Dr Evan Smith

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Dr Evan Smith

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 overall amount of funding for the ARC should be increased significantly. Within this overall funding, there should be more funding dedicated to early career and precariously employed researchers. The current DECRA scheme pools together early career scholars who are in continuing employment and those in fixed-term or precarious (casual) employment. There are structural advantages for those in continuing employment who apply for a DECRA.

It is my opinion that the DECRA should be split into at least two seperate funding pools.
1) One for early career scholars with continuing employment
2) One for early career scholars without continuing employment

This would present more opportunities for those without continuing employment to have at least 3 years of secure and funded employment.

The second pool could also bit further revised to allow those without continuing employment, but are more than 5 years out from their PhD, to also apply. Anecdotally, there is an increasing number of precarious employed scholars who can no longer apply for a DECRA, but who are not yet considered 'competitive' for a Future Fellowship.

As the DECRA only allows for a scholar to apply as an individual, there could be further revision of the Discovery Project funding to allow for precariously employed scholars to apply as a CI and request a salary. The choice for many scholars is either choose to be a CI which brings prestige but no salary, or to be named in a DP as a researcher which can be funded (usually on a fractional basis). Choosing the second option is problematic as the scholar can't point to an ARC track record without being a CI.

In a time when precarity in higher education employment is rising, the limited opportunities that the ARC offers means that many excellent scholars cannot apply for funding, which means that the research potential in Australia is lessened.

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?

Academic and research expertise could be maintained by streamlining the application and review process. The amount of paperwork generated by an ARC application is onerous on those applying and also on those who have to review these applications, which can often run over 100 pages.

A streamlined application process, either by having an initial EOI round like the Marsden fellowships in New Zealand or shorter forms like the AHRC/ESRC in Britain, would help maintain academic and research expertise for the ARC.

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

The ARC needs to remove the National Interest Test and its use by government to determine whether an application is funded or not, especially as benefit is a significant part of all ARC applications. The NIT was used as part of a 'culture war' against higher education, especially the humanities and critical social sciences, by the previous Coalition government and was used to deny funding for recommended projects. The removal of the NIT in its entirety and the deference of the government to the expertise of those who have reviewed applications is needed.

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

As mentioned before, the application process for an ARC application is onerous and too much time is spent on extensive applications, particularly when the chance to being funded is too low.

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?

The ARC needs to acknowledge that 'pure' research is valuable and worthy of funding, particularly in the humanities and critical social sciences, where there is less obvious industry links. Applications from humanities scholars have been held up by politicians and press as unworthy of funding and ridiculed in the past, with the recent vetos by previous Education Ministers being a prime example of this. There should be a dedicated amount of ARC funding for 'pure' research, especially outside of the STEM disciplines, to ensure that research without overt industry benefits or links can be conducted.

Submission received

07 December 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.