University of New England

Name (Individual/Organisation)

University of New England

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. the scope of research funding supported by the ARC;
Maintaining flexibility and agility in what research should be funded is important as it enables priorities to change as opportunities or risks emerge. However, there is still a need to have some guardrail parameters in place so that a breadth of capability can be maintained and the ARC doesn’t become very narrow in scope, for example only funding basic research or only funding applied commercial research. Whether this balance of flexibility with guardrails can be achieved with or without an amendment to the ARC Act is a question to be considered in light of other possible policy approaches including some discussed below.

b. the balance of Discovery and Linkage research programs;
The answer to this question reflects that in 1a. flexibility is required to enable prioritisation, but the ratio of basic : applied or Discovery : Linkage should not become extreme such as approaching 100:0 or 0:100.

The ARC should have a mandate to support both basic and applied research; a mandate to support the full research endeavour; a mandate to support disciplinary breadth, but with the agility and flexibility to prioritise where funding is directed within the mandates.

c. the role of the ARC in actively shaping the research landscape in Australia; and/or
The ARC has a clear role in defining the Australian research landscape through the allocation of its funds and the important role it has in assessing excellence and impact. The ARC Act could reflect the importance of the scientific and research endeavour, whatever the discipline and could contain instruments that protect the ARC from undue political influence.

d. any other functions?
Extension of the ARC to other functions is not recommended. The ARC has a clear mandate in shaping the Australian research landscape through funding and excellence and impact assessment and should maintain this focus as Australia continues to strive for research excellence. This focus of the ARC will continue to strengthen Australia economically and culturally within a highly competitive global landscape.

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.

Do you consider the current ARC governance model is adequate for the ARC to perform its functions?

The current ARC governance model could be improved 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;

The UNE supports broader representation on the ARC Advisory Committee. Broader representation would be beneficial particularly from regional communities and their universities where research is a highly valued asset that enriches their economic and cultural outcomes and relevance.

The ARC Act does not need to be amended to reflect the governance model as this should be a matter for the Minister and the CEO of the ARC. Rather than modifying the ARC Act perhaps an ARC Charter of Governance and Operations be considered that supports the ARC Act.

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?

How could the Act be improved to ensure academic and research expertise is obtained and maintained to support the ARC?

The ARC’s role in defining the research landscape through allocation of funds, and assessment excellence is very important and foundational to the economic and social and environmental wellbeing of Australia. Therefore, the importance of this for the nation should be recognised, and reflected through the ARC’s mandate, its staffing profile and resourcing level.

The ARC makes important decisions about which research directions should be supported with public funds and which shouldn’t be, and gives advice to government on the quality and impact of research that then influences other funding and policy decisions. These important roles require access to highly skilled expert staff and advisors, and sufficient resourcing to ensure the integrity of the processes.

How could this be done without the Act becoming overly prescriptive?

An ARC Charter of Governance and Operations would support the ARC Act by providing more details on the appointment of Executive Directors and the College of Experts.

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.

An ARC Charter of Governance and Operations would be better suited to such endeavours.

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 role of research, including public funded research, in boosting Australia’s economic, environmental, social and health wellbeing is major. Research leads to the development of solutions to problems, new inventions, attraction of talent, direct and indirect employment, improvements in education and skills attainment, exports, new and more productive industries and a better-informed community. Much of this research, with these benefits is not fundable by the private sector in Australia and therefore it is important, and in many cases preferred that public funding is used for research. These benefits to society and the natural environment and economy from research could be more clearly captured and communicated to the general population. A coordinated, multi-stakeholder effort (including learned societies, peak bodies and industry associations involved in research) could assist in communicating the importance of publicly funded research to Australia.

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

Administrative processes that the ARC could review and improve are:

• The ARC appeals process for ineligible or unsuccessful applications. This process is currently slow and can take up to 12 months with no supplementary advice provided as to why the appeal was unsuccessful.
• The immense detail and subsequent time to complete personal profile details.
• Outputs in the Research Management System could be better managed. For example, duplicates are not identified easily.
• The process that determines the eligibility of an entire application is based on whether an investigator has been categorised correctly, for example, as a Partner Investigator instead of a Chief Investigator. This process causes considerable stress for researchers and university research staff.
• Streamlining of the ARC governance and reporting requirements. For example, there are obligations in agreements that the institution agrees to abide after which the ARC seeks an annual certification from the institution asking for further confirmation.
• The rollout of new funding schemes. New ARC funding schemes are welcome but can be rushed in some cases. Greater lead-in times and advanced notice of new schemes, including additions to the ARC calendar, would be highly regarded particularly by regional universities with limited resourcing.

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.

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?

As noted above, Australian universities are the drivers for research excellence, agility and collaboration. By better supporting the mission, social compact and strategies of universities through responsible and transparent funding, the ARC will be able to improve on such measures.

It is recommended to develop a more responsive and reasonable application process, for instance:
• Reducing the detail required in grant applications
• Establishing a multi-stage process similar to other competitive grants in which a short expression of interest (EOI) is provided and after review an invitation to provide an extended version is offered.
• Extended rejoinder process – increased opportunity to respond in full to issues raised by reviewers (increase length of rejoinder if needed).
• Transparent grant timeframes: Grant timeframes have been pushed back in the last few years and have not had a clear, transparent timeframe. This causes undue hardship on research staff, teams and so forth.
• Greater transparency and guidelines around variation when a grant is funded but significantly reduced in funding provided below that requested.
• A clear and consistent standard of recognition, and valuing, of Non-Traditional Research Outputs (NTRO) in a broad range of discipline areas – including Humanities and Social Sciences - and recognition of measures of impact relevant to NTROs.

Further, ARC’s engagement with universities, especially regional universities, is vital for facilitating excellent research and for aligning expectations. Visits from ARC Executive Directors to different universities is a good mechanism but it appears that more resourcing is needed in that space to ensure more widespread availability of Executive Directors.

b. to the ARC Act to give effect to these process improvements, or do you suggest other means?

An ARC Charter of Governance and Operations would be better suited to such endeavours.

Please include examples of success or best practice from other countries or communities if you have direct experience of these.

It is recommended that the policy, guidelines and funding rules of the European Research Council be consulted for evidence of good practice: https://erc.europa.eu/news-events/erc-publications

The ARC should consider the COST model to fund research communities, and ESF funding which until 2018 provided support for 25-40 Exploratory Workshops across all scientific domains (including arts, humanities and social sciences). These small, interactive output-oriented meetings were aimed at opening up new directions in research to explore emerging research fields with potential impact on new developments in science. The workshops, which usually lasted 1-3 days, had a wide participation from across Europe and involve mature scientists as well as young, independent researchers and scholars with leadership potential.

The Research Council of Norway uses panels to assess applications. Panels meet for three days. There is a Panel Chair and deputy for each application and they provide the scores and comments. Other panel members are observers and take the Chair and Deputy role when assigned. At the conclusion of the panels the reports and scores are submitted online while all panel members are in attendance. This reduces the individual time required and the desperate rush to do written reports of a certain magnitude.

Some joint ARC/NHMRC grant opportunities would be welcome. There are potential grant applications that fall mid-way between the ARC and NHMRC and struggle for funding. Bioengineering type grants fall into this category. These projects are either too health-related for the ARC or too ARC-like not to be funded by the NHMRC.

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?

There is a need for rigorous and retrospective assessment of research excellence and impact of public-funded research. This assessment is required for different purposes. For TEQSA a broad evaluation is likely to be needed for university accreditation; for government the assessment may be needed to understand cost-benefit of its budget decisions or to understand outcomes against core government priorities, including where funding is provided through government agencies or the NHMRC. Overall the assessment activity should be rigorous and robust and be led by a respected and skilled body. The ARC should maintain and be recognised and resourced for this central role in delivering expert and rigorous assessment of research impact and excellence.

Excellence and impact assessment provides the public with transparency over how their funds are being used and for what benefit. However, this should not be used to compare institutions. For example, the impact and benefit of a regional research agenda undertaken by a regional university may not have the critical mass to generate measurable impact as compared to a larger university. However, this should not negate the importance of the regional research and its impact at scale. Further, ERA gives no weight to emerging areas which is counter intuitive to institutions being able to establish their niche value-add in the higher education sector. ERA in its current form reinforces existing patterns and distributions of research effort and investment (across disciplines and institutions) rather than rewarding innovation and disruption.

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?

ERA in its current format has met its purpose and the format should be changed to have less imposition on institutions i.e. a data driven approach has merit for citation disciplines only. The Government could use HERDC and build on content in other reports such as NPILF reporting for industry engagement while introducing a more robust peer review assessment for humanities. TEQSA reporting requirements may need to be reviewed to reflect changes to ERA.

c. Should the ARC Act be amended to reference a research quality, engagement and impact assessment function, however conducted?

No but if it is decided to go down this path, Australia would need to either standardise measures across all disciplines or if not, peer review must be retained and improved. The purpose/objective of such a change to the Act would need to be predetermined and clearly articulated.

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?

Yes. Reference periods should be 2 years to minimise impost on institutions. In terms of methods for measuring research impact, the time frame for impact realisation and measurement varies greatly across fields and technologies and this should be taken into account in establishing methods and standards.

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?

The ARC should provide case studies as to where interdisciplinarity has solved a unique problem, and where research in one field has unexpectedly impacted practice or research in another.
Research is too often considered a series of breakthroughs rather than an incremental, piecemeal and difficult undertaking requiring dedication, commitment and high-level skill. The level of impact of a research output is also dependent on the investment and effort to translate the research output into a product or process; a task which is not always best driven by the researcher or university themselves.

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?

The ARC could consider the establishment of a clearing house for research outcomes that is written up in a way that supports the public understanding. Channels for distribution of these research outcomes could include podcasts, and engagement with the public broadcasters. Furthermore, information about where these outcomes have subsequently led to local companies, products, and systems that are in use by Australians?

c. would a data-driven methodology assist in fulfilling this purpose?

More narration and storytelling is needed rather than data-driven methodology. Australia is one of the few countries where volume of output is an indicator of quality.

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?

• Recognise increased globalisation and the importance of research beyond the ‘national interest’ to the international field. This could be achieved by creating closer ties between the ARC and other national and international funding bodies that play the same role.

• Regional universities provide significant social, economic and cultural benefit to the regions through research that often has global impact. The regional universities need a mechanism to access ARC funds that acknowledges the challenges that regional universities and their regions face. This could be achieved through a stronger weighting in the ARC funding assessment for regional place-based, end-user relevant research.

• Regional Universities occupy a unique place in the research landscape, their research is typically strongly aligned and engaged with end-users and with communities that are often less advantaged than those in major cities. HDR candidates are typically the ‘engine room’ of this research, so greater emphasis and weighting for these attributes should be made in the assessment processes.

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.