Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis paper discusses the theory of Systemic Action Research and its use in postgraduate research education, in the context of agriculture and rural development. The paper discusses what systems thinking is and introduces the concepts of Systemic Development. This is followed by an argument for a paradigm shift in how agriculture is viewed, and an associated shift in education from teaching to learning. The core ideas of action research are then described and illustrated by two case studies drawn from PhD research projects supervised by the authors. Introducing the ideas of technical, practical, and emancipatory action research, the paper further expands upon these concepts of action research, illuminated by two additional PhD projects. Overall the paper demonstrates the usefulness of Systemic Action Research as the basis for postgraduate research to deal with real contextual issues in their true complexity, and in a holistic way. In this process, genuine participation and the encouragement of diversity are seen as rights rather than as means to greater research efficiency, thus giving power to people to act through the generation of knowledge by critical reflection. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Since 1991 Australian universities have charged fees, paid in advance (up-front), for a proportion of students undertaking postgraduate courses. In this paper it is argued that this is poor public policy, for both economic and social reasons. The conceptual basis for this case is explained fully. Given the strength of argument, it is difficult to understand why different Commonwealth governments have allowed and encouraged the expansion of post-graduate up-front fees in this period. The policy situation is particularly hard to justify since a much more equitable and efficient charging arrangement, the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), has been in place for undergraduates since 1989. The important point for policy is that HECS collects student charges contingent on incomes, and thus requires no payment at the point of entry. It is argued that a collection system of this type is a more correct policy for post-graduate education, and it is shown that such a reform can be implemented without administrative difficulties. In January 2001 the Federal Government announced intentions to change post-graduate fee arrangements consistent with the reform promoted in this paper. The proposal is known as the Postgraduate Education Loan Scheme (PELS), and its basis and implications are considered in what follows. It is argued that while PELS is a major advance over current arrangements its institution will have important and arguably undesirable consequences with respect to the level of student charges and, more importantly, concerning taxpayer subsidies of post-graduate education. If and when these effects come to pass, the government will face the need to change the scheme. An economically and administratively viable reform to PELS is explained and justified.

The paper documents the recent history of higher education financing in Australia. It is argued that there have been radical changes to financing arrangements over the last 12 years or so, which have taken the form of the imposition and increase in student charges. Contributions from students are justified, and the collection mechanism used in Australia is argued to be the best arrangement: income contingency. A major part of the paper takes up this theme through the comparison of the economic and social consequences of different financing arrangements involving student charges. It is argued that bank loans and/or scholarship systems with up-front fees are necessarily inferior to arrangements that take into account a former student's future capacity to pay. The HECS – or similar income contingent policies – are argued to be the only way to go. It is also argued that the Australian higher education financing system is in need of reform. The issues documented include: relative academic salaries have fallen significantly over the last two decades; enterprise bargaining is a poor collective bargaining instrument for public sector universities; and, there is a need for some institutional price flexibility. Even so, it is pointed out that unfettered price flexibility for Australian universities is undesirable, for two reasons. The first is that there have been many years of public subsidy for the well-established institutions, and the second is that these same institutions have considerable real estate benefits from their propitious geographic locations. Both issues necessarily mean that allowing full charge discretion will deliver considerable and unfair rents to the most advantaged institutions and their contemporary staff. However, a case for limited price flexibility is offered. The potential benefits are the encouragement of increased competition and to allow additional revenue. It is stressed that it is critical that policy reform along these lines should necessarily involve income contingent repayment, and it is explained how this might work. The final part of the paper analyses the Government's recently announced plan to allow Postgraduate students the option of paying their charge with an income contingent loan. That is, HECS is to be extended to Postgraduate study. It is argued that, in principle, this is an excellent reform of higher education financing arrangements. The scheme is not, however, straightforward. Because HECS has a zero real rate of interest, the new scheme means that there will be a significant level of subsidy for both students and universities, and the extent of the subsidy is illustrated for a range of different student circumstances. An implication of these subsidies is that, eventually, the Government will very likely impose changes. It is argued that the worst possible reform would be to cap levels of student borrowing through HECS. A much better solution would be to offer a discount for up-front payment of postgraduate charges.

The paper documents the recent history of higher education financing in Australia. It is argued that there have been radical changes to financing arrangements over the last 12 years or so, which have taken the form of the imposition and increase in student charges. Contributions from students are justified, and the collection mechanism used in Australia is argued to be the best arrangement: income contingency. A major part of the paper takes up this theme through the comparison of the economic and social consequences of different financing arrangements involving student charges. It is argued that bank loans and/or scholarship systems with up-front fees are necessarily inferior to arrangements that take into account a former student's future capacity to pay. The HECS – or similar income contingent policies – are argued to be the only way to go. It is also argued that the Australian higher education financing system is in need of reform. The issues documented include: relative academic salaries have fallen significantly over the last two decades; enterprise bargaining is a poor collective bargaining instrument for public sector universities; and, there is a need for some institutional price flexibility. Even so, it is pointed out that unfettered price flexibility for Australian universities is undesirable, for two reasons. The first is that there have been many years of public subsidy for the well-established institutions, and the second is that these same institutions have considerable real estate benefits from their propitious geographic locations. Both issues necessarily mean that allowing full charge discretion will deliver considerable and unfair rents to the most advantaged institutions and their contemporary staff. However, a case for limited price flexibility is offered. The potential benefits are the encouragement of increased competition and to allow additional revenue. It is stressed that it is critical that policy reform along these lines should necessarily involve income contingent repayment, and it is explained how this might work. The final part of the paper analyses the Government's recently announced plan to allow Postgraduate students the option of paying their charge with an income contingent loan. That is, HECS is to be extended to Postgraduate study. It is argued that, in principle, this is an excellent reform of higher education financing arrangements. The scheme is not, however, straightforward. Because HECS has a zero real rate of interest, the new scheme means that there will be a significant level of subsidy for both students and universities, and the extent of the subsidy is illustrated for a range of different student circumstances. An implication of these subsidies is that, eventually, the Government will very likely impose changes. It is argued that the worst possible reform would be to cap levels of student borrowing through HECS. A much better solution would be to offer a discount for up-front payment of postgraduate charges.

Industrial development has resulted in an increased release of chemicals and other agents into the environment, resulting in damage to the environment as well as increasing the risk of adverse effects on human health. Environmental toxicology (ET) is the discipline responsible for assessing the risks to human health and the environment from the effects of new chemicals and those already present in the environment. The development of human resources in toxicology is therefore a priority in both Latin America (LA) and the European Union (EU), although LA professionals are more involved in risk evaluation than in risk assessment compared to their EU colleagues. A solid background in general toxicology will enable those interested in environmental issues to tackle local problems. Moreover, the increasing globalization of markets and, therefore, of the necessary regulations, requires harmonisation of postgraduate programmes to ensure that risk assessment and management related to the environment are dealt with uniformly and by highly qualified scientists. The Inaugural Meeting of the ALFA-OMET project 'Development, Integration and Harmonisation of Training in Occupational Medicine and Environmental Toxicology', a 2-year programme supported by the European Commission, offered the opportunity to discuss a number of these issues. The present status of existing ET courses in the EU and LA and the corresponding professional profiles in the two regions were examined, and a harmonized academic curriculum for a postgraduate course in environmental toxicology was developed. Finally, a course programme for toxicology and a specialization in environmental toxicology designed by a panel of experts was discussed, and its relevance as a model for other specialisation programmes was analysed. Exercises such as those performed by ALFA-OMET may be useful not only in promoting discussion for the implementation of national and international professional registers in LA, but also in encouraging the same, ongoing process in the EU.