduate population as a whole. In 2003, the proportion of postgraduate research degree holders in full-time employment within four months of completing their degree was significantly higher than for all undergraduates (80.1%). This higher proportion was found in all field except medicine which had an exceptionally high rate of graduate success in the job market (98%). Computer science, geology and medicine research postgraduates have particularly high chances of finding full-time employment within four months of completion. From the point of view of consideration of the opportunity structure open to research degree graduates, it is important to note the sectors in which positions were found. Table 5 shows that in all but geology graduates (33% private sector) with master or PhD degrees overwhelmingly entered the public sector when they entered the labour market (2002, the latest date available). Thus, in agriculture only 17.5%, in chemistry only 18%, in physics only 20%, in life sciences and computing only 22% and in medicine 25%. Only a tiny 10% of mathematicians took private sector posts. This means that what happens in the public sector is absolutely critical for the careers of Australian scientists in virtually every discipline. It is

12

particularly surprising that the graduates trained in life sciences and computing science did not enter the private sector in greater numbers. Australia has often prided itself on the number of biotechnology companies it has and the rate at which that number is claimed to be growing. In reality perhaps these are very small firms, with little room for research scientists, and still heavily reliant on contacts with the public sector for the science on which their products depend. In the case of computing science, the enormous expansion of IT installation and use by the many governments in Australia over recent years may explain why over half the proportion of computer scientists entered the government sector. Specialists in agriculture may also rely heavily on State governments for career opportunities, as these are also research organisations in this field. In interpreting these figures, however, it should be noted that the term ‘government’ also includes the CSIRO. It is likely that the CSIRO is especially important in the life sciences and agriculture, less so in IT. In Australian universities very little research is carried out in IT, whilst government sector positions are probably more practical and solutions driven than research-oriented. The even distribution of geologists across education, government and private sectors reflects the broad economic importance of the mining industry in Australia. The data shown in Table 5 also highlight the low proportion of individuals moving into private sector jobs from those fields of study which appear to lead more directly to research (science professional) roles on entering the science and technology labour market. Researchers trained in agriculture, chemistry, life sciences and physical sciences are more likely to move into science professional occupations than other occupations. These occupations are likely to be in either the education or government sectors, with only approximately one in five of these researchers finding their first job in the private sector except in geology where one in three find private sector positions. The attractiveness of the system of rewards and opportunities available to science and technology research graduates varies considerably between fields of study. Of the fields of study shown, only the median commencing salary for computer science and medicine graduates was higher than the median taken across all fields of study ($53,000) in 2002. Computer science and medicine ranked in the upper echelon of fields of study on this measure, behind leading fields such as law ($70,000) and accounting ($64,000). On the other hand physical and life sciences and chemistry were amongst the lowest paid fields of study along with civil engineering ($46,000) and visual/performing arts ($49,000). Read as a comparison between the fields of study shown, postgraduates in computer science, medicine and mathematics fields appear likely to be enjoy relatively better enhancement of their levels of financial reward than those in other fields of study. On these comparative terms, geology and to a lesser extent physical and life sciences, appear likely to be less attractive as potential fields of study in terms of a perception of likely future growth in levels of financial reward. Recruitment into a particular occupation does not of course mean finding a research position. Overall, the data suggest that only limited numbers of research-trained individuals in the selected fields of research are moving into scientific research positions within four months of completing their qualifications, except in geology where 70% move into science professional occupations. This may be because the unique organization of research in the mining industry provides greater opportunities. The mining industry several decades ago decided to institute a collective research endeavour through a special research arm called AMIRA. While AMIRA has had some variations in funding over the years it is well established. The mining industry is also the industry which funds most university-based research, funding whole laboratories

13

in selected universities. Computer science on the other hand is a discipline which in Australia undertakes comparatively little research. More than half the individuals emerging with research degrees in computer science move into management or administration, a move reflected in their relatively high median salary. In summary, graduate destination survey data suggests considerable variation in the rewards offered to research graduates from different fields of study at entry to the science and technology labour market. There is not necessarily a correlation between the level of these rewards and the likelihood of performing cutting edge research according to these occupation data, however, since relatively few science graduates move into science-based employment. Indeed, many science and technology graduates work outside their scientific specialization when entering the labour market. Studies of the skill utilisation of the labour force consider whether those with training to the degree level in particular fields are working in an occupation in which these skills are being utilised (CPUR 2003, 2-4). A recent study of Australian graduates suggests the low, and varied, percentages of those whose highest qualifications are in natural and physical science fields are employed in their ‘home’ occupation groups (CPUR 2003: 36-40). For example, only four per cent of mathematics graduates reported working as professional mathematicians, only fourteen per cent of those with chemistry training were working as professional chemists and only nineteen per cent of those with agricultural/environmental training were working as professionals in related science occupations (CPUR 2003: 36). The general finding of this study suggests that graduates with mathematics or natural and physical science based degrees are not utilising these skills in their professional lives. In the Australian labour market as a whole, then, there seems to be a question as to whether professional scientists and technologists are able to find work in the field of their early specialization. This suggests that neither the private nor public sectors offer opportunities to utilize the full range of science training being supplied. Australia is probably not alone in this, as it has been informally reported that the biggest sector of employment for physicists in the UK is the finance market because of their advanced mathematical skills. The figures for Australia are consistent, however, with the relatively low levels of technology characterizing Australian industry and provide further insights as to the opportunity structure facing highly trained specialists.

6. The AEGIS study of innovation agents Selected results from the AEGIS Australian Research Council-funded scientists study are reported in the next section of the paper. A greatly reduced budget for the project meant that the study had to be more selective in the fields chosen for study than originally envisaged and the main survey was conducted on-line. It was supplemented by 11 interviews and a small round-table discussion with scientists who had recently retired from, or were currently working in, firms related to these fields. It was decided to focus on areas where Australia had traditional industry and research strengths, including agriculture and related fields, and biotechnology, which has developed most strongly in relation to agriculture. We also added some basic sciences and medical research, in which Australia is often said to ‘punch above its weight’. The AEGIS study focused primarily on the careers of those holding doctoral qualifications who are working in scientific research, research training and education fields. A survey sample was developed from amongst scientists currently working in Australia and/or publishing from an Australian institutional base. The method used for locating the sample

14

was the Science Citation Index (SCI) developed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Searches of the SCI have also been used as part of the process of identification of a sample for a study of the international mobility of high-ranking scientists (Laudel 2003). In recruiting a sample for this survey, searches of the SCI were executed using four criteria: peer reviewed journal articles, the location of the author’s contact address in Australia, a publication date in 1998 or later and key words. These criteria were chosen to ensure that the sample included mostly current publishers who could therefore be assumed to be actively researching and to maximise the likelihood of collating authors’ current addresses. Thus where multiple citations were collected for a particular author, only the most recent publication and address were included in the sample database. Only the first author on multiple authored papers was included. A total of 2,833 email addresses were retrieved from a list of 3,538 authors’ names. These authors were then sent an email explaining the study and inviting participation in the survey. Survey data was collected using an online survey instrument. The majority of questions were closed questions, which could be argued either by ‘one-click’ or selecting from a drop-down menu. Text fields were used to collect position titles and to allow the specifying of some details, for example, particular funding bodies supporting scientific research but not offered as one of the answer options provided. Data were collected on each respondent’s jobs: first; current; and up to six in-between; with the respondents themselves selecting the most significant jobs where they had held more than eight positions across their careers.

Demographic background A large proportion of respondents to the survey are in the prime of their scientific lives. More than three quarters (77.6%) were aged between 30 and 54 years. Only 6.2 per cent of respondents were under 30 years, whilst at the other end of the spectrum 8.2 per cent were over 60 years. Males predominated making up 71.1 per cent of the respondents. However, women were more strongly represented in the younger age groups, making up 58.6 per cent of those respondents aged 25-29 years, 37.7 per cent of respondents aged 30-34 years, and 34.1 per cent of respondents aged 35-39 years. Again, this suggests that there is a possibility of significant demographic change in the gender make-up of the science and technology workforce over the next decades. Despite being in the prime of their scientific lives, two-thirds earned between $50,000 and $90,000 per year and only 12% over $100,000. The great majority of respondents (71.0%) had undertaken their advanced training within Australia. Where they had gone overseas for their doctoral work they had mostly stayed within English-speaking countries – the UK (12.8%, the USA (5.8%), Canada (2.3%) and New Zealand (1.7%). Where study had been undertaken in continental Europe (approximately 4%) the most frequent host countries were Germany and the Netherlands but the proportions were very small (1.2% each). Figure 3, below, illustrates the field of study of the highest degree of the respondents.

15

Figure 3. AEGIS Survey of scientists, broad field of highest degree (%)

Education0.4%

Health8.4%

Information Technology

2.3%

Engineering & Related

Technologies5.1%

Agriculture, Environmental & Related Studies

18.3%

Society & Culture0.6%

Management & Commerce

0.6%

Mixed Field Programmes

0.2%

Natural & Physical Sciences

64.2%

The broad field of study of the largest proportion of respondents was the natural and physical sciences (64.2%), followed by agriculture, environmental and related studies (18.3%) and health (8.4%). Those most likely to have undertaken their highest degree study abroad were also in the natural and physical sciences (69.2%), followed by agriculture, environmental and related studies (16.4%) and health (6.2%). Younger cohorts of scientists (under 40 years and especially under 35 years) were less likely to have studied for their doctorate abroad than were older generations. This may reflect the greater cost in more recent years or the increasing variety of training opportunities within Australia. Among the older generations too income levels tended to be higher for those possessing overseas doctoral qualifications. Figure 4, below, compares international PhDs with all respondents according to the type of organisation in which they entered the science and technology labour market.

16

Figure 4. AEGIS survey of scientists, organisation type of first job, international PhDs (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Business FederalGovernment

StateGovernment

Private Non-profit

HigherEducation

Other (notelsew hereclassif ied)

Organisation type

Per c

ent

International PhDs All

On entering their first job the internationally trained were noticeably less likely to work for State governments than they were to join other sectors. However, international PhDs were more likely than the respondent group as a whole to enter the science and technology labour force in the either the higher education sector (65.8% compared to 60.8%) or the business sector (8.9% compared to 8.2%). Survey respondents were productive in publishing terms, with 17.3 per cent having published one to five books, while 48.3 per cent had published between one and five book chapters and 10.6% between six and 25 chapters. The respondents published frequently in international journals, with 25.4 per cent having publishing more than ten articles in these journals and only 8.5 per cent being yet to publish internationally. More than half (55.9%) had published in Australian journals, which on the whole illustrates that respondents were internationally oriented in their output.

Comparison of first and current jobs Start years of respondents first job ranged between 1950 and 2003. More than half of the respondents (51.4%) commenced their first job in 1989 or later. Three quarters of the respondents (75.8%) commenced their first science job in 1979 or later. The year in which the largest number of respondents commenced their first science job was 1996 (n = 28). The respondents hence a relatively ‘young’ or junior population in terms of entry into the science and technology labour market. The following Figure 5 illustrates the sector of respondents first jobs compared to their current positions.

17

Figure 5. AEGIS survey of scientists, sector of first and current jobs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Business Government Private Non-profit

HigherEducation

Other (notelsewhereclassified)

Sector

First Job Current Job

The great majority of respondents were first employed in the higher education system (60.8%). The next largest group joined the public sector in government positions (23.8%). This strong bias toward the public sector increases by the time respondents’ careers reach their current position. The higher education (66.3%) and government (25.0%) sectors account for an increased share of the respondents’ industry sector in their current jobs. The really striking element is the movement of the respondents away from the private sector. Those respondents currently working in business making up just 1.9 per cent of the sample, in comparison to 8.2 per cent of the respondents whose first job was in that sector. As a proxy measure for sector mobility, then, a flow of 6.3 per cent of the respondents have migrated from the business sector. There has also been a migration of 2.8 per cent of the respondents away from organizations not elsewhere classified. The sectors to have benefited from this migration of a proportion of the respondents in the course of their careers to date are the public (+7.7%) and private non-profit (+2.3%) sectors. A similar proxy measure for mobility between scientific fields can be illustrated by comparing the broad RFCD groupings (research codes) of the first and current jobs of respondents. This comparison is shown in Figure 6, below.

18

Figure 6. AEGIS survey of scientists, broad research fields of first and current jobs (%)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Research fields

First Job Current Job

Figure 6 suggests that once trained in a specific scientific field the respondent population has tended to remain there. Biological sciences is the broad research into which the largest number of respondents classified both their first job (28.3%) and their current position (27.8%). The broad research field that exhibits the largest proportion of respondents have moved into in the course of their careers to date is that of earth and environmental sciences and natural resources (from 15.2% of respondents first jobs to 17.1% of their current jobs). These data show minimal movement between research fields using the proxy measure of respondents’ first and current jobs. This indicates the potential importance for both individuals and for policymakers of predicting labour markets and the field of doctoral training selected or funded.

7. The road ahead leads out of research for most While our researchers tended to stay within the same broad field of activity over much or all of their careers, they did not necessarily stay in research. In the AEGIS survey, respondents were asked how they apportioned their time between research, research-related activities (such as applying for grants, research management or administration), client-oriented technical services (such as technical sales) and other tasks (including university or other teaching, general administration, etc.). Figure 7, below, shows respondents’ use of time in their first and current jobs.

19

Figure 7. AEGIS survey of scientists, time use first and current jobs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Research Client-orientedtechnical services

Research-relatedactivities

Other (includingteaching)

Activity

Tim

e, p

er c

ent

First job Current job

The population studied is composed of publishing researchers. The data show, however, that the biggest group of respondents spent only slightly more than two-thirds (68.0%) of their time on research activity in their first science and technology job, the one most likely to be devoted to research. Other activity, including teaching and administration, was the next most significant category of time use (17.7%) in respondents’ first jobs. The relatively small proportion of time devoted to client-oriented technical activity probably reflects the low representation of private sector workers in the survey sample and the focus on basic rather than applied research amongst post-doctoral university research positions. Thus, even at an early stage of their careers, the research scientists studied spent far from all their time advancing knowledge through their research. They spent even less time doing so as their careers progressed. The data show a substantial decline in time spent on direct research activity. In their current jobs, respondents were on average devoting significantly less than half of their time (44.8%) to research, an average fall of 23.2 per cent in time allocated to research compared to their first position. Time spent on research-related activity, including grant applications and project management for example, increased more rapidly than any other time use category, from an average of only 5.2 per cent of respondents’ time in their first jobs to an average of 17.3 per cent in current positions. In addition, other activity had increased to the point where it required almost one-third of respondents’ time (31.2%) in their current post. The division of time between research and other tasks indicates the use made within employing organisations of the skills of Australia’s most highly-trained research personnel. This raises important questions about employment in highly skilled science and technology fields and about policies which make funding for scientific research more contestable and

20

hence more time consuming to earn, as more time must be spent on preparing grant applications and other research-related tasks. In this connection, the relatively recent period is of greatest interest. The following Figure 8 compares time use according to when respondents entered the science and technology job market.

Figure 8. AEGIS survey of scientists, time use in first job by start years & in current job

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

First job startyears 1998-2003 incl.

First job startyears 1992-2003 incl.

First job startall years

First job startyears up to

1991

Current job all

Job & start year

Tim

e, p

er c

ent

Research activity Client-oriented technical servicesResearch-related activity Other activity

Figure 8, above, suggest that those respondents who commenced their first science and technology job most recently spend far greater proportion of their time (73.5%) on research than do respondents as a whole for all start years (68.0%) or in their current jobs (44.8%). Conversely, those respondents who entered this labour market before 1992 spent a relatively smaller proportion of their time on research (64.8%). When compared with time use in current jobs, it appears that the longer the duration of science and technology careers the smaller the disparity is likely to be between first and current job time use. It is noticeable that respondents who entered the job market relatively longer ago spent relatively larger amounts of time on client-oriented technical services and other activity. Figure 9, below, illustrates time use in current positions by a range of position types as deduced from respondents’ nominated job titles. Post-doctoral researchers (n=144), or those mainly full-time researchers within the higher education sector, reported spending a far greater proportion of their time (70.4%) on research activity than other position groupings. Research scientists (n=83), or those primarily working in jobs under this title (or senior research scientist or some variation) in government or private sector organisations, reported spending a substantially smaller proportion of their time on research activity (53.3%). Academics (n=233) reported spending 30.0% of their time on research and 53.0% of their time on other activity, mostly teaching.

21

Figure 9. Time use in current job, by position type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Post-doctoralresearchers

Researchscientists

Academics Researchdirectors and

managers

Other

Job grouping

Tim

e, p

er c

ent

Research activity Client-oriented technical servicesResearch-related activity Other activity

Respondents in the remaining two categories comprised much smaller sub-groups, making interpretation of respondents’ data less reliable. However, it seems clear that respondents categorised as Research Directors and Managers spent less than one-fifth of their time on research (18.6%), devoting much larger amounts of their time on research-related activity (39.2%) and other tasks (28.2%). This group includes heads of university-based research centers and it is likely that as funding for research as a whole is made more contestable in Australia then this proportion of non-research time can be expected to increase. Not surprisingly, research scientists in government or elsewhere outside higher education report spending 12.1 per cent of their time on client-oriented technical services, more than three times the time allocated to this activity by post-doctoral researchers (3.3%). This suggests the importance of longevity in research-related fields as experience gained is put to more ‘commercial’ use. A further division was made among respondents to the survey so as to create a group of high research activity (HRA) persons, comprising 107 people. HRA group members are considerably younger than the respondent group as a whole, with 58.9% aged 39 or younger compared to 38.9% of the whole sample and include a higher representation of both women and of the least paid. The relative income distribution of the HRA group and all respondents is shown in Table 6, below.

22

Table 6. AEGIS survey of scientists, income levels HRA group and all respondents (%)

Income High research activity (HRA) group

(%)

Allrespondents

(%) Did not wish to disclose 5.6 7.8Below $30,000 1.9 1.7$30,000-39,999 2.8 1.4$40,000-49,999 18.7 6.2$50,000-59,999 35.5 19.8$60,000-69,999 16.8 18.3$70,000-79,999 6.5 15.0$80,000-89,999 3.7 11.1$90,000-99,999 - 6.6$100,000-119,999 6.5 8.2$120,000-149,999 0.9 2.9$150,000+ 0.9 1.0Total 100.0 100.0 The proportion of the HRA group who earn between $60,000-69,999 per annum closely matches that of the study population as a whole but HRA respondents are over-represented in the relatively lower income levels and under-represented in the relatively higher income levels. A total of 58.9% of the HRA sub-group earn less than $60,000 per annum, compared to 28.1 per cent of the respondents as a whole. Only 18.5% of the HRA group earn $70,000 or more per annum, compared to 44.8% of all respondents. This profile of the HRA group suggests that high research activity is a low paid choice and thus one which is likely to provide a relatively low level capacity to influence organizational choices in relation to research. Only at lower organizational levels, as measured by income received, does research occupy more than half the professional time of the scientists surveyed. This suggests that career ‘success’ if calculated using relatively higher wage rewards, and interpreted as involving greater strategic or management responsibility and relatively higher numbers of job promotions, comes at the expense of ‘bench-top’ research activity. A career orientation that focuses on performing research may thus be a lower paid and organizationally ‘junior’ choice. A recent article by Mangematin and Robin (2003) has similarly pointed to the importance of young (junior) researchers to the overall national research effort in France, with around 30 per cent of all scientific labour in French laboratories being performed by doctoral candidates and post-doctoral researchers. (The same calculations do not appear to have been undertaken in detail in Australia.) The apparent reduction in proportions of time spent on research as researchers became more senior means that an ageing research population may be less productive. Since our study shows that the HRA group in terms of time use is substantially younger than the average for the population, then the career prospects of younger research-focused scientists and the conditions in which they work and plan their careers are likely to be especially important for the future of science research in the country.

23

8. An uncertain occupation structure The uncertainty which many researchers face in Australia in relation to the development of their careers can be seen in the contract/tenure data collected. Getting both a first foot into the scientific and technical labour markets for researchers and remaining there are clearly problematic in that most positions are short term and untenured, especially in the early stages of a research career. Scientists’ positions are not among the best paid in Australia, which is perhaps not unusual in OECD countries, but the combination of position uncertainty and low pay must make many think twice about embarking on a career in scientific research. Figure 10, below, shows how little security the first step into a research career provides for many young researchers.

Figure 10. AEGIS survey of scientists, employment tenure first and current jobs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ong

oing

/per

man

ent

Fixe

d te

rmco

ntra

ct: u

p to

12

mon

ths

Fixe

d te

rmco

ntra

ct: 1

3-24

mon

ths

Fixe

d te

rmco

ntra

ct: 2

5-36

mon

ths

Fixe

d te

rmco

ntra

ct: 3

7-48

mon

ths

Fixe

d te

rmco

ntra

ct: 4

9-60

mon

ths

Fixe

d te

rmco

ntra

ct: 6

1m

onth

s or

mor

e

Cas

ual

Tenure

Per c

ent

First Job Current Job

Few, only one third, of new PhD graduates obtained ongoing/permanent (32.6%) positions as they entered the labour market. Nearly two-fifths (38.6%) received short contracts of up to 24 months, while one-fifth received slightly longer contracts of between two and three years (19.9%). The situation has improved significantly by respondents’ current positions, but even so only just over half (57.8%) held tenured appointments while almost a third (30.7%) were still on contracts of up to three years at the time of the study (2003). This can be partly accounted for because the population of respondents is relatively young. The majority of the respondents being on contract implies regular re-negotiations of tenure or changes in jobs. Respondents were asked about their principal motivations for making the major job changes of their careers to date. They were given the option of choosing amongst scientific, employment or other reasons as contributing to their major moves. Weightings were not assigned Almost one-fifth (19.3%) of respondents did not select a scientific reason for major career moves and must be presumed to have moved for employment or other reasons. Of those that did select a scientific reason, nearly half the population focused on two

24

elements of their scientific working conditions. They had moved jobs either because they wanted greater autonomy in the research work they undertook (23.2%) or because they wanted access to better research facilities and infrastructure (20.3%). In contrast, relatively few moved because they wanted to work more closely with industry or end users (6.6%) or because they preferred more opportunity to undertake more applied research (10.8%). A similarly small proportion explicitly stated that they moved jobs because they wanted to pursue more basic research (8.9%). A total of 10.1 per cent of the respondents did not nominate an employment related reason as having contributed to their major career moves to date. The two major employment-related reasons for shifting direction related to conditions – 18.4 per cent were seeking improved salary or benefits while another 18.0 per cent sought promotion or better opportunities. Other less common employment reasons that contributed to the decision to change jobs included the desire to change careers (12.8%), the expiry or non-renewal of a contract (8.7%), and having inadequate resources to perform their jobs (6.6%). Over one-third of respondents (36.8%) did not nominate any other reasons as contributing to their major career moves. Those that did nominated family issues (21.9%), the geographic location of a job (18.6), the living environment (10.6%) and personal issues (10.4%) as important. The nomination of greater research autonomy and the desire to access better research infrastructure as the most important scientific reasons for changing jobs are reflected somewhat in respondents opinions and concerns about the future of science, as is the sense of uncertainty about their future. An overwhelming majority of respondents (83.9%) nominated concerns about long-term funding as the major issue confronting scientists in Australia. Over one-third of respondents resented the focus on applied over basic research (37.4%) and the lack of public understanding of science (34.6%). Other important issues for scientists were the emphasis on commercialization over doing basic research (28.4%) and equipment and infrastructure access (26.8%). Although the primary concern of scientists is the security of future funding of science, it also appears that the orientation and broader appreciation of scientific practice is also of great concern to scientists. This means policy makers need to pay attention to scientists concerns not just the level and accessibility of funding, but also about the way funding regimes shape the type of science performed. Such issues were further reflected in responses to a suite of questions respondents were asked about the current direction of the science system and about their place in it. Responses to a selection of these questions are highlighted in Table 7, below.

25

Table 7. AEGIS survey of scientists, selected opinions (%)

Statement

Response scale %

1. I feel that my job is reasonably secure for the next five years. Agree strongly Agree

Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Disagree strongly Decline to respond

11.3 35.8

8.3 17.0 24.9

2.6 100.0

2. During the past two years my job satisfaction has risen. Agree strongly Agree

Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Disagree strongly Decline to respond

5.7 28.0 19.9 28.4 17.6

0.4 100.0

3. All things considered, Government science policy is headed in the right direction.

Agree strongly Agree

Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Disagree strongly Decline to respond

1.6 9.8

24.6 40.5 20.8

2.6 100.0

4. The way things are going with scientific and engineering careers in Australia today, I would recommend such careers to Australian youth.

Agree strongly Agree

Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Disagree strongly Decline to respond

2.4 23.1 22.3 33.6 17.4

1.2 100.0

5. All things considered, science in Australia is headed in the right direction.

Agree strongly Agree

Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Disagree strongly Decline to respond

0.6 15.0 28.2 34.3 18.9

3.0 100.0

The data shown in Table 7 suggests that a substantial proportion of the respondent group holds serious concerns about the future of the Australian science system and their place in it. Few of the respondents were neutral (8.3%) on the question of their personal job security in the coming five years. The respondents were fairly evenly split between those who agreed (47.1%) or disagreed (41.9) with Statement 1. However, those who strongly disagreed with Statement 1 (24.9%) substantially outnumbered those who strongly supported the statement (11.3%). One-fifth of respondents were neutral on the question of job satisfaction. Substantially more respondents disagreed that their job satisfaction had risen (46.0%) compared to those who supported this statement (33.7%). A more strongly negative distribution of responses was found in relation to the recommending of science careers to the young, with an absolute majority (51.0%) disagreeing that they would so recommend, whilst 25.6 per cent supported this statement. Thus although respondents were overall positive about their short- to medium-term job security, only one-third claimed their job satisfaction had risen and only one-quarter said they would be prepared to recommend science careers to young people.

26

In relation to government science policy, almost one-quarter of respondents (24.6%) were neutral on this statement. However, of those who responded decisively, almost six times the number of respondents (61.3%) disagreed that science policy is heading in the right direction, in comparison to those who agreed (11.4%). In relation to the overall direction of science in Australia the respondents were also strongly negative, with an absolute majority 53.2%) disagreeing science is heading in the right direction. Once again a large proportion (28.2%) offered a neutral response to this question, whilst a smaller group (15.6%) agreed science is heading in the right direction. These data clearly suggest a significant level of uncertainty and apprehension amongst respondents about the future of science careers in the context of the Australian science and innovation system. It is noticeable that a very small percentage strongly agreed with all the statements other than that related to job security. In contrast, much stronger negative responses could be observed across all five responses shown. These data clearly suggest that a broader and systematic investigation is needed to obtain a fuller picture of scientists’ opinions in relation to their role in the science and innovation system and in relation to the objectives of that system.

9. What is happening in public sector research? The difficulties and uncertainties faced by Australian scientists in the public sector are most clearly illustrated by recent events within the premier science research organisation in the country, the CSIRO. The CSIRO is the biggest single employer of scientific researchers in the country and hence provides the biggest single organisational structure in which scientists can make their careers. It is organised around a series of hierarchically arranged research positions and in theory constitutes and environment in which career progression in the sense that Wilensky (1960) used the term ‘career’ is possible. While some other PSR organizations, such as AIMS and ANSTO, are similarly organised they are smaller and more specialist and geographically much less spread, thereby limiting career possibilities in several ways. Funding and other policies for the direction and management of the CSIRO have been scrutinised many times over the last fifteen years as part of various reviews of national science and technology arrangements (see for example Stocker 1997). In the 1980s, the requirement to earn 30 per cent of funding through external contracts was introduced while the reviews have variously recommended different internal organizational arrangements, different geographical concentrations, different priority targets and orientations for research and a greater focus on customer needs, especially the needs of small firms. The most recent of these changes has been the introduction of the CSIRO ‘Flagship’ programs which will be given extensive resources over the foreseeable future. Many of the responses by CSIRO to the recommendations of the reports have meant a shift from research at the more basic end of the spectrum and a move towards the applied end, shifts in the distribution of funds between programs of research and greater insecurity for researchers as most such changes involve job losses. This uncertainty has been exacerbated by the move by government to fund the CSIRO on an annual basis rather than for the longer term, even the rolling three years in place until recently. In July 2003, the publication R&D Review ran a story on its front cover. The CSIRO Chief Executive had just made the announcement that up to 250 jobs would be lost over the next 12 months. The response by Senator Carr, the Shadow Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science and Research, seems to have expressed the feelings of many CSIRO personnel. Carr

27

demanded that a full disclosure of projected job losses, compromised research projects and the impacts of the cuts on research in regional Australia. The R&D Review quoted him as alleging that:

‘CSIRO’s financial plan has failed. The organisation has pumped money into its corporate, business development and commercialisations operations, with a 170% increase over 12 months. They are paying managers – some more than $115,000 a year – at the expense of researchers’.

Carr went on to say that

‘Now the organization is cutting back critical research in non-Flagship areas to keep the Flagships afloat…’ and to conclude that ‘the CSIRO is facing a crisis. That can be measured in terms if its financial standing. It can be measured in terms of staff morale, it can be measured in terms of its capacity to undertake core functions’.

The loss of 250 posts in the financial year 2003-2004 was in addition to the average 220 lost each year for the period since 1996. Some Divisions were severely affected, the Minerals Division, for example, losing 70 positions in the major laboratory in Sydney which was to be closed, and Food Science Australia, a cooperative endeavour with the government of Victoria and working in a crucial area for food-related research, which was to lose 25 positions. The response to these cuts from the CSIRO staff union was not unexpected. As reported by the R&D Review, the Staff Association said that

‘The Government’s program of neglect and long term cutbacks have caused the biggest crisis in CSIRO’s history. Staff are deeply shocked and fear for the future viability of the organization and its vital research work’

and ‘The government claims these cutbacks are merely about shifting resources into the new Flagship ventures. In fact, what the CSIRO is being forced to do is cannibalise itself to stay alive. These staff cuts represent a new low in terms of lost scientific expertise, lost taxpayer investment and lost opportunity…’

Senator Carr said that the federal government has starved Australian science of funding over the past seven years. ‘You can’t’, he said, ‘for two years in a row reject the triennial funding…and expect [them] to do more with less and less resourcing’, reminding his audience that ‘Effectively [CSIRO] have lost up to 850 people since 1996, they have had $100 million taken out of their budget…’, (R&D Review, July 2003: 1-2). In reality, CSIRO’s own figures as recorded in its annual reports for 2002 and 2003 show an increase in the number of research scientists and senior specialists employed rather than a reduction, coupled with a reduction in the number of research managers and consultants. It seems likely that the figures cited by both sides need further examination. It is very possible, for example, that the problem within CSIRO lies with the numbers of more junior staff and the fact that newer staff are far more likely to be on short-term contracts. The issue may thus be conditions rather than numbers.

28

Since then the federal government has proposed greater contestability for CSIRO funds, increasing uncertainty for the future of the CSIRO further. The government believes that the emphasis should be placed more firmly on the commercialisation of research results and policy decisions have been consistent with this aim. However, it appears that the focus of many participants is on potential adverse effects on their opportunity structure. This bears much similarity to the situation which has recently exploded in France where ‘Save Research’ has become a rallying cry for scientists around the country, the Minister concerned has been replaced and some concessions have been made by the government on the front of positions for new researchers. The CSIRO received a considerable increase ($50m a year) in the budget for its Flagship programs in the new federal government policy announced on May 6, 2004, but this may not be enough to ease the disquiet of those in fields which will remain, or perhaps become increasingly, uncertain. While many staff may welcome the Flagship programs, seeing them as important to the future of the CSIRO, it is also highly likely that the cumulative effect of ongoing change is lowering staff morale. There may also be reluctance, on the part of many young researchers, to take the associated risks of considering a career in the CSIRO or elsewhere in the turbulent public sector, as only those whose research is closest to commercialisation appear likely to be advantaged. As reported in the Financial Review (May 4: 1), a government official described the new funding policy as placing “less emphasis on the white-coat, laboratory end of the process and more emphasis on the commercialisation and marketing end”. This will probably do little to reassure the scientists in the biggest science labour market in Australia, the public sector.

10. Wider issues for innovation There has been considerable debate in the literature about the extent to which science and innovation are connected. In the study we carried out we defined innovation as technological innovation, which could be in product or process. The study was initially designed both to seek demographic and career data on an important sub-group of Australian science and technology personnel, those who can provide both significant contributions to the development of scientific understanding (propositional knowledge) and those involved more directly in product development in the private sector or in the public sector working on contacts with the private sector. We were initially interested in the degree to which scientifically trained personnel were available for industry and innovation in Australia and to ensure that the private sector has the absorptive capacity needed to make use of information generated elsewhere, along with the means to generate additional appropriate knowledge for the enterprises of the economy. In the event, lack of funds made it hard to achieve such an ambitious agenda. The study did, however, reveal much about the motivations for making career changes among scientists and to some extent what they were able to contribute to subsequent employers and raised some questions as to the issues, which should concern policymakers seeking to increase innovative capacity and activity in the Australian productive system.

Transfer of knowledge to the private sector? A minority of respondents (17.s%) had patented their research findings and almost all this group held only between one and five patents. Fewer still had been involved with start-ups (6.0%) or the commercialising of IP (9.7%). We pointed out above that very few entered the private sector in their first positions and that even fewer were still in the private sector at the time of our survey. It seems that our respondents saw themselves principally as researchers,

29

publishing their results so as to participate fully in international scientific discussions in their fields and may have perceived that it was harder to publish when working in the private sector. This perception is probably valid in Australia, where an unpublished study by Madden in the mid 1990s suggested that it is relatively unusual for scientists with PhDs to publish when they work in the private sector. This finding contrasts with the findings of Hicks and Katz (1997) that showed that in some fields, notably life sciences, scientists in international firms publish more than those at some medium sized universities in the UK, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Madden showed that whilst scientists in companies in this country published little, it remained unclear whether this was because they were not doing the research that could underpin publication or because there was a greater emphasis on secrecy in the major Australian firms that undertake R&D. That few professionals in the private sector in Australia publish their work may well also reflect the nature of Australia’s industrial structure where laboratories are both few and small and most research is applied. The pattern where few entered the private sector for their first positions is significant because, as Mangematin and Robin (2003) have shown in France, it is probably not common that research graduates in science and technology ever join the private sector if they do not make that choice initially. While there may be some country specificities that influence the pattern in France, it seems initially that there are few connections in terms of mobility between public and private sectors among human capital in science and technology. Indeed, the drop in numbers over time evident in our sample suggests rather that there is a net outflow from the enterprise sector to the benefit of the public sector. This must be seen as limiting the real transfer of ideas and knowledge between the sectors and, if further substantiated, public innovation policy needs to take account of this pattern among the country’s researchers. The interviews conducted for our study indicate some of the difficulties faced by scientists when attempting to make careers in private enterprises.. In particular, it was felt that companies were not interested in cutting edge research and did not greatly value the bench scientists that they employed, giving them little say in the product decisions made by the firms and seldom promoting them to central managerial positions as scientists. Rather, in a situation faced by their confreres in engineering in many countries, scientists in Australian firms felt that they must ‘lose’ their close connections with science if they were to progress up career ladders. This is confirmed by the career data presented above which show that career progression involved less research as a proportion of all activities. The literature which focuses on the relation between science and innovation has recently been concerned to investigate more closely what happens when scientists move into industry – what exactly is transferred, if anything? Work by Patel and Pavitt (1994) some years ago established that companies value (by paying their own money for basic research) the skills and research training of scientists rather than particular research results. A detailed study by Zellner (2023) on German doctoral holders who worked in industry asks the question about whether knowledge is transferred when scientists move between sectors and organizations and if so what exactly. Zellner divides what is transferred into five categories: specific propositional knowledge (SPK); specific methodological knowledge (SMK); non-specific analytical skills (NSA); knowledge about instrumentation and laboratory equipment (ILE) and the application of IT, data analysis, simulation and programming skills (ITDP). He concludes that what is valued is not specific propositional knowledge, in other words, not knowledge of the latest research results, but the other types of knowledge, thus confirming in another context and in more detail the results of Patel and Pavitt (1994) a decade earlier. Zellner also found, which is especially relevant here, that managers with science doctorates

30

who started their careers in R&D in industry were much more likely to value science in the form of propositional knowledge than were managers with the scientific training who had started their careers in other industry positions. One could hypothesise that this finding has broad strategic importance as it may impact on company decisions as to whether to retain R&D facilities, the content of the R&D to be performed, and hence the types and numbers of personnel to be recruited. This would in turn shape the link envisaged at the level of corporate strategy between science and product development, and the contours of scientists’ careers within the firm.

11. Discussion Australia does not have very large numbers of research scientists in any discipline in absolute terms. This means that we need to ensure that those we do have are both maximally productive and recognized as the small elite workforce on which much innovation ultimately depends. At present they are greatly stressed and uncertain about their future and we suspect, although cannot fully substantiate with our data, that many are being lost to scientific research when they could be at their scientifically most productive. The short nature of many contracts, up to several, not just the first one, now offered both within universities and the CSIRO suggest that a career in science research looks less attractive in relation growing family obligations, the huge increases in the cost of housing and the salaries offered in competing sectors, notably finance where high level mathematical skills are much better rewarded. The data drawn from our study and presented here suggest that the sector (government, private, academic) of work of researchers appears to have different consequences in terms of the amount of time spent on research activity and that devoted to a range of other responsibilities. In any debate about human capital in the science and innovation system the distribution of rewards, particularly financial rewards, available to individuals and their relationship to research achievements is a crucial factor. For the science and technology labour force workers described here, career success in terms of income and level of organisational position appears to lead away from research activity. These findings have important implications for thinking about human capital resources in the Australian science and innovation systems and appropriate policy directions. We emphasized at the beginning of this paper that the present focus of much science policy in Australia is increasing the contestability of funding and of reducing institutional ‘block’ funding in to increase the pot of contestable monies. This is thought to encourage ‘excellence’ in scientific endeavour because of the continuous process of peer review. The second focus of policy makers is on the commercialization of research results. This could involve a lesser emphasis on peer review and a greater emphasis in reward systems on the profitable use of commercial results. Since the business sector in Australia is seen to invest inadequate amounts in R&D, the public sector is seen to have a dual role: that of provider of results usable by the commercial sector and that of a ‘stimulant to private sector investment through demonstrating the rewards that can accrue from scientific research. Filling this dual role seems to policymakers to involve increasing their control over funding and direction, through, for example, the combination of the promulgation of national priorities and more contestability, and other arrangements that we have seen in Australia over recent years. These two foci make some rather simple assumptions about the links between science and innovation, especially product innovation, and about the factors affecting R&D investment by enterprises. First, in reality, the links between basic science and innovation are highly

31

complex and vary enormously between fields of activity, as Faulkner and Senker (1995) long ago showed, and Tijssen (2001) has more recently shown in relation to the links between patent citations and publicly funded science in the Netherlands. The linear model of the relationship between scientists and innovation is still alive in policymakers’ minds, despite the long available evidence that the interplay between scientific research and technological development is a non-linear process mediated by a complex system of social, cognitive and organizational factors, as Tijssen again concludes (2001: 53). Secondly, firms’ decisions about investment in R&D depend in turn on many factors other than science. In particular, it would seem that policymakers focus excessively on the notion that product innovation requires cutting edge science and neglect the evidence that most product innovation occurs from interaction with clients, another well-established research finding both in Australia and elsewhere. Policymakers focus too much on new industries rather than the upgrading of the existing ones that in most countries, and certainly in Australia, constitute the biggest segment of the economy by far. These arguments are relatively well known, although relatively rarely incorporated into policy thinking in Australia. They may have come to substitute for industry development strategies of other kinds as the world has moved into deregulatory mode. That does not mean they will be successful, however. A recent article has suggested further dimensions to the debate about how the organization of the public science system may affect innovation levels in different countries and hence by implication what policymakers could be thinking about (Whitley 2003). Whitley defines public science systems as a set of organizations whose employees undertake research primarily for publication and the set of institutional arrangements governing their operation, including funding priorities, evaluation of performance and allocation of rewards. Public science systems, he says, are largely oriented around the competitive pursuit of reputation for published contributions to collective intellectual goals and researchers are mostly rewarded on the basis of these reputations. Technologically-oriented research lies within the public science system insofar as it is mainly directed at gaining reputation and hence is not secret. Whitley suggests that, given the increasing interdependence between innovations and academically produced knowledge he would expect that countries with contrasting public science systems would display distinct forms of technical development. The contrasts result from the differing emphasis within the system on four institutional factors: the extent of state delegation of employment and resource control to scientific elites, concentration of intellectual and administrative control within research organizations, the stability ands strength of the hierarchy of research organizations, and the organizational segmentation of research goals and labour markets. He further indicates that flexibility and speed of change of direction and acceptance of different research directions will affect outcomes and that these in turn depend on the institutional arrangements dominant. Whitley suggests that each form of institutional arrangement has consequences both for the type of scientific undertaken and the contribution that scientific results can make to industrial innovation. In summary, for example, some systems, notably those with lesser local control, encourage long term programs of research and can usefully contribute to industrial innovation in times of relatively stable technologies. In times of rapid and disruptive technological change, however, flexible systems with considerable local control and varied reputational emphases which allow scientists to develop relatively eclectic intellectual objectives, and hence to incorporate technological achievements as well as reputation based on more basic research, may serve the country better.

32

Whitley’s work thus suggests once again that maximizing public value form taxpayer research funding is a highly complex matter and one that needs sophisticated understanding of what motivates scientists, as well as the impact of different institutional arrangements on the productivity of work in different scientific fields and the type of technological development involved. Once again, the literature on the subject suggests that one size will definitely not fit all. The data gathered in our study indicate the unease about their investments in careers in scientific research among at least a fair number of Australia’s most productive scientists as measured by publications in peer-reviewed and internationally well respected journals. They further suggest that policymakers need to think very carefully about what they expect from the public science system and the likely effects of tinkering about with it in a way which makes heroic assumptions about what motivates scientists as well as about linking scientific research and industrial innovation. It is clear, for example, from our survey that the most productive scientists in terms of the work that they publish move away from research activities as they progress in their careers. It is likely that greater contestability for funding can only exacerbate this loss of direct research time and accelerate the loss of time for mentoring younger scientists and research students. While most of the scientists in our study have not worked in the private sector themselves and probably transfer little of their knowledge directly into production arenas they may well be developing the broad array of directions for science necessary in a time of technological turbulence. In that capacity they may be the as yet invisible golden geese of the system: both the geese and their eggs may need safeguarding rather than reforming.

33

References ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (1997). Australian Standard Classification of

Occupations, 2nd edition, Canberra, Cat. 1221.0. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2003a) Human Resources by Selected Qualifications

and Occupations, Canberra, Cat. 8149.0. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2003b) Special Data Service, Canberra. ACDS (Australian Council of the Deans of Science) (2003) Is the Study of Science in

Decline?, ACDS Occasional Paper No. 3, ACDS. Bourdieu, Pierre (1975). ‘The specificity of he scientific field and the social conditions of the

progress of reason’, Social Science Information 14(6): 19-47. Commonwealth of Australia (2001). Backing Australia’s Ability: An Innovation Action Plan

for the Future, Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia (2003). Mapping Australian Science & Innovation, Main Reprot,

Canberra. CPUR (Centre for Population and Urban Research) (2003). Skill Utilisation of Persons

Trained in Australia, Report prepared for Science and Innovation Mapping (DEST) by CPUR Monash University, August 2003.

CRTTE (Commonwealth Review of Teaching and Teacher Education) (2003). Australia’s

Teachers: Australia’s Future, Advancing Innovation, Science, Technology and Mathematics, Main Report, Canberra.

DEST (Department of Education Science & Training) (2002) Australian Science and

Technology at a Glance –2002, DEST, Canberra. DEST (Department of Education Science & Training) (DEST) (2003a) Australian Science

and Technology at a Glance –2003, DEST, Canberra. DEST (Department of Education Science & Training) (DEST) (2003b) Higher Education

Statistics, available from http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/statpubs.htm Faulkner, W. & Senker, J. (1995) Knowledge Frontiers: Public Sector Research and

Industrial Innovation in Biotechnology, Engineering Ceramics, and Parallel Computing, OUP, Oxford.

GCCA (Graduate Careers Council of Australia) (2003) Graduate Destination Survey 2003,

GradStats & GradFiles, Available at http://www.gradlink.edu.au/content/view/full/24 Graversen, Ebbe Krogh (2000) ‘Cyclicity of Mobility Rates on Human Capital – Evidence

from Danish Register Data, 1988-97’, AFSK Working Paper 2000-5.

34

Hicks, D. & Katz, S.J. (1997) ‘The Changing Shape of British Industrial Research’, STEEP Special Report No. 6, SPRU, University of Essex.

Kleinman, Daniel Lee & Vallas, Stephen P. (2001). ‘Science, capitalism, and the rise of the

“knowledge worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States”, Theory and Society 30: 451-492.

Lundvall, Bengt-Åke (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation

and Interactive Learning, Pinter, London. Mangematin, V. & Robin, S (2003) ‘The double-face of PhD students: management of early

careers of French PhDs in life sciences’, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 6. Marceau, Jane & Preston, Hugh (1997) ‘Nurturing National Talent’, Prometheus, 51(1): 41-

54. Nowotny, Helga, Scott, Peter & Gibbons, Michael (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge

and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity, Cambridge. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1995) Manual on the

Measurement of Human Resources Devoted to S&T, “Canberra Manual”, OECD, Paris.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1996) The Knowledge-

based Economy, OECD, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1999) Managing

National Innovation Systems, OECD, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2000) Science,

Technology and Industry Outlook, OECD, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2001) Innovative

People: Mobility of skilled personnel in national innovation systems, OECD, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2002) Frascati Manual:

Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development, OECD, Paris.

Patel, P & Pavitt, K. (1994) ‘Technological Competencies in the Worlds’ Largest Firms:

Characteristics, Constraints and the Scope for Managerial Choice, STEEP Discusion Paper No. 13, SPRU, University of Essex.

R&D Review (2003) Hallmark Ediotions, Victoria,

http://www.halledit.com.au/publications/rndreview.htm Rosengren, M. (1998) ‘An Inventory of National Priorities and Availability of data in OECD

Countries to Quantify Science and Technology Personnel mobility Patterns’ paper presented a the joint NESTI/TIP/GSS Workshop, 17 June, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/62/2758911.pdf

35

Sehr, Nico & Meja, Volker (2001) ‘Modern societies as knowledge societies’, Ch. 4 in Luigi Tomasi (ed.) New Horizons in Sociological Theory and Research, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 127-146.

Stocker, John (1997) Priorty Matters, report of Review of Science and Technology

Arrangements, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Tijssen, Robert J.W. (2001) ‘Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science:

patent citation analysis of science-technology interactions and knowledge flows’, Research Policy 30 (1):35-54.

Whitley, Richard (2003) ‘Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of

institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science, Research Policy 32: 1015-1029.

Wilensky, H. (1960) ‘Work, Careers and Social Integration’, International Social Science,

12: 543-60. Zellner, Christian (2003) ‘The economic effects of basic research: Evidence for embodied

knowledge transfer via scientists’ migration’, Research Policy Vol. 32, No. 10: 1881-1895.