Anonymous #22

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #22

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.

My impression is that there could be a benefit in specifying the balance of Discovery and Linkage research programmes so as to protect the Discovery funding which is so fundamentally important to a healthy and sophisticated research fund and should not be impacted by the government of the day who might decide that Discovery research is not as important as industry-focused, or rather Linkage, research.

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 suggestion to reinstate an ARC Board with contemporary modifications seems on the face of it to be a good recommendation, particularly in terms of paying close attention to the make-up of the Board to ensure that it reflects the breadth of HASS and STEM disciplines. I would suggest that you might even consider the chair to be someone with a HASS background.

It is also wise to suggest retaining the role of the Board and for it to be an active Board in that they are responsible for the development of priorities, policies and strategies.

It is vital to get a comprehensive representation of experienced researchers for the College of Experts. They should not all sit in Go8 or research intensive universities as there are many high-callibre and experienced researchers who sit in small and regional universities who will bring a very different perspective than Go8 researchers. The College of Experts should be drawn from across Australia (there are five universities alone in WA).

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?

I might suggest that the ARC make use of national Disciplinary Associations like the Australian Anthropology Society, the Development Studies Association Australia, and so on in addition to the College of Experts for the Selection Advisory Committee or the like.

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.

I do not see any circumstances that require the Minister to intervene in the judgement of the ARC. The ARC and its processes should be respected and it is not for the Minister of the day to overrule those decisions.

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

The ones that concern me greatly are already listed in the list that the ARC has already received feedback on.

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.

A small grants programme that can support researchers, particularly early career and mid-career researchers and specifically in disciplines where little in the way of large-scale equipment is required but funding to support time or research assistance is required, as is common in the HASS disciplines. As pointed out by others in the public sphere, such a scheme would act as seeding for researchers to work towards larger ARC grant schemes like the Linkage or Discovery.

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?

a) No I do not. My experience of the ERA, is that universities game the system. They find ways to recode outputs to build an area of 'excellence' and really to what ends. It's a lot of work (or gaming) that is disingenuous and as pointed out in the consultation paper, the ERA and EI have driven institutions to be hypercompetitive, which is counterproductive to good research that should be collaborative. Wouldn't it be better to capture authentic data that indicates how research has been impactful in the real world or meaningfully engaged communities, industry, research collaborators, and students?

b) case studies with testimonials from stakeholders who engaged with the research process or outcomes.

c) I don't have an opinion on this.

d) as above.

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?

I don't think a data-driven methodology is the way to go.

Q10. Having regard to the Review’s Terms of Reference, the ARC Act itself, the function, structure and operation of the ARC, and the current and potential role of the ARC in fostering excellent Australian research of global significance, do you have any other comments or suggestions?

Again I suggest the ARC consider implementing a small grants programme similar to what we see in the USA and the UK. A small seed funds programme would support researchers (ECRS in particular) in disciplines that do not require large amounts of funding to undertake their research but they do require funding to buy out teaching or contract a research assistant and the like.

Submission received

06 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.