- Related consultation
- Submission received
-
Name (Individual/Organisation)
Susan Baker
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.
I believe the function of the ARC should involve supporting researchers as well as research per se. I propose that there are two ways in which the ARC currently administers grants that are counter to supporting researchers. The first relates to the rule that an applicant cannot be employed by a grant they are a named investigator on. The second relates to biases in the relative numbers of grants awarded by career stage and gender.
1. The premise of my argument is that success begets success, but getting one's first ARC grant as an EMCR is greatly hindered by the rule that a postdoc can't be listed on the grant if they are going to be employed by it. I believe that previous ARC grants are a key consideration when assessing applicant's ROPE sections, and the lack of opportunity for EMCRs to be named investigators because of ARC rules leads to systematic discrimination. DECRAs are the exception here, but I suspect applicants would be very unlikely to get a Future Fellowship without an existing ARC track record.
It seems quite common for senior academics to write ARC grants with specific postdocs in mind. Frequently these postdocs don't have an ongoing university position because there simply isn't enough money to support the incredibly talented pool of EMCRs. The postdoc cannot be a named CI on the application because of the current ARC rules. The postdoc will then be instrumental in running the research and publishing papers. Towards the end of the grant, the professor will apply for another ARC to keep them in continued employment, but again the postdoc can't be a listed investigator if they are to be employed. The cycle repeats. If the EMCRs had the chance to be a listed investigator on an application led by their professor, they could break out of this cycle and subsequently lead ARC applications in their own right.
My recommendation is to allow researchers without an ongoing university position to be named investigators on all ARC grants even if they may be subsequently employed by the grant. I do not believe that there are enough DECRAs and Future Fellowships to counter the impact of this on EMCRs careers.
2. The majority of Discovery grants are awarded to applications led by Level D/E researchers and to males. The bias relating to career stage suggests that consideration of ROPE sections does not, on average, fairly consider researcher's track records relative to career stage. One way to address this would be to have quotas for awarding a certain number of grants to EMCRs. Likewise, quotas for numbers awarded to females and gender diverse applicants could address that bias.
The NHMRC have instituted a rule to award half of Investigator grants to female applicants to overcome the previous bias of far more grants being awarded to male applicants. I am aware that the ARC awards grants to males/females relative to the number of applications, and in many disciplines there are currently far more male researchers at universities, particularly at higher academic levels. However, as per my argument above that success begets success, EMCRs who have had success at gaining ARC grants are more likely to be granted an ongoing position at a university and therefore transition to senior academic positions. I therefore believe that the ARC has a role in facilitating gender equity in Australian universities.
My recommendation is that the ARC should consider quotas for a minimum proportion of grants to be awarded to females and to EMCRs (Level A/B, Level C).
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?
I believe the function of the ARC should involve supporting researchers as well as research per se. I propose that there are two ways in which the ARC currently administers grants that are counter to supporting researchers. The first relates to the rule that an applicant cannot be employed by a grant they are a named investigator on. The second relates to biases in the relative numbers of grants awarded by career stage and gender.
1. The premise of my argument is that success begets success, but getting one's first ARC grant as an EMCR is greatly hindered by the rule that a postdoc can't be listed on the grant if they are going to be employed by it. I believe that previous ARC grants are a key consideration when assessing applicant's ROPE sections, and the lack of opportunity for EMCRs to be named investigators because of ARC rules leads to systematic discrimination. DECRAs are the exception here, but I suspect applicants would be very unlikely to get a Future Fellowship without an existing ARC track record.
It seems quite common for senior academics to write ARC grants with specific postdocs in mind. Frequently these postdocs don't have an ongoing university position because there simply isn't enough money to support the incredibly talented pool of EMCRs. The postdoc cannot be a named CI on the application because of the current ARC rules. The postdoc will then be instrumental in running the research and publishing papers. Towards the end of the grant, the professor will apply for another ARC to keep them in continued employment, but again the postdoc can't be a listed investigator if they are to be employed. The cycle repeats. If the EMCRs had the chance to be a listed investigator on an application led by their professor, they could break out of this cycle and subsequently lead ARC applications in their own right.
My recommendation is to allow researchers without an ongoing university position to be named investigators on all ARC grants even if they may be subsequently employed by the grant. I do not believe that there are enough DECRAs and Future Fellowships to counter the impact of this on EMCRs careers.
2. The majority of Discovery grants are awarded to applications led by Level D/E researchers and to males. The bias relating to career stage suggests that consideration of ROPE sections does not, on average, fairly consider researcher's track records relative to career stage. One way to address this would be to have quotas for awarding a certain number of grants to EMCRs. Likewise, quotas for numbers awarded to females and gender diverse applicants could address that bias.
The NHMRC have instituted a rule to award half of Investigator grants to female applicants to overcome the previous bias of far more grants being awarded to male applicants. I am aware that the ARC awards grants to males/females relative to the number of applications, and in many disciplines there are currently far more male researchers at universities, particularly at higher academic levels. However, as per my argument above that success begets success, EMCRs who have had success at gaining ARC grants are more likely to be granted an ongoing position at a university and therefore transition to senior academic positions. I therefore believe that the ARC has a role in facilitating gender equity in Australian universities.
My recommendation is that the ARC should consider quotas for a minimum proportion of grants to be awarded to females and to EMCRs (Level A/B, Level C).
Submission received
13 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.