Anonymous #02

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #02

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.

The real problem from an academic perspective is the budget envelope was made small, particularly by the last government - 80% or more of proposals fail to get funded. Some of these are highly credible research projects or could be funded with some revisions.
There are implications.
For research, it needs to be made clear at university level that grants are inputs, not outputs. Not everybody needs them. This is a job for university management not the ARC of course. But you can prosper as an academic without them.
Example. I have never succeeded with a proposal in 20 years and have effectively given up. I fund research from my own pocket or from small pots of money from teaching. My research is on the impacts of mining on indigenous people, community development, and also drought adaptation - all of great national interest. But my government does not choose me for funding. Why should people like me bother devoting a month of each year to preparing proposals that are not funded, when my university says that research COSTS money, and teaching is what brings it in?
The ARC needs to address this sort of situation. Seek out researchers, offer more rapid response schemes on targeted issues, reduce the MASSIVE paperwork needed for an application [particularly around budgets - just put an envelope figure in the proposal, calculate details later if you are successful]. In the social sciences we do not need much more than travel/accommodation and occasionally some research salaries, and so I find the ARC pretty irrelevant to everyday university activities. This has been pointed out, for example by Prof Brian Martin.

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.

Maybe some grassroots early academics on board? As happens on key university committees? Also, plenty of non-STEM people please.

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.

Peer review is a great thing. People like me that have never received a grant, however, are never given the opportunity to review.

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

See earlier comments. Take more risks. More targeted small schemes.

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

The budget calculations.

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 have experience from Austria, Sweden, Norway, and UK. I have reviewed also for the USA [NSF] and France. 1) a hit rate for success needs to be over 20%. Otherwise it is hard to justify applying. 2) co-fund. For example in the Pacific, co-fund with France and the US schemes. 3) We have special schemes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders, but other non-Australian Indigenous people are largely excluded from those. Broaden this. 4) Fund research that is in the national interest but against the government. For example on climate movements, anti-mining, pro-Treaty.
The UK's recent round of GCRF monies pulled from the international development budget and gave a huge injection of funding to international work. Not all of it was in the 'national interest' at all, and benefited the groups and regions being researched more. Good idea.

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?

I teach social impact assessment. ARC needs a 'social licence to operate' from universities and researchers, a grassroots - originated process. That would be a start. It would probably identify the limited funding, the total reliance of Aus academics on this one funding source outside of medical and health sciences, and the extreme difficulty in gaining ARC support in some areas [ social sciences would be one]. International funders could some in to lend an eyes in that process.
On individual evaluation of grants and what they are used for, don't follow the UK where a brief annual report is all that is required, and hardly any comments are made back to the grant holder. ARC needs 'appreciative evaluation of what it has funded.

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?

Not quite the right section for this, but OA publication of all grant outputs is welcome.

Submission received

14 November 2022

Publishing statement

Yes, I would like my submission to be published but my and/or the organisation's details kept anonymous. Your submission will need to meet government accessibility requirements.