Anonymous #44

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #44

Responses

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

Communicate the massive economic dividend of both pure and applied research

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

NIT is not necessary

The grant applications are too long and obfuscates the core information including the science of the grant and the researcher track record and outputs. Considers shortening ROPEs, only include key papers and contributions as track record.

Budget justification is over the top. It should be a click menu of items. eg post doc and costing, lab supplies for different lab classes.

Compliance nitpicking is over the top.

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.

Allow international partners to receive some funding. Allow international partners to have their track record assessed in accordance with their domestic funding agencies. Reformatting pubs and track record for ARC is a massive barrier and waste of time.

Consider block funding like Canadian system based on output. I would prefer less money with higher certainty (and I have a high success rate).

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) No. Systems are just gamed. Focus on the research based on impact to the discipline and society using a narrative.
b) Data driven approaches should be confidential and run by the ARC internally so they are not gamed by universities.
c) yes
d) No

Submission received

14 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.