Dr Kathryn Kelly

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Dr Kathryn Kelly

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.

As an Early Career Researcher making their first Australian Research Council (ARC) applications in 2022 and 2023 (DECRA & Linkage respectively) I wanted to offer my support for the amendment of the ARC Act to include: a, b & c.

This is because I strongly value the current scope and mix of ARC funding programs available, and see great benefit in both Discovery and Linkage programs.

I am supportive of the ARC actively shaping the research landscape in Australia, as an independent body that responds to Government priorities and programs, but also one that is able to strongly advocate for the research sector and to ensure the most effective and appropriate investment of precious research funding.

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.

Although I am not experienced in such matters, as an active arts practitioner (dramaturg) and creative practitioner, I can vouch for the importance of a Board in overseeing 'independent', peer assessed funding decisions, as per the Australia Council of the Arts. I would support such a government mechanism for the ARC.

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?

This is outside the bounds of my expertise, but I would value the opportunity to understand the rationale for different approaches and for there, potentially, to be further consultation if there are a range of options offered.

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.

Yes, peer review is critical for a robust and independent decision-making process.

Submission received

24 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.