Architecture, Building and Planning - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 108
-
ItemReport on the place name: Moreland(Moreland City Council, 2022-04)Explores the links between the “Moreland” name and British Caribbean Slavery.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableWater sensitive outcomes for infill development: final report(Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, 2021)Australian cities have experienced significant growth recently, a trend that is expected to continue. One response from governments has been to promote ‘infill development’, which increases urban density, but also has significant adverse effects on urban water cycles, resource use efficiency, and the amenity and liveability of urban areas.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableSuccess, Retention and Completion of Care Leaver Students in Australian Higher Education(Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Curtin University, 2022)International evidence confirms that care leavers (those who have left foster, kinship or residential care) often record poorer completion rates and graduate outcomes than other university students (Courtney, 2016). Recent research from both the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) confirms that lower completion rates and outcomes are the result of multiple factors, including intersectional inequality. Care leavers, for example, are more likely to declare a disability, hail from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds, and record low grades in secondary school, all of which are correlated with lower university completion (Sebba, Berridge, Luke, Fletcher, Bell, Strand, Thomas, Sinclair & O’Higgins, 2015). Despite quantitative analysis of course selections, completions and outcomes in the US, UK, and elsewhere, equivalent work has not yet been conducted in Australia. In the absence of government collection of data, the primary source of quantitative, longitudinal data on care leavers in Australian higher education has resided with La Trobe University and Federation University Australia. Since 2016, as part of their collaborative Higher Education for Care Leavers Strategy (“the Strategy”), both universities have been systematically identifying care leaver students enrolled across the two institutions. The Strategy draws on the evidence compiled in Out of Care, into University (Harvey, McNamara, Andrewartha & Luckman, 2015), the subsequent report, Recruiting and supporting care leavers in Australian higher education (Harvey, Campbell, Andrewartha, Wilson & Goodwin-Burns, 2017) and related research by the investigators at both universities (e.g., Wilson, Harvey & Mendes, 2019). Focussed on all aspects of the student lifecycle, from pre-access though to access, attainment, and outcomes, the Strategy has also resulted in the first longitudinal data set on care leavers in Australian higher education. Drawing on these data, this report examines the access, geo-demographic profile, course selection, success, retention, and completion rates of care leavers across the two universities. In doing so, we provide the first clear picture of the journey of these previously ‘invisible’ students. Data analysis is complemented by interviews with care leaver students and graduates to explore challenges around completion, employment, and broader graduate outcomes.
-
ItemThe Adaptation of Tertiary Admissions Practices to Growth and Diversity(La Trobe University, 2016)The expansion of higher education places adaptive pressure on institutional and policy frameworks that were originally designed at times of lower levels of participation. This adaptive pressure is evident in changes to admission and selection practices, and has become more acute with the introduction of demand driven funding for undergraduate Commonwealth supported places. Universities seeking to optimise their market share in line with their values and strategic objectives are increasingly utilising direct admissions rather than historically dominant state centralised admissions processes. Direct entry pathways are also being utilised by some institutions as a means of increasing their share of disadvantaged students in particular. Both centralised and direct admissions pathways are also drawing on contextual data – such as the geo-demographic background of the applicant, school attended, perceived academic potential, or volunteer and community service – in the assessment process (Harvey 2014). The growth and complexity of university admissions practices raises two key questions. First, what impact is rising complexity in admissions practices having on student decision-making, with particular emphasis on students from disadvantaged backgrounds? And, second, how are universities and state-based tertiary admissions centres (TACs) responding to the challenges associated with rising student participation, diversity and mobility, as well as complexity in admissions practice?
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableEquity at and beyond the boundary of Australian universities(La Trobe University, 2019)This report investigates the social demography, learning outcomes and educational experiences of students enrolled in two distinct modes of higher education delivery in Australia — university programs delivered through third party arrangements, and higher education courses delivered by non-university higher education institutions (NUHEIs). In short, the research examines equity at and beyond the boundary of Australian universities. University courses delivered through third party arrangements—particularly those that involve subcontracting and franchising of program delivery—are not provided directly by public universities, and can therefore be considered as residing at the boundary of the public university. Programs delivered by NUHEIs are positioned definitively beyond the boundary of the Australian public university. Our research examines the equity group participation, retention and success rates—as well as the educational experiences—of students within these two domains of delivery. While maintaining a particular focus on students from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, we analyse and present data on five of the six nationally recognised equity groups within higher education, including Indigenous students, students with a disability, and students from low SES, regional and non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB).
-
ItemExcellence or Exit: Ensuring Anangu Futures through Education(School of Social and Policy Research, Charles Darwin University, 2009)The discussion and recommendations in this document aim to present Anangu leaders, schools and the enabling policy community that supports schools, with key points for debate and consideration, as the platform to develop an ambitious charter for education reform. The review advocates the need to change the approach to schooling at primary, middle and senior school levels as the key means to transform training, learning and employment ‘pathways’ into journeys that lead to exciting destinations and not disappointing dead ends.
-
ItemGTALK Report Series: Safer Cities in Asia: Pathum Thani, Thailand(Women in Transport Leadership Knowledge Network (WITL), The University of Melbourne, 2022)
-
ItemGTALK Report Series: Safer Cities in Asia: Metro Manila, Philippines(Women in Transport Leadership Knowledge Network (WITL), The University of Melbourne, 2021)
-
ItemGTALK Report Series: Safer Cities in Asia: Ho Chih Minh City, Vietnam(Women in Transport Leadership Knowledge Network (WITL), The University of Melbourne, 2022)
-
ItemInvestigating the Treatment of Target Adjustment Events in Alliance Projects( 2020-12-03)Largescale, complex, engineering infrastructure projects often, but not always, end up costing more, and taking longer to deliver than that anticipated, planned for and authorised. However, research studies into delivery choices for these types of projects provide evidence that while many traditionally procured projects do fail to meet expectations, alliancing projects in Australia tend to deliver at or below their target outturn cost (TOC) and time as well as substantially meeting other project key result areas. This raises the question about why are alliance projects seemingly better at meeting expectations? Is the process for delivering a project as alliances more effective than traditional approaches such as design and construct or design-bid-build? Are alliancing project cost, time and other key result areas more accurately framed and planned? Could there be a mixture of more effective planning/estimating together with the delivery approach for alliance projects than their traditional counterparts? If so, how can this explanation be best visualised and explained? The key to explaining this phenomenon appears to be focussed around the mechanisms for arriving at a realistic and reasonably achievable TOC and then an ability to deliver the project to that target. A realistic and reasonably achievable target is central but so are the inter-team competencies, capabilities and commitment to deliver the promised result. Also, any realistic and reasonably achievable target is subject to unanticipated events that need to be catered for in a way that prevents opportunistic behaviour by either the project owner or delivery team. The Target Adjustment Event (TAE) process in alliancing does this in a reasonable and effective manner. Currently, the TAE process is ignored in the academic literature. This study is focussed on how some complex Australian engineering infrastructure projects are delivered through an alliancing process. It draws upon a body of research into alliancing projects and integrated project delivery approaches, undertaken over the past 20 plus years, and insights gained from interviews with five practitioner experts in this field who have had decades of experience of alliancing projects. More specifically, the insights are centred on how a realistic and reasonably achievable target (cost, time and other key result areas) and risk/uncertainty contingency is derived, and how the alliance process supports delivering the promise. It also explains the TAE process. The study explores the process of developing the TOC of Australian alliancing infrastructure projects. The central difference between an alliance approach and more traditional forms of project delivery is that alliancing enhances the ability of project delivery participants (including the project owner and facilities operator) to more comprehensively understand the project scope and requirements. This results in a more realistic TOC and an agreed well understood approach for dealing with unanticipated events, This study draws upon extensive alliancing practitioner experience, five experts were interviewed, and prior research into the alliancing approach spanning two decades. In summary, research results suggest that: 1. effective engineering construction cost/time outcomes result from: initial robust critical thinking about the project’s purpose; the project owner’s, and project delivery team’s, competence and expertise and their ability to successfully shape the project journey from plan to execution; developing a reasonable and effective TAE criteria and process to deal with unforeseeable surprises (critical thinking and analysis is a crucial feature); 2. this project journey is best undertaken by an integrated collaborative collection of teams that act as a united entity, through shared collective action with a well understood result in mind (concerted, purposeful collective action based on mutual understanding of what constitutes project success); 3. project participants skilfully develop a carefully considered contingency cost reserve that they effectively manage through project delivery (realistic and reasonable reserves); 4. both the project owner and delivery team rely on an effective support system and they demonstrate resilience to unexpected events by deploying effective coping mechanisms. Ideally, the project owner and the AT demonstrate strong resolve and ability to achieve successful project delivery (genuine organisational support); and 5. project key result area success is possible if either the project owner or delivery team is strong and is willing to, and can, raise the strength of a weaker partner. When both parties are weak then an alliancing approach tends to lead to a business-as-usual result (technical project delivery capability, expertise and leadership commitment strength). This report also provides insights and suggestions about the knowledge, skills, attributes and experience that are required to successfully deliver complex infrastructure projects using a collaborative integrated project delivery approach.