Giuseppe C. Tettamanzi

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Giuseppe C. Tettamanzi

Responses

Q1. How could the purpose in the ARC Act be revised to reflect the current and future role of the ARC?

For example, should the ARC Act be amended to specify in legislation:
(a) the scope of research funding supported by the ARC
(b) the balance of Discovery and Linkage research programs
(c) the role of the ARC in actively shaping the research landscape in Australia
(d) any other functions?

If so, what scope, functions and role?

If not, please suggest alternative ways to clarify and define these functions.

Not sure about this

Q2. Do you consider the current ARC governance model is adequate for the ARC to perform its functions?

If not, how could governance of the ARC be improved? For example, should the ARC Act be amended to incorporate a new governance model that establishes a Board on the model outlined in the consultation paper, or another model.

Please expand on your reasoning and/or provide alternative suggestions to enhance the governance, if you consider this to be important.

I am sure how well I know about the ARC but from the little I know I would suggest that the ARC needs a new and more modern governance model. Maybe the ARC could/should become more independent and maybe have a board made of leading international experts from all around the world.

I would also consider having more international leading scientists to have real weight in the selection of projects to be funded in case this is not yet applicable.

Q3. How could the Act be improved to ensure academic and research expertise is obtained and maintained to support the ARC?

How could this be done without the Act becoming overly prescriptive?

sorry I am not sure about this one

Q4. Should the ARC Act be amended to consolidate the pre-eminence or importance of peer review?

Please provide any specific suggestions you may have for amendment of the Act, and/or for non-legislative measures.

As said before more weight to the international leading researchers in each field may improve the international standing of the project that will be funded. Not sure if this is possible.

Q5. Please provide suggestions on how the ARC, researchers and universities can better preserve and strengthen the social licence for public funding of research?

I am not sure of what the exact rules currently are and I also agree with the fact that the benefit of ARC-funded research to Australian private and public companies should have great importance on the funding decisions. Maybe more abilities for Australian researchers to access funding with simpler funding rules could help.

Q6. What elements of ARC processes or practices create administrative burdens and/or duplication of effort for researchers, research offices and research partners?

Simpler application and faster response rate to each submission, The one-year cycle for most ARC grants is maybe too long.

Q7. What improvements could be made:

(a) to ARC processes to promote excellence, improve agility, and better facilitate globally collaborative research and partnerships while maintaining rigour, excellence and peer review at an international standard?

(b) to the ARC Act to give effect to these process improvements, or do you suggest other means?

Please include examples of success or best practice from other countries or communities if you have direct experience of these.

I think I briefly discussed this in previous sections.

Q8. With respect to ERA and EI:

(a) Do you believe there is a need for a highly rigorous, retrospective excellence and impact assessment exercise, particularly in the absence of a link to funding?

(b) What other evaluation measures or approaches (e.g. data driven approaches) could be deployed to inform research standards and future academic capability that are relevant to all disciplines, without increasing the administrative burden?

(c) Should the ARC Act be amended to reference a research quality, engagement and impact assessment function, however conducted?

(d) If so, should that reference include the function of developing new methods in research assessment and keeping up with best practice and global insights?

This is a very hard one to answer. I am not sure that ERA is able to capture completely all the results of good research funded by the ARC. I am not sure it is always about numbers. As said above this is hard to evaluate.

Q9. With respect to the ARC’s capability to evaluate research excellence and impact:

(a) How can the ARC best use its expertise and capability in evaluating the outcomes and benefits of research to demonstrate the ongoing value and excellence of Australian research in different disciplines and/or in response to perceived problems?

(b) What elements would be important so that such a capability could inform potential collaborators and end-users, share best practice, and identify national gaps and opportunities?

(c) Would a data-driven methodology assist in fulfilling this purpose?

in summary here what I see as the most important for ARC should be:

-output-benefit to the academic community in the nation and the to all the citizens; i.e. good research, state-of-the-art academic community which is able to perform the best possible research, good reputation of our academic community which in turn will attract the best in the world to come and work in Australia, good commercial products of the future from this research, good state-of-the-art technologies of the future etc
-prestige, rigours assessment of the results, rigours peer review etc etc are also really important.

Submission received

10 November 2022

Publishing statement

Yes, I would like my submission to be published and my name and/or the name of the organisation to be published alongside the submission. Your submission will need to meet government accessibility requirements.