Australian higher education institutions have focused on attrition rates with increased vigour in light of the introduction of a new student success metric tied to attrition rates. Online programs have been of particular concern given persistently high attrition rates, being roughly double that of programs delivered either face-to-face or in blended online/face-to-face mode. This study considers attrition theory as it has evolved for the online environment with particular reference to the role of external risk factors such as employment, and internal factors, such as social integration. The study presents data from a 2018 survey of students enrolled in a fully online law school program at an Australian university (n = 203). The data reveals a cohort with an array of external attrition risk factors, who are not only time poor but experience a strong sense of isolation. The study contributes to the attrition literature by providing insights into effective educational design and delivery aimed at student retention. Implications for practice or policy Online program convenors ought to consider the attrition risk factors at issue in their cohort before designing comprehensive retention initiatives and plans. Instructors ought to consider external attrition factors, such as family and employment demands, when selecting and designing student assessments. Instructors ought to realistically appraise retention initiatives, such as social media initiatives, to address internal risk factors of perceived isolation and institutional commitment.

In a post‐COVID‐19 world, innovation stimuli and well‐aligned policies will assume even greater importance as various sectors seek to recover lost ground and to generate new opportunities. Collaborative partnering in innovation research and development (R&D) between private industry and higher education has increasingly emerged over the last decade as a leading key performance indicator for government policy development, and higher education research funding allocations. Recalibration of R&D‐related policies and incentivisation will require careful consideration, with constructive lessons to be learned from outcomes over the last four decades. This paper presents findings from a new study of stakeholder perceptions as to the National Innovation and Science Agenda's impact on innovation partnerships, and synthesises outcomes from two prior studies. It then examines a newly proposed innovation policy framework, Stimulating Business Investment in Innovation (SBII), set against a background of the shifting mix of paradigms that have comprised Australian innovation policy over the last 40 years. It argues that, following the SBII, any proposed change of policy direction will face significant challenges in its implementation, requiring a fully committed and comprehensive embrace by Government of the new APS engagement framework and greater levels of deliberative democracy.

No abstract