<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>ARC funding for fieldwork</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.5512" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=727291106-23022012>Here is a belated response from the
AIATSIS Audio-Visual Archive:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=727291106-23022012></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=727291106-23022012>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Calibri size=3><SPAN
class=009192600-22022012>I'm sorry for the late response from AIATSIS to this
thread. I would like to reassure RNLD members that AIATSIS is still collecting
archival audio material. We have a fairly strict acquisition policy because our
resources are tight, but it is extremely unlikely that we would reject original
language material. It would be excellent to receive the rest of the Kofod
collection :-)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Calibri size=3><SPAN
class=009192600-22022012></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Calibri><SPAN class=009192600-22022012><FONT
size=3><STRONG>Re: digitising.</STRONG> We are of course digitising all of our
holdings, but due to the size of the collection (approximately
40,000 hours) it is necessary for us to prioritise material based primarily
on the format and condition of the carriers. If you are digitising material
yourself prior to deposit, it would be good to get the digi copies too but
it <EM>might </EM>be necessary for us to re-digitise if we find the
transfer wasn't as good as it could have been (e.g. if azimuth alignment was out
on the playback machine) or if the target format doesn't meet our minimum
standards. Also please be aware that every time you play an analogue tape its
quality will deteriorate slightly.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Calibri size=3><SPAN
class=009192600-22022012></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Calibri><SPAN class=009192600-22022012><FONT
size=3><STRONG>Re: AIATSIS funding situation.</STRONG> Unfortunately, pretty
much everything Claire Smith said was accurate. We are extremely hopeful that
our funding situation will improve and we are even pursuing dollars from
mining companies. If the worst were to happen, we would need to funnel our
limited resources into preserving the material we already have OR the collection
would need to be transferred to another collecting institution. AIATSIS is still
the best option for many researchers, because we are able to accept unpublished
audio material that is closed for personal, gender or ceremonial reasons and we
are often able to make copies of preserved material for community members free
of charge. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Calibri size=3><SPAN
class=009192600-22022012></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Calibri size=3><SPAN
class=009192600-22022012>Kind regards,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Calibri size=3><SPAN
class=009192600-22022012>Marisa Harris</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Calibri size=3><SPAN
class=009192600-22022012>Manager, Audio Unit</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Calibri size=3><SPAN
class=009192600-22022012>AIATSIS Audiovisual
Archive</SPAN></FONT></DIV></SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> r-n-l-d@unimelb.edu.au
[mailto:r-n-l-d@unimelb.edu.au] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Frances
Kofod<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 13 February 2012 2:07 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
r-n-l-d@unimelb.edu.au<BR><B>Subject:</B> [!! SPAM] Re: ARC funding for
fieldwork<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>It is shocking to hear that AIATSIS cannot properly care for its
archival material. I have been intending to send lots of older tapes to them -
after I have digitised them for safe keeping.
<DIV>Also in regard to all the mining clearance reports done over and over
again, I have heard lots of Aboriginal people express their deep frustration
that they cannot have access to the reports that their elders made in the
past.</DIV>
<DIV>Frances Kofod</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On 13/02/2012, at 10:37 AM, Felicity Meakins wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><FONT face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">This may be of interest to people seeking funding for
grants involving fieldwork:<BR><BR>Finding funds for outback digs <<FONT
color=#0000ff><U><A href="http:/">http://</A><A
href="http://www.campusreview.com.au/blog/analysis/comment/finding-funds-for-outback-digs/">www.campusreview.com.au/blog/analysis/comment/finding-funds-for-outback-digs/</A></U></FONT>>
<BR><BR>The cost of research for archaeology and anthropology could be reduced
by tapping money that mining companies pay for cultural heritage compliance,
writes Claire Smith.<BR><BR>Recent changes to grants programs run by the
Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) have caused widespread concern
within field-based disciplines in Australia, such as archaeology, anthropology
and Aboriginal languages. The debate around these changes highlights the high
costs of conducting fieldwork in Australia, our reliance on a limited number
of funding bodies and the need to identify additional sources of research
funding.<BR><BR>The recently released 2013 funding rules for Australian
Research Council Discovery Program placed a limit of $50,000 on the travel
budget over the life of the project. Such a limitation would have severely
limited field-based research projects. Fieldwork in Australia is
expensive. Though people conducting research in remote areas may well live in
tents or caravans, the travel costs are high. This is due to the high cost of
four-wheel-drive vehicles and the length of time that is required for many
fieldwork projects, itself an artefact of the remoteness of the location – if
it takes three days to get to a location, you need to make the stay
worthwhile.<BR><BR>Moreover, in disciplines such as archaeology data
collection is undertaken by a team of people, all of whom have to travel to
the field location. A maximum of $50,000 over a three-year project would have
stifled fundamental research in those disciplines that require extensive
fieldwork. Last week’s clarification from the Australian Research Council
caused widespread relief. The updating of frequently asked questions included
one on field research costs in remote areas of Australia and overseas and a
response that only the flights to and from the research site were considered
to be travel.<BR><BR>Fieldwork costs could be sought under a separate
category. When this clarification was announced you could almost hear the
collective sigh on the email lists of the affected disciplinary communities.
Apprehension regarding changes to ARC funding was exacerbated by existing
concerns regarding the recent suspension of the AIATSIS grants program. This
small but critical funding program has run since the 1980s. With an annual
funding allocation of about $680,000, it has supported crucial seed research
in archaeology, anthropology and Aboriginal languages – research that would
not have been funded, otherwise.<BR><BR>It has been a critical source of
funding for indigenous scholars and for doctoral and early career researchers,
and has been an important step for many young scholars seeking to establish a
track record for ARC funding. Moreover, a condition of funding was that
research materials would be deposited with the institute, and AIATSIS now has
a world-renowned archive of about 1 million items, ranging from tape
recordings of languages that are now extinct or under threat, to films and
photographs by early ethnographic researchers.<BR><BR> AIATSIS is
struggling for funding on a number of fronts. The recent non-renewal of a
Commonwealth funding program for the digital conversion of the institute’s
archive left 80 per cent of the collection unconverted. AIATSIS was forced to
make use of its savings to maintain the program this year. Much of the older
material is under threat from disintegration, including old films, magnetic
tape recordings and glass-negative photographs. These materials were collected
by early ethnographers and contain information that cannot be replicated or
replaced.<BR><BR>While disciplinary alarm regarding changes to ARC funding
rules has now passed, and there are hopes that provision for the AIATSIS
digitisation scheme will be reinstated in the Commonwealth’s 2012-13 budget,
the unease generated by these incidents prompts consideration of untapped
sources of support for field research in Australia.<BR><BR>At the same time
that AIATSIS is struggling to protect its precious archives, mining companies
around Australia spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on cultural
heritage surveys for compliance purposes. A single area may be surveyed many
times, and the data that is collected is locked up in consultants’ reports,
producing little, or no, new knowledge for the nation. Millions of dollars are
spent each year, and no new histories are emerging from them.<BR><BR>While
representatives of Australia’s leading mining companies have expressed a
desire to divert funds used for repetitive or low-level compliance into
substantive research programs, such a change would have to be facilitated by
amendments to regulatory frameworks. However, there are strong economic and
social imperatives for such change. It would produce substantial
economic benefits for the nation by assisting in streamlining compliance
processes and bringing forward the investment pipeline. In addition, it would
provide social and cultural benefits by producing new understandings of
Australia’s unique cultural heritage.<BR><BR>Moreover, if some of the funds
that are now wasted on repetitive compliance could be diverted to research
purposes Australia would receive a great boon. There would be additional funds
for ARC linkage grants and new histories would emerge, with or without ARC
funding. In a perfect world, a proportion of these funds would be diverted
toward digitisation of the precious AIATSIS repository.<BR><BR><B><I>Claire
Smith is professor of archaeology at Flinders
University.<BR></I></B></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0">
<DIV>Frances Kofod</DIV>
<DIV>PO Box 1918</DIV>
<DIV>Kununurra</DIV>
<DIV>WA 6743</DIV>
<DIV>08 91692 852 ~ 0438 894957</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></SPAN><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>