Anonymous #32

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #32

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.

It would be good to create a small grants scheme (with, perhaps, maximum awards of $20,000) with a streamlined application procedure for low-cost research.

Linkage Projects are important, but the Morrison government had begun to overemphasise the needs of industry and manufacturing. Space should always be reserved for 'blue sky' research projects whose benefits are intellectual and evaluated in terms of excellence in addition to engagement and impact.

If the ERA evaluation rounds are revived, the data should be gathered and organised automatically from publicly accessible sources--ERA evaluations should not involve significant administrative effort in which universities attempt to 'game the system' or engage in 'horsetrading' among categories in which they prefer to do better.

The Engagement and Impact 2024 exercise should be cancelled, BUT statements about projects' Engagement and Impact should be part of all research program applications. In other words, getting researchers to pay closer consideration to E&I matters should be a process of culture change built into application procedures, but should not be keyed to a time-intensive, resource-intensive evaluation exercise.

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.

I believe the governance model is adequate, but the process of applying to participate in processes--to join the College of Experts, or serve on ERA panels (if they return)--should be simplified and streamlined to encourage more applications and minimise the sense of wasted time for unsuccessful applicants.

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

The ERA and E&I evaluation rounds should either be eliminated or simplified to remove 'gaming the system' approaches. Excellence in research, and constructive engagement and impact, can be emphasised in all application processes without constructing large and time-intensive evaluation exercises around them.

The process of nominating to join the College of Experts, and to join any ARC evaluation panels, should be simplified. I have heard researchers balk at nominating for the College of Experts because the process of applying is seen as onerous.

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?

No, I do not believe there is a need for retrospective exercises in these areas. I think that qualities of excellence, engagement, and impact should be required to be addressed in applications.

Submission received

12 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.