Just because of what, and where, it was ... a dinner in the airy 1920s setting of the Members' Dining Room in Canberra's Old Parliament House on an evening in Spring ... the gathering of some 150 articulate CHASS people fuelled by copious wine and, on the whole, very good food achieved much for themselves, their fields of interest and their organisations. It fair bubbled along. But enough of the fun. Out of diverse HASS sector interests must come shared views about the purpose of HASS research and education alongside that of the science and technology sector: a tall order when herding together researchers, funders, and the real world, all of whom arrive at the funding trough with different agendas. And so to the following day.
CHASS President Stuart Cunningham's overview of the importance of "the HASS disciplines" as he calls them was forceful, and his shaping of this "HASS on the Hill" event was directed towards knowing its collective mind better. He viewed this year as the first significant consultation exercise CHASS had undertaken. And so in rapid-fire sequence we heard from a number of speakers from the sectors including The Australian Research Council's Krishna Sen, who reckoned that large parts of HASS do not take advantage of the available research funding, and that international partnerships should be pursued. Given Cunningham's goal of "knowing the collective mind", he may have found after the day's events that the remit of CHASS as it stands is too broad ... its endeavours to be inclusive and representative is problematic... and the membership too wide.
Glenn Withers, CE of Universities Australia opened his address citing JK Galbraith's "Art has nothing to do with the sterner preoccupations of the economist..." (which appears in his other writings - I confess: I googled). He defended what he called a functionalist approach (i.e. lobbying), as some people must do it to enable others to do their creative thing. Anne Byrne's Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research views CHASS as a partner, a source of advice, expecting collaboration. Like Sen, Byrne believes international partnerships need to be built up, but in the end, evidence of "delivery on outcomes" is needed. So much industry-speak.
President of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, Ian Donaldson, drew attention to some overlap between the interests and activities of the AAH and CHASS, while on the other hand the AAH is not representative, since fellows are elected in an exhaustive process assuring their standing as scholars at the highest international levels. Therefore it is an organisation of "mid-career and later" individuals. AAH wants to recognise the new and the evolving - but it is not "a perfectly balanced body" in terms of demographics, an elegant rationale for an ageing association if ever I heard one. Whereas CHASS, he said admiringly, has achieved that desirable inclusivity in four years while taking a coordinating and consulting role in the sector - roles appreciated by the AAH. This, said Donaldson, is the primary role for the CHASS. He congratulated the Council on the remarkable distance it has travelled in a short time, bringing vigour and visibility to the sector. A draft MOU to clarify the relationship between AAH and CHASS is in process; meanwhile CHASS has "earned the right to move forward in a more focused, selective way".
Faith Trent from the DASSH (Deans of Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities) was more explicit in her challenge to those present to unpick the various 'sector' references - what is it we are really talking about? The sectors elide to a certain extent. Importantly, there is a risk that where multiple voices are present, politicians either pick the one they like, or listen to none. What issues should CHASS pursue? It can't advocate for everything. What about high workloads and no time for research - a topic Trent noted was not mentioned by anyone on this occasion? I liked her argument that we need to find ways to bring common agendas together: CHASS is important, as is John Byron's question about the 'C' in CHASS (Council). Is it the right noun? Everyone understands the HASS, but the C may not express what it should. The role of 'bridge' between what happens within the universities and the outside is also important. CHASS must know what it is advocating for.
Even better: the stirring approach of Sue Willis, President of the Australian Council of Deans of Education - "one of the largest sector groups". She remarked that the role of advocate doesn't mean being an advocate for the members, per se, but for what we stand for. It means producing our own narrative, rather than amplifying those of members. Also - not just promoting the contribution of the sector, but ensuring it; not simply saying "me, too" (at the trough), but rather trying to define the terms of reference. CHASS hasn't done a good enough job yet, Willis thinks. As incoming president of ANZCA, I sense some resonances.
Finally - there was more, but this is enough - a practical suggestion from Julianne Schultz, editor of Griffith Review. Develop a national database about HASS careers: currently people have to plough through all the university handbooks. Hear, hear.
