Research Software Capability in Australia - Michelle Barker and Markus Buchhorn

This resource first appeared in issue #114 on 19 Mar 2022 and has tags Technical Leadership: Software Development, Strategy: Advocacy Resources

Survey reveals 6000+ people develop and maintain vital research software for Australian research - Jo Savill, Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC)
Research Software Capability in Australia - Michelle Barker and Markus Buchhorn

Interesting results from a late-2021 ARDC survey on research software capability, of 70 managers of Australian research computing and data groups. Results were scaled to try to give an estimate of all-of-Australia numbers.

The article by Savill gives an overview, and the full report by Barker and Buchhorn is interesting reading. Some key findings taken from the article and the report:

About 6,000 people (and about 2,500 FTEs) working in roles that provide software development.
That’s about 1 FTE worth of software developer (broadly defined) effort per 40 researchers.
46% of respondents perceived that the skills of their research software capability they manage were adequate.
78% of respondents answered “yes” or “maybe” to a question on whether these personnel had access to mechanisms to improve their skills. (LJD: That’s not super encouraging. Free Coursera courses is a mechanism to improve skills…)
80 different job titles were listed as used for these staff. (LJD: 80!!!!)
Only 33% of these staff have permanent employment.
56% of researchers did not feel there was adequate research software capability in their area - rising to 60% of those with a focus on an entire discipline and 75% for those with a whole-of-University focus. (LJD: These numbers are consistent with sub-disciplines that are heavy software users and probably contributors disproportionately returning surveys, which I think is what I’d expect.)

These numbers - and the problems they suggest - seem plausible to me for Canada, as well. The reliance on unfunded and part-time software development and maintenance is a real issue, as is the lack of any kind of coherent career track (80 job titles!!). The good news is that 43% of respondents had plans to recruit more people into those roles over the next 1-3 years.

Do these proportions seem about right in your neck of the woods (be that geography or discipline?). Do things look like they’re getting better or worse?