Western Sydney University

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Western Sydney University

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.

A re-balancing of funding across basic and applied research is recommended. In the interest of knowledge generation, and seeding a pipeline of innovation, it is important to invest in basic research. For example, the current allocations and success rates, across Linkage and Discovery programs indicates an imbalance in favour of applied research. Current ARC Linkage Project success rates sit at around 30% while ARC Discovery Project success rates have dropped to a low of 18%. Funds from the ARCLP scheme could be redirected back into the DP scheme to ensure equity of success across the two primary schemes targeted. An Advisory Board ought to have a monitoring role in this regard.

There is concern that the prioritisation of national manufacturing in the Linkage programs (see for example: https://www.arc.gov.au/news-publications/media/media-releases/new-direction-australian-research-council-help-secure-australias-recovery and Modern Manufacturing Initiative and National Manufacturing Priorities) are too narrowly focussed. They especially marginalise much of the socially relevant, industry valued research that occurs in HASS disciplines. For example, research on social housing would not be favoured under these priorities.

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 role and responsibilities of the ARC CEO be consistent with the NHMRC. The Minister may retain the power to hire/dismiss the ARC CEO, but must provide reasons for termination (consistent with NHMRC Act).
A legislated Advisory Board could provide advice to the ARC and CEO on the balance between funding of pure and applied research, and on the national priorities, the use of language (‘industry’ v partners), and outcomes of schemes by equity groups. An Advisory Board should pay careful attention to its own constitution by gender and include Indigenous representation. If end-users are involved in the Board, then those representatives should go beyond industry representatives and include other end-users such as NGOs for example. However, the Board must be retain a substantial researcher representation, so as to be able to offer academic oversight.

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?

In assessments of quality there is scope to enhance the use of citation analysis in disciplines where the peer review publication thresholds are sufficient (e.g. more than one-third of publications). However, in some disciplines international FWCI benchmarks, or Scimago quartiles, are not appropriate indicators of quality research.
A consistent issue with the ARC is that women are under-represented on ARC Panels. This is an ongoing gender equity issue that has implications at the level of assessment and decision making and serves to maintain the gender skew in research funding outcomes.

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 autonomy and integrity of the ARC to recommend with authority on research projects for funding must be reinforced. The ARC Act should articulate a commitment to the Haldane principles that separate decisions of government and peer assessment around research funding. Such a practice will bring the ARC into alignment with peak research funding bodies, including the European Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council (UK), the British Academy, the National Research Council of Canada, the Austrian Research Promotion Agency, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Icelandic Centre for Research, the Singapore Agency for Science, Technology and Research, the German Research Foundation and the National Research Foundation of South Africa.

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 National Interest Test (NIT) has been an administrative addition to ARC schemes that has resulted in further delay in funding outcomes, duplication of the ‘Benefit’ section in all applications, and is a wasteful use of already stretched resources in universities and the ARC. In reality, there is no one public or national interest, but many different and competing interests that research might serve. The National Benefit criteria within the funding schemes are sufficient tests of the national interest of research proposals.
A defensible use of a NIT could be to help with public consumption of successful grants. A statement could be used as a mechanism for ley audience consumption, used to ‘sell the project’, and demonstrate the importance of research, and to bring public legitimacy to the funding schemes. To date, the NITs have not been used in this way. If retained, NITs should be developed only for successful grants.

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 Foreign Interference Taskforce (UFIT) has been hailed as a successful collaboration between Government and universities. The UFIT is largely a university-lead response to the risks associated with Foreign Arrangements. National security issues and associated due diligence are being well managed by Australia universities. The ARC should remove the conflict of interest statements in ARC application proformas. The ARC and its review panels are not in a position to transparently scrutinise or monitor heck those responses.

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 ARC should allocate DECRA and other seed funding direct to universities to allocate. This will reduce the sector-wide administrative burden. This could involve the reintroduction of the ARC Small Grants scheme. The scheme could be targeted toward early and mid-career researchers, who have become increasingly marginalised and unsuccessful in applications in Discovery Project and Linkage Project schemes. Senior researchers at Level E and D could be excluded from submitting applications to a revitalised Small Grants scheme. Also, the ARC could reintroduce other schemes that had substantial benefit for ECRs and MCRs, such as network funding.

The ARC could contemplate a two stage submission process into all schemes, starting with an initial short summary with project description, research team and budget. Following a rapid review, select projects would be invited for full submission in a second round. Such a process will ensure a much better use of resources, higher success rates, faster turnaround and reduce what are currently high levels of disaffection in the academic community with ARC schemes on the whole.

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 ARC Act does not specifically empower the ARC with undertaking assessment exercises on research quality and impact. The ARC should advise on quality and impact, but it might not be the ideal body to run such exercises. A less costly, more frequent and transparent process of assessment is required. This may or not be undertaken by the ARC, but it requires proper resourcing and strong consultation with the sector.

In relation to ERA, there is scope to enhance the use of citation analysis in disciplines where the peer review publication thresholds are sufficient (e.g. more than one-third of publications). But the movement towards being ‘data driven’ in ERA does raise concerns for some disciplines. While we acknowledge that peer review is a substantial drain on resources, any alternative must be sensitive to disciplinary differences, as there are very diverse citation and publishing practices.

At present the EI exercise does not provide a measure, but largely generates excellent vignettes in the form of case studies. The ARC should take a leadership role in using these materials to demonstrate to the public the importance of Australian research. The ARC should also provide leadership to the sector in encouraging deeper attention to research translation and impact.

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?

We note that funding levels are not addressed by the current Review Terms of Reference. However, we find it necessary to highlight some basic disparities in levels of funding for research and development in Australia compared to other countries. We recommend the ARC undertake routine lobbying for funding that benchmarks gross domestic spending on research and development against similarly ‘middle-power’ OECD countries. The latest OECD select country data on gross domestic spending on R&D (2019) show Australia spending 1.797% of GDP on R&D, while Austria spends 3.130%, Belgium 3.159%, Canada 1.746%, Finland 2.800%, France 2.192%, Germany 3.186%, Israel 5.140%, South Korea 4.627%, Singapore 1.891%, Switzerland 3.147% and Taiwan 3.493%. Overall, Australia’s investment in research and development is substantially lower than most countries tabled in this brief comparison. Many competitor countries in the region have dramatically increased levels of investment in R&D. Unless Australia increases investment, it is set to fall further behind the majority of OECD countries and faces the likely prospect of declining competitiveness in the commercialisation activities that follow on from investment in R&D (OECD 2022).

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.