Anonymous #26

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #26

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 Act should be revised in such a way that the CEO of the ARC has the power to make grant announcements to a set schedule (rather than having to wait on the minister to approve). The ARC is extremely unusual world-wide in NOT having such a set up.

Blue-sky research, "discovery" research, is essential, promoted and recognised in virtually every developed country and yet Australia has gone backwards in this area. It's truely strange and embarrassing to Australian science internationally. Additional funding is needed for the Discovery program or, at the very least, the balance between Discovery and Linkage should be addressed.

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

The ROPE section is way too long, and some elements of it are also redundant with the grant application itself. There are so many good models overseas that we can emulate.

For Linkage grants there really needs to be two types of ROPES, one for the CIs and one for the PIs. The one for the PIs should be much shorter, perhaps just 1 page.

The trouble with the current system is that our research offices spend an enormous amount of time worrying about ARC compliance around the ROPE and margins and complex rules around salaries - this Is largely time wasted in my opinion.

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?

The ERA is a huge time and financial investment for universities. All universities have figured out ways to game the system as best they can - and so, big surprise, many are "above world standard" in almost everything.

This same information can be gathered with metrics and it also can then be transparent.

Submission received

08 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.