top of page

Strategic Patience or Root and Branch Reform: What Will Shape Australia's Research Future?

Writer's picture: Dr John H HowardDr John H Howard

John H Howard*, 14 January 2025

 

The Australian Universities Accord pushed for 'root and branch' reform of the Australian R&D system. But could strategic patience be more transformative?


This insight explores the possibility that measured, persistent change might outperform dramatic restructuring in building research excellence.


As Australia grapples with reforming its R&D system through the Strategic Examination of R&D (SERD), we find ourselves at a crucial junction between two distinct paths: the "root and branch" approach advocated by the Report of the Australian Universities Accord and a more measured strategy of incremental change guided by strategic patience. This tension presents an intriguing case study in innovation policy implementation, with significant implications for Australia's research future.


The allure of comprehensive reform is clear. The root and branch approach promises swift, decisive action to address systemic challenges in our research ecosystem. It implies that only fundamental restructuring can overcome the institutional inertia that often hampers innovation policy. This perspective resonates with calls for transformative change in Australia's research landscape, particularly given our ongoing challenges in research commercialisation and industry collaboration.


However, there's compelling evidence to support a more deliberative approach. Strategic patience, emphasising persistent improvement over dramatic intervention, recognises that meaningful change in complex systems often occurs through careful, cumulative progress. This methodology particularly suits Australia's research environment, where relationships between universities, industry, and government have evolved over decades through intricate networks of collaboration, trust, and social capital formation.


Then, there is the added complexity of Australia’s governance system built around the principle of individual ministerial responsibility, firmly embedded in the Constitution, which in application creates the appearance of policy fragmentation. In addition, the distribution of legislative powers between the Commonwealth and the States, also set out in the Constitution, gives the Commonwealth few policy levers outside the taxation power and the power to make grants of financial assistance.


The strategic patience model acknowledges that building research capability is inherently a long-term endeavour. Consider how our most successful research institutions, notably in the medical research area––WEHI, and the Garvan, for example––have developed through sustained investment, the careful cultivation of expertise, and the gradual building of international partnerships. These achievements weren't born from sudden restructuring but from persistent, well-executed improvements over time.


Yet, advocating for strategic patience isn't an endorsement of complacency. On the contrary, it calls for careful change orchestration, where each reform builds systematically upon previous improvements. This approach requires robust monitoring frameworks and strong policy leadership to maintain momentum while avoiding the risks of stagnation.


Importantly, this approach aligns with the nature of scientific advancement itself. Research excellence typically develops through steady progression rather than revolutionary leaps. Our most successful research programs have often emerged from sustained effort and iterative improvement, suggesting that institutional development might best follow a similar pattern.


Perhaps most significantly, while both approaches aim for transformative outcomes, they differ primarily in their temporal perspective and risk appetite. The strategic patience model suggests that transformation need not be immediate to disrupt the inertia of path dependency and that carefully managed, persistent change can yield equally significant results while potentially avoiding the downside risks associated with more dramatic interventions.


This tension between methodical reform and rapid restructuring takes on new significance when we consider the revolutionary impact of digital technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), on the research landscape. The emergence of foundation models and advanced AI systems is already reshaping research methods––from forming hypotheses to data analysis and experiment design. These changes are not merely small improvements to existing research methods; they represent major shifts in the core of scientific inquiry itself.


What has become a global race for AI research capability adds another layer of complexity to our reform considerations and presents another captivating paradox for the Strategic Examination of R&D.


While we can be reasonably certain that new and emerging digital technologies will dramatically alter research practices, the precise nature and timing of these changes is unclear. Traditional research workflows, peer review systems, and even the fundamental organisation of research teams may need to adapt to capabilities we cannot yet fully envision. This technological uncertainty challenges both the root and branch and strategic patience approaches.


For example, AI is already transforming fields like molecular biology, where machine learning models can predict protein structures and suggest novel compounds with unprecedented speed and accuracy. Similar revolutionary changes are occurring in climate science and materials research, where AI enables enhanced modelling capabilities and accelerates discoveries. In social sciences, AI is increasingly utilised to analyse behavioural patterns and large-scale social data. However, its impact has been more gradual and nuanced due to the complexity of human behaviour and social phenomena.


These developments suggest that any reform approach must build sufficient flexibility to accommodate rapid technological evolution while maintaining the rigour and integrity of scientific inquiry, including robust validation methods and clear standards for reproducibility.


The implications for Australia's R&D framework are significant. Research policies and institutions will have to embrace and adjust to emerging AI capabilities while strategically concentrating on areas where they have a research domain advantage. This could necessitate a hybrid reform approach that blends strategic patience in developing foundational skills with the agility to respond quickly to technological advances.


While methodical improvement might seem prudent, we must ensure our pace of change doesn't leave Australia trailing in the rapid evolution of AI-enabled research. This suggests the need for carefully targeted acceleration in specific areas, even within a broader framework of strategic patience.


For Australia, the stakes of this choice are particularly significant given our unique innovation challenges. Our geographical distance from major research markets, concentrated industry structure, and domain research leadership in areas like quantum computing, medical and health sciences, and climate adaptation demand a carefully calibrated approach to reform. The implementation pathway must recognise these contextual factors while building on existing capabilities and relationships that have taken years to cultivate.


The timing of reform matters as much as its substance. In our current environment of rapid technological change and shifting global research partnerships, the timing of adapting and responding to emerging opportunities becomes crucial. A strategic patience approach, properly executed, doesn't mean moving slowly; rather, it enables responsive adaptation while maintaining institutional stability.


Addressing this balance between stability and adaptiveness might prove valuable as Australia positions itself within evolving global innovation networks and research partnerships. The Government has implicitly acknowledged this by allowing the Strategic Examination of R&D twelve months to report. The Examination will have time to map the pathways for the adoption, implementation, and application of its findings and recommendations over a longer-term: perhaps a "three horizon" timeframe rather than a list presupposing immediate action.


The ultimate measure of success in this endeavour will be our capacity to foster an innovation ecosystem that produces excellent research and effectively translates it into economic and social benefits for Australia. Whether through rapid restructuring or strategic patience, the chosen path must strengthen the connections between research institutions, industry partners, and government agencies while building lasting capabilities that support Australia's research and innovation ambitions.


* Dr John Howard is an acknowledged expert in science, research and innovation policy and works with government, universities and business to lift R&D and innovation performance. He is Executive Director of the Acton institute for Policy Research and Innovation, and a Visiting Professor at the University of Technology Sydney.

1件のコメント


I'm not sure that I understand what strategic patience is, but it is clear that systemic change is an evolutionary process driven by changed goals and incentives. Design implies that there are agreed goals, a clear and agreed identification of the shortcomings and a good knowledge of how to effect change - ie that the essential knowledge exists and the learning for systemic change has happened, a priori. We are surely not there. Systemic change is inevitably evolutionary, through adaptation and self-organisation in response to changed contexts. What can change more rapidly is perceptions regarding values. If the knowledge for 'system design' does not exist a priori, then the learning (by all participants in the ecosystem) must happen through doing,…

いいね!
bottom of page