Anonymous #13

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #13

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 ARC should be much more open and transparent in terms of publishing data on the number, type, and value of applications received and outcomes (successful and otherwise) of applications by: (i) state; (ii) institution; (iii) FOR Code and disciplines; (iv) career stage of all applicants, especially lead CI; (v) gender; (vi) race/ethnicity/cultural background; and (vii) any other relevant factors. In addition, the details of scores/rankings/assessments of all applications should be provided to applicants and made publicly available.

There should be clear and strict limits on the number of ARC DPs applicants can hold at any one time, as well as time between successful applications. For example, applicants, whether they are listed as lead CI or a PI, of two successful ARC DPs should not be permitted to apply for a third grant until at least 2 years following the completion of both successful grants. Applicants who succeed in winning an initial ARC DP grant should be prevented from applying for another grant in the year immediately following the awarding of a grant - this is to allow space and opportunity for other applicants, especially mid-career and early career researchers, to enhance their chances of winning a grant without having to compete with more senior, predominantly male, academics who tend to dominate successful grants

Emeritus Professors should not be entitled to apply for an ARC DP and be listed as the lead CI and/or PI. There is a serious risk/perception, related to my first point, that the ARC is something of a "boys club" and that assessment of grants suffers from path dependency - i.e. those that have successfully obtained a ARC DP grant are deemed more worthy to hold a subsequent grant than those that have never held a grant.

There is a need for the ARC to equally value both "basic research" and "applied research". The National Interest Test and research priorities can arguable be seen as a means for the government to reduce it's overall funding commitments to the university sector. Also, the lower success rates in the DP programme compared to the LP programme signals that basic research is seen as secondary and not having a role to play in enhancing Australian society/economy as defined within the NIT.

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.

The overall strategic and operational governance of the ARC should be free from political intervention, save for the broad research and funding frameworks established by Government. This is to prevent any undue influence/interference with the peer review of applications for funding. This independence is particular important in light of the recent Ministerial interventions by the previous government who objected to a handful of applications on the basis that they did not meet the National Interest Test.

It will be important that this review counters any stealth policy/political measures by the current government to allow Ministerial interference/discretion via some kind of 'back door'.

Recent commentary that the ARC Board and peer review processes should see the inclusion of the business sector has potentially positive implications as well as negative ones. The ARC, even in its current form, suffers from perceptions that it has various inherent biases - e.g. more male than female applicants win grants; science-led grants relative to social-science grants are deemed to be more worthy of higher costs and thus generally receive larger grants.

The inclusion of any non-academic actors from the business community or any other sector in grant evaluation processes is likely to be fraught with vested interests dominating assessment processes. Relatedly, business sector actors may use their lobbying knowledge/skills/resources to influence the direction of the ARC from within, or from without via political channels in shaping the need for particular types of research and the research agenda.

One way forward in ensuring that the ARC is seen to be listening to other sectors that have an interest in academic research wold be to convene some kind of consultative committee(s) with industry peak bodies that cut across the private, public, NGO and community sectors.

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?

The college of experts should comprise a more fairer/equal distribution of representatives by state/university. I note, for example, that on the current college of experts the number of representatives from Western Australia is well below 12%, the proportionate share of the Australian population. There are individual universities in NSW for example that have more representatives than the whole of WA. Given such imbalances it is not surprising that NSW and Victoria-based universities do much better in winning grants than other smaller states such as WA and SA.

To ensure rigorous peer review processes the ARC need to devise and make public to at least the academic research community clear assessment rubrics for grant applications. Such rubrics should require assessors to provide both adequate qualitative feedback a well as quantitative assessment of things. There should be model examples (with minimal standards) as to what a peer review should look like. Applicants should received all qualitative/quantitative feedback/assessment on their applications. the ARC should review all assessments to ensure that reviewers and college of experts are making decisions on an informed basis and having reviewed the whole application not merely parts, albeit key parts.


Furthermore, guidance for assessors and college of experts members on how to assess/evaluation applications should be made publicly available. A more positive assessment/peer review culture needs to be nurtured by the ARC such that assessors should provide constructive feedback on grant applications rather than critical, personal and/or dismissive comments/evaluations.

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.

There should be no undue political interference in the peer review process of applications to the ARC.

The ARC should develop its own integrity testing model as part of the review process by assessors and the college of experts. Again, some kind of pro-forma rubric-based assessment form be developed that resonates with the fundamental principles of the NIT. This assessment form/process need only be a check-box method but should comprise a series of inter-related questions that allows assessors etc to indicate their position using a likert scale measurement.

In the event that any applications are deemed to be in some way problematic vis-a-vis the NIT then all such applications should be reviewed by a special committee of the ARC who would have the power to forward any application still deemed to be an issue to the Minister with their comments and recommedations as to what decisions might be taken.

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

The application forms for the ARC DP programme are excessive to say the least - how is it possible for an assessor with multiple application to review able to give them all due consideration.

Application forms for DPs should be no more than 10-12 pages max.

Submission received

01 December 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.