The University of Adelaide

Name (Individual/Organisation)

The University of Adelaide

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 University of Adelaide advocates for the ARC Act to encompass a broad purpose that emphasises knowledge generation in all disciplines except medical research. The future role of the ARC should be to balance the support of pure fundamental, strategic fundamental and applied research within a national system. The ARC should also have oversight of a broader range of research funded by Government in the national interest, to ensure it is able to drive the required balance.

The ARC should be more than just an agency for University research; it should have reach across all Departments concerned with Universities, Science and Industry. The Act should state this.

A world-class research environment requires flexibility to pivot and respond to current events and challenges while maintaining support for research that may span more than one political cycle (e.g. Centres of Excellence). The specified scope in the Act should be sufficiently adaptable for the ARC to pivot quickly while being guided but not overly constrained. The Act should protect the ARC from short-term, political swings of focus that can damage the longer-term underpinnings of the Australian research sector.

Research discoveries across the disciplines can be opportunistic and unexpected and are critical to the research ecosystem. Acknowledging that approximately 60% of the ARC’s funding is distributed through the Discovery Program and that this is the primary source of funding for fundamental research (STEM and HASS) in Australia, the Act should specify that the ARC will fund basic fundamental research that generates new knowledge that might also provide a foundation for engagement, translation or adoption.

It is suggested that the ARC Act refers to research outcomes of excellence and impact which are the lead-indicators of research that is then translated, applied or adopted. There is a current perception and risk that the ARC is becoming a vehicle for commercialisation. Although a national imperative for translation and commercialisation is important and relevant, it should not displace the necessary precursors of research excellence and impact. The ARC should be the carriage of the latter and not the former.

It should also be considered whether or not the ARC Act be routinely reviewed (it was last reviewed in 2001).

Role of the ARC in shaping the research landscape
It should be acknowledged that the proportion of GDP invested in research in Australia is low compared to other OECD countries. The indirect costs of research are largely met by universities, and the current level of funding provided through the Research Block Grant allocation is insufficient to drive research at scale. The University of Adelaide suggests that an important role for the ARC could be as a two-way broker between government, universities and other research providers to advocate for higher levels of research funding to drive research excellence. In addition, the ARC could leverage its broker role to shape the way multi-disciplinary research is funded in Australia, and develop mechanisms for trans-national collaborative funding.

The ARC could also play a role in shaping the research landscape in Australia by identifying specific gaps and weaknesses in research capability, and potentially respond with new programs, although this will require additional funding. However, recognising the need to develop research capacity and capability in key sovereign areas, the strength of the Australian research sector has always stemmed from the bottom-up generation of ideas, and this must be maintained and then better leveraged.

Government priorities have tended to focus on later technology readiness levels and industry-based activities. The ARC could increase the awareness of research opportunities within Government departments and agencies by promoting new and emerging research areas in which Australia has considerable talent. They could also identify significant collaborative opportunities that might exist with funding bodies equivalent to the ARC e.g. NSF, UK Research and Innovation Funding Councils.

Clearly the alignment between the ARC and the proposed Australian Strategic Research Agency (ASRA) will need to be understood and considered, to ensure there is not further complexity and fragmentation introduced into the national system. We note that the original intention of ASRA was to fund research in breakthrough technologies that enhance national security and increase Australia’s involvement in technology sharing and research and development through the AUKUS agreement.

The University of Adelaide suggests the ARC can help shape the researcher talent pipeline – or the research workforce of the future. This could potentially be stated in the Act. To promote greater agility in the system, the funding mechanism for HDR students should be varied so that it is not lagged several years behind PhD student completion through the RTP mechanism. The ARC could consider the funding of strategic HDR stipends that are awarded independently of universities (through the usual RTP allocation). An example of this is the current NHMRC Postgraduate Scholarships scheme. ARC HDR postgraduate awards could also incorporate an internship component. In this way, the ARC could contribute to an enhanced HDR experience. As for other new initiatives, this would require new funding rather than reallocation of the already-constrained ARC budget.

We note that the current fellowship schemes do not provide a long-term pipeline to nurture research talent. For example, if a researcher is awarded a Future Fellowship early on in their career, there are no further ARC-funded schemes (other than Laureate Fellowships) that support research-only activity. Therefore, highly talented researchers need to secure on-going employment in organisations that will require them to allocate time to other activities such as teaching. To support the researcher talent pipeline, the ARC could consider allowing individual researchers to hold more than one Future Fellowship at different levels. The top researchers in Australia should be able to see that they have a runway for continued research in the national interest, while they remain productive and at the cutting edge of research.

Another role for the ARC in shaping the research landscape and promoting innovation that could be commercialised is to advocate for a Future Fund similar to the MRFF – with targeted calls for funding – to enable a more agile approach to the industry interface similar to that achieved at the clinical interface by the MRFF (which allows for researcher ‘push’ into application).

Should the ARC Act be amended to specify in legislation any other functions?
The ARC Act could be amended to specify an intent to support and drive international research collaboration through joint activities of benefit to Australia.
The interface with ASRA must be considered in amending the Act.

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 University of Adelaide considers that an independent ARC Board of the model described in Section 2 of the consultation paper, with an independent Chair, would be an appropriate mechanism to provide high-level oversight and guidance to the ARC, as well as valuable support for the Chief Executive Officer. Assuming it included strong sector representation, an independent ARC Board could also provide a more equitable and transparent governance model.

As mentioned in the consultation paper, Board members should have “a combination of skills, experience and perspectives relevant to the functions of the ARC” (p.7). This is an important principle. The Board would be strengthened by inclusion of members from both STEM and HASS disciplines who are recognised by their peers for their research excellence having impact; these could be drawn from the learned Australian Academies.

In addition, the role of the Board should be limited to oversight and guidance of the ARC, and not extended to oversight of individual funding decisions. To maintain trust and fairness in the research funding system, funding decisions must continue to be based on excellence and peer review and be free of political influence. It is noted that the current Act indicates that high-quality recommendations will be made by the ARC to the Minister in relation to which research proposals should receive financial assistance, but that “the Minister is not entitled to direct the ARC (or the Board) to recommend that a particular proposal should, or should not, be approved as deserving financial assistance”. Directions given by the Minister should be of a general nature only, similar to that of the NHMRC. If a Future Fund is created, the role of the Board and Minister in directing that Future Fund via the ARC will require consideration.

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?

We propose that the ARC Act should include a statement that enshrines academic expertise in the review of proposals and in the decision-making process to determine which proposals are funded. In other words, the University of Adelaide subscribes to the Haldane principle - that decisions on individual research proposals are best taken by researchers themselves through peer review.

These decisions do, however, need oversight by the ARC to ensure a well-functioning process, particularly in areas having a small peer review base in a relatively small country. We advocate for a greater level of in-house ARC expertise, comprising for example members of the learned academies. The ARC must be more than just an administration arm, it must be able to understand, drive and moderate the peer review process with expertise that is truly independent of potential bias within the peer reviewer base and the political system.

The current ARC Act makes very little mention of the staff required to assist the ARC to deliver on its primary purpose. For example, there is no mention of the intended role of the Executive Directors or the College of Experts. The Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Directors within the ARC should have a track record of research excellence and relevant experience in academia to ensure that academic expertise is considered and incorporated within the activities of the Council.

We suggest that a different employment model be considered for the Executive Directors to enable them to work remotely for up to 50% of their time – that will ensure a broader recruitment base.

Our preference is that the ARC Act should not allow the relevant Minister to interfere in and/or directly change the decisions made on the advice of expert assessors and members of the ARC College of Experts, when moderated appropriately by the ARC itself.

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.

The University of Adelaide is of the strong view that the ARC Act needs to be amended to consolidate the importance of peer review and that directions of the Minister should be of a general nature only (as mentioned above). Peer review is vitally important in ensuring the integrity of the assessment process.

The degree of influence the ARC Act currently gives to the Minister is quite unusual from an international perspective, which identifies public funding organisations as independent, self-governing bodies. Although we recognise the importance of ministerial accountability to Parliament, allowing the relevant Minister to interfere with decisions made by academic experts is not in line with the international gold-standard approach to peer review of government funded research proposals.

If it were to be decided that the relevant Minister should continue to have the ability to intervene as per the current legislation, this should be done in a transparent manner where full and public explanations are provided. Any ministerial deviations from advice received from the ARC, following peer review processes, should require a detailed rationale that is made publicly available. This should detail the way in which the proposed proposal exhibited significant procedural concerns or similar, or had content which was deemed to be clearly in conflict with the national interest. Ideally this rationale should be subject to review by and advice from the ARC before the decisions are finalised, again suggesting the ARC should have a higher level of in-house expertise to ensure the Minister is properly advised.

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 University of Adelaide strongly supports the need to strengthen the social licence for public funding for research. The role of the National Interest Test (NIT) as a tool to explain how public-funded research provides benefit to the average taxpayer is not, in principle, unreasonable. However, the use and implementation of the NIT as a threshold test after the peer review process had concluded has led to considerable confusion and deviation from the original intent.

We propose that the narrative could be about the research engagement and impact – simply re-define the NIT as the Research Engagement and Impact Statement (REIS).

A NIT style of statement could remain a useful way to summarise potential benefits (construed broadly to include scientific, economic, social, cultural, environmental benefits) for public consumption. However, it should be framed in terms of the overall goals of the program in question, which in the case of the Discovery Program includes contributions to knowledge. The ARC and the government should take seriously the importance of contributions to knowledge in any outward-facing information provided to the public, and not appear to be dismissive of these types of research projects, including during Ministerial review processes and subsequent publicity following funding announcements. There is clear benefit that can result from deepening public understanding of research, and the ARC could further this with revised guidelines for the NIT or similar outward-facing communication strategies.

These types of efforts would need to be accompanied by more refined communication from the ARC and the Minister about the value of funded projects including but particularly those that might not appear to non-experts to be relevant or be good value for money. Promoting the need for Australia to have international prominence in many fields of research as part of our national reputation and the close link of reputation (especially in non-applied fields) to important economic drivers such as the strength and quality of our tertiary education sector, international student markets, and abilities to collaborate with high-quality international partners. These sorts of values are not difficult to communicate and can be directly linked to governmental/ARC investments even in non-applied or fundamental research projects.

More generally, one of the central roles that the ARC and University can play to better preserve and strengthen the social licence for public funding of research is to provide a critical eye to government, business and society broadly. Academics and much of the public expect a university to step into that role, and its willingness to do this is viewed as a measure of the health of the sector and of democracy more widely. The recent relationship between the sector, the Government and business has severely restricted the capacity of universities to enact this role and this is ultimately the long-term driver in the decline of the sector’s social license to operate.

For example, the Linkage Program is potentially a source of risk to public confidence in science due to possible or perceived pressure for a researcher to deliver a positive result for the industry partner organisation. This especially applies for many staff in the research sector who are on precarious, short-term contracts who may rely on the partner for continued funding. As part of the application process, researchers and industry partners should be asked to clearly articulate the ways in which they will support the independence of the research, address conflicts of interest, and ensure the validity and robustness of results.

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

The University of Adelaide has highlighted a number of practices that are overly restrictive and/or burdensome.

a) The overall culture of the ARC is very risk adverse. For example, it approves funding for a specific project, contracts the research institution to deliver that project, but still has to approve changes made to the project. A higher, more strategic level of oversight, with responsibility for project delivery against the intent of the project placed in the hands of the research institution, would be a more efficient approach requiring less effort from all concerned.

b) The timelines for review and decision are also problematic, especially when researchers are dependent on the outcomes of grant applications for their on-going employment. It is clear that the recent delays to funding announcements, changes to grant rules and deadlines without notice, and related recent concerns must be prevented in the future to keep faith amongst those in the university sector in the ARC’s processes. In the context of this review, we acknowledge that this has been addressed in part by the Minister’s recent commitments to grant rounds being published and delivered on predetermined timeframes, and encourage further such improvements.

c) The ARC schemes provide relatively small amounts of funding compared to international competitors. The scope and scale of the application appears disproportionate to the funding request.

To partly address this issue, the Review Panel might consider alternative approaches and what information is actually required in an application for it to be assessed as worthy for funding. Many funding bodies now utilise an initial expression of interest process and then shortlist before requiring a full application. This is a strategy worth considering as it would allow a quicker turnaround and less time invested by academics and universities in lengthy grants that are unlikely to be competitive.

d) The amount of information required in the Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE) section of a grant application could be reduced significantly. For example, an applicant’s publication track record could be assessed through a link to a publicly-available Google Scholar profile, and a list of top 10 career publications as part of the application. An additional two pages of other information related to career and track record should be sufficient, acknowledging that it will still be important for researchers to indicate, perhaps on an additional page, any career breaks.

For Discovery projects, the focus should be on the proposed research and its possible outcomes of impact and benefit. The amount of personal information is unnecessary. An approach equivalent to the NHMRC Ideas grant scheme should be considered – a two-page CV and top 10 relevant publications. There could also be a section on the team itself – how is the team going to work together to deliver outcomes – this would address feasibility.

e) The budget in grants is overly cumbersome and has to be entered manually on a line-by-line basis. Feasibility should be judged by the team involved in the project and their ability to work together, as well as the research infrastructure in place. It should be appropriate to simplify the budget process.

For example, in the NHMRC Ideas scheme, the personnel are specified by level and FTE in drop down boxes, and then direct research costs are identified as blocks of funding, with a specified maximum per annum. There could be a direction that 5% direct research costs p.a. can be allocated for travel, conferences and dissemination of research outcomes. Budget pages could be reduced to a minimum – with a focus on the budget justification.

f) It would be appropriate and timely to review Australia’s Science and Research Priorities to make them up-to-date but agile, and to permit them to capture more effectively the range of research priorities aligned with current needs. This should include those associated with fundamental research and priorities beyond those associated with the natural sciences, such as cultural and social priorities.

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.

The University of Adelaide contends that process improvements should not be specified in the ARC Act. This should be left to operational management within the ARC to maintain the flexibility required.

Regarding potential areas that could be considered for process improvement, we make the following suggestions.

a) It is pleasing to see that the ARC is committed to ensuring future grant rounds are delivered to a pre-determined time frame. The dates for the call for each scheme and the announcement of outcomes should occur on a fixed date each year. The Government should not be able to randomly change the dates of either the call for proposals or release of funding rules within a 12-month period. Adherence to a fixed funding schedule will enable organisations to provide better support to researchers to improve the quality of applications. For contract-funded researchers, a fixed funding schedule will provide more certainty in terms of career planning and alternative employment strategies should they not be successful in any specific grant round. Many other countries operate to fixed timelines.

b) For some schemes that involve multiple partners (Linkage, ITRP, ITTC), it may be more efficient to commence with a short expression of interest, with a simplified Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence section and short project description only. This could be reviewed by ARC College members in a shorter time frame and then only competitive applications would be invited to a full peer reviewed application with a longer project description and budget. Such an approach is used with success by the New Zealand Marsden Grant process, although admittedly they have far fewer applications. Some refinement to the Laureate Fellowship scheme could also be considered because so few applicants are successful. This would reduce the workload and administrative burden for the ARC and universities, and would provide academics with a very quick response on whether or not their application was deemed competitive.

c) For the larger schemes, as with ARC Centres of Excellence, it might be worth considering interviews, especially for the Laureate applicants. This might be useful for the larger ITRP and ITTC to gauge the genuine involvement of the industry partners (refer to response to Q5, last paragraph).

d) Reintroduction of the international partner awards within Discovery Projects is recommended to stimulate meaningful international collaborations. Although these costs can be covered within the standard Discovery budget, having this as a separate item would emphasise the importance to the international research community that the ARC highly values these types of collaborations. This might indirectly improve the engagement of international researchers to the peer review process.

e) It would be useful to foster cross-disciplinary research that builds a dialogue between the sciences and humanities and social sciences. We suggest that the ARC considers grant funding initiatives through the Discovery scheme that target a genuine cross-disciplinary approach.

Interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaborations could also be encouraged through ‘sandpit’ schemes. These have been successfully used in the United States (e.g. NIH and NSF) and elsewhere to fund opportunities for academics to devise novel projects on themes of shared interests and relevant to pressing concerns (e.g. COVID-19, climate change). They tend to promote innovative projects while eliminating the long timelines often associated with larger-scale research.

f) Fundamental changes to the review process are required to create a healthy peer review environment. The mechanism to select assessors, the way grants are scored, and recognition of assessors all need review. Guided by high level feedback from members of the ARC College of Experts, the review process (at the College level) is cumbersome. There are currently significant challenges in obtaining equitable numbers of peer reviewers for proposals, especially international reviewers. The use of letters A-E and the lack of meaningful comments is unhelpful for all concerned. The inability of ARC College members to select appropriate assessors who are not in the database is problematic, so grants are sent to inappropriate assessors who are unlikely to review grants. A greater level and depth of in-house expertise within the ARC would increase capacity for oversight and intervention towards a more robust outcome.

A healthy peer review environment involves more transparency and trust. For example, all non-College assessors should be provided with line-of-sight to all assessments for a specific grant. Poor and/or inappropriate assessors’ comments should be “called out” by external assessors before sent to an applicant. This process was used by the NHMRC in their Ideas scheme this year, and provided a mechanism to eliminate poor reviews by other assessors.

g) One other area that could be considered for process improvement is more than one deadline in a calendar year for Discovery projects and Fellowships, other than Laureates. This would allow resubmission of top ranked grants much earlier.

It is worth noting that, while some changes may reduce burden in some areas, they would increase in other areas. For example, while introducing expression of interest rounds to grants would reduce the burden on academics to produce very lengthy applications, it would increase the burden on research offices to submit more applications, albeit tempered somewhat by these applications being shorter.

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) 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?
As noted in the discussion paper, ERA has been successful in raising the quality of Australian research, suggesting that a continued driver of broad excellence may have some value. A research quality and impact assessment exercise also has value in demonstrating to the government and people of Australia that the research produced is high quality, has real world impacts, and particularly is worth investing in. ERA and EI provide an opportunity to collate and assess the impact of research across the Australian research ecosystem and this provides important data for making decisions about the real and valued impact of the fundamental research that occurs. ERA also has value in demonstrating and promoting excellence in areas that receive less publicly funded support such as the arts and humanities.

It is worth noting, however, that ERA, as it is currently positioned, is highly burdensome and has underlying flaws in that it relies disproportionately on citation rates and journal impact factors, which are not unique robust measures of research quality or impact.

We also see the clear need to recognise and value excellence in research impact. As with research excellence, this type of measure helps to foster public but also industry and stakeholder confidence, contributes to national and international research reputation, and allows universities to engage in evidence-driven planning about research impact.

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?
Any new measures need to provide a fair and transparent approach, as well as one that respects the differences between disciplines. A revised ERA/EI should consider how it can assess multi-and trans-disciplinary research and encourage broader collaboration across disciplines. Disciplines that are practice based and/or produce non-traditional research outputs suffer under a data driven approach. Data driven approaches in these areas can also have the impact of prioritising popular outputs over high quality outputs.

Data driven metrics have also been demonstrated to consistently amplify the gender and diversity inequality that is evidence by the stark contrast between men and women receiving grant funding from the ARC. Methods that work to correct for these biases in the data need to be carefully considered.

As mentioned above, citations are a problematic measure in some fields of research. Newer and/or smaller fields, especially in the early stages, are massively disadvantaged. Moreover, an emphasis on publication in general has led to significant academic integrity issues as people try to ensure their careers in a competitive job market. The ARC must consider the impacts of its accountability practices on behaviour and the direction of research when revising ERA and EI.

The time window that maximises the validity of the assessments is likely to vary discipline by discipline. For example, outputs within machine learning and computer sciences have immediate impacts and a noticeably short half-life in terms of citations, other disciplines within the humanities or engineering may have much longer half-lives for citation impacts. There is some evidence in engineering that translational impact is correlated with a longer citation half-life, and with non-traditional citation patterns (e.g. patents), rather than merely with impact factor driven by short term citation patterns.

Basic research that provides revolutionary innovative ideas should not be directly compared to applied research – the indications for success are too different to be considered valid in application to both. In that regard there is a need to consider how these diverse types of research are assessed. Methodological diversity may increase the validity of the inferences made in the assessment process. Thus, a metric-based approach to engagement seems particularly limited. In addition to this, universities are poorly placed to gather evidence of engagement. The end users of the research should be consulted and given the opportunity to indicate how the research that has been funded has had an impact. Furthermore, it may be that there are less-tangible outcomes that have resulted from the research funded by the ARC – as well as the unfunded on-going research in universities. This needs to be captured and will require expert assessment – particularly when considering fundamental discoveries that have had major paradigm shifting impacts on fields.

Automated data-driven approaches might permit appropriate analyses in some of the citation-based FoRs but will not capture the most relevant information in peer-reviewed FoRs and even some citation-based FoRs. This would be particularly problematic for non-traditional research outputs, FoRs containing large numbers of non-journal article outputs and Indigenous FoRs.

There are a few possibilities that might allow rigorous and appropriate assessment while reducing administrative burden as compared to the current ERA processes: one is to follow a system similar to the UK REF, which although flawed in some ways did minimise administrative burden due to focusing on a discrete subset of outputs through selection of the top four outputs by each researcher in the given period, which allows excellence to be highlighted and then evaluated. An alternative would be to have an annual data collection (similar to the old HERDC system) and a more streamlined review process (say in peer-reviewed FoRs equal to a smaller percentage of the total unit of assessment, perhaps more highly structured in terms of how the assessment occurs). Either of these options could be combined with the proposal to have assessment occur only at the 2-digit level for smaller FoRs which have unified disciplinary structures and perhaps in bundles underneath some of the more heterogenous and voluminous 2-digit FoRs.

One of the biggest challenges for Australia was noted in the consultation paper: “Both ERA and EI are also framed around the performance of individual institutions and drive institutional comparisons and competition in ways that often lead to counter-productive duplication of expertise”. Australia is too small to continue encouraging competition between universities, particularly in the engagement and impact space. The focus could usefully shift from a competitive, comparative assessment to a national assessment and tracking of improvement over time.

Best practices in research impact assessment rely on the use of case studies or similar, and on longer timelines than those currently utilised in the EI scheme as proposed. An alternative approach might be to make impact assessment non-obligatory but to give recognition to those case studies submitted which fulfil the desired attributes at the highest level, similar to teaching awards. Although it is highly desirable that research planning considers impact, not all research or researchers during any one assessment period may have appropriate case studies. Changing to a system that recognises the highest quality case studies as models also would permit judgments about excellence in impact not to be made institution-by-institution but across the sector, which more accurately reflects the nature of the teams that typically participate in impactful projects. It could also permit more refined evaluation of the outcomes of ARC-funded research far beyond what is currently available in final reports and published outputs.

Overall, the University considers that any mechanism adopted should shift the national conversation to be more about the celebration of genuine research impact, in the collective national interest. We should celebrate and hold high those staff and institutions who are able to convert public funding into public good, even when those outcomes are discrete events that may take a decade or more to mature.

c) Should the ARC Act be amended to reference a research quality, engagement and impact assessment function, however conducted?
Yes, these components are key to what the ARC, does not only in the formal assessment processes but also through its award of grant funding.

However, it should not just be about assessment, it should be about facilitating and shaping collaborative outcomes, and celebrating success. Assessment is a process toward a purpose and, as noted above, could be embedded into individual grants rather than at the university level to facilitate behavioural change, as well as happen at the national level to ensure we monitor progress as a collective.

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?
This sector and the ARC are all about being at the cutting edge of knowledge and innovation. How can anyone, let alone a national research council, be credible if they do not aspire to lead best practice by drawing on global insights?

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?

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?
It is the University’s view that this is not an ideal use of the ARC’s resources. A body such as the ARC should utilise their expertise and capability to facilitate the sector to improve, meaning that insights and best practice would be meaningfully developed and shared in collaboration with the sector; not as a stand-alone advisor. It should be less on what the ARC “can do for you” and more about how the ARC and the various players within Higher Education and beyond can work together to improve the system. Of course, the role of the ARC in shaping the research ecosystem remains to be framed and they may well be best placed to take a leading role in this aspect.

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?
In relation to end-users, the primary element would be joint effort. This would require buy-in from end-user representative bodies and higher education, and their collective proactive engagement. It is unclear what role the ARC could play here unless as mentioned previously as a broker.

Experience in the UK suggests that research end users, including industry, will not take advantage of government resources that provide information on quality and engagement. For example, the UK launched the Knowledge Exchange Framework (www.kef.ac.uk) to evaluate and showcase universities’ external engagement in research, with the expectation that industry and other end-users would view the information available through the website to determine who their best partner would be. The greatest users of the website were from universities. Industry and other external use formed a very small percentage of total visits to the site.

c) Would a data-driven methodology assist in fulfilling this purpose?
No. Case studies are a much better medium for public transmission of data (see UK KEF example above). Data-driven methodologies will actually make transmission of information harder.

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?

1. Consideration should be given to the merits of the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) approach to supporting research and knowledge exchange at higher education institutions in England. It operates through 7 disciplinary research councils, Research England, and the UK’s innovation agency, Innovate UK. Each Council champions the creativity and vibrancy of disciplines and sector-specific priorities, and is responsible for allocation of research funding.

2. There is an opportunity for the ARC to consider a post-COVID recovery scheme to allow Early Career Researchers be named Chief Investigators on ARC Discovery grants and ARC Linkage grants, and derive their salary from these grants.

Early Career Researchers (ECRs) are currently disincentivised from being named as Chief Investigators (CIs) on ARC Discovery and Linkage grants. This is mainly because they require a salary from sources other than the grant itself. The current DP and LP guidelines state that “grant funds cannot be used for salaries and/or on-costs and/or HDR stipends for CIs or PIs, in whole or in part”.

Through recent experiences on the ARC College, college members have shared two particular observations: i) a large proportion of grants are awarded to Professors as the first named Chief Investigator, and ii) ECRs were named as Associate Investigators and played integral roles on the project, but could not be credited with Chief Investigator status because the grant funded their salary (as a postdoctoral fellow or research fellow).

In an Australian context, the perception is that a team of senior researchers is considered the ideal group composition to be successfully awarded an ARC Discovery project grant. This is in contrast to the NHMRC Ideas grant scheme, which supports teams of ECRs and senior researchers. Unlike the ARC, the NHMRC allows grant funds to be used for the salaries and/or on-costs for CIs. Accepting that the majority of ECRs are on short-term (1-2 year) contracts, most would not meet eligibility requirements to be a named CI for the duration for an ARC DP or Linkage grant because of their employment status. This limits their opportunities to build their own academic track record and be competitive for on-going academic appointments or fellowships.

Previously, the ARC allowed grants to fund the salaries of named CIs as Australian Postdoctoral Fellows Industry (APDIs) on Linkage grants. This enabled ECRs to be at the front and centre of research grants in which they played a substantial role, and was seen to have a substantial positive impact on their careers. We believe it is now time to consider a change to the guidelines to take a more contemporary approach and allow grant funds to be used for the salaries of named ECR CIs who provide significant conceptual input to grants and will conduct a substantial part of the project.

This proposed change to the guidelines would not increase the overall budget of individual ARC DP or Linkage grants because the postdoctoral salary is included as part of that budget. In the case of the award of an APDI, the same salary would instead be allocated to the named APDI.

It will be important to define “ECR” and eligibility to be considered for the equivalent of an APDI. This will likely be in the range of up to 8 years post-PhD, allowing for career interruptions. We accept that the track record of the ECR as a named CI would also become part of the overall “team” track record assessment. This should not be a mechanism for senior academics to buy out teaching time so should not be an option for academics who are continuing positions. But it could be used to provide ECRs with up to 8 years funding to build their own track records as independent researchers. The argument might be that the Fellowship scheme does this, but there are only 100 FTs per annum for example. There are many more highly talented ECRs who miss out but still do excellent research.

We suggest that this proposal be considered as a post-pandemic recovery scheme to build the researcher talent pipeline and allow ECRs to be recognised for their grant ideas and significant contributions.

3. The University of Adelaide values the introduction of the new Industry Fellowship schemes, and notes the extremely high number of submissions across the Go8 Universities. We are of the view that new schemes and initiatives should be properly funded, rather than resourced from within the existing ARC budget. Fundamental research including in smaller disciplines (e.g. HASS) will be negatively impacted if the ARC funding for fundamental research, which is already highly constrained, is diluted through new imperatives.

Submission received

14 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.