Anonymous #04

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #04

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 ARC should diminish the current excruciating hierarchy in academia. The majority of the grants are awarded to Full prof (level E). The grant outcomes should be proportional to different levels, not focused on only level Es. The composition of ARC college of experts should also reflect this.

ARC should also promote more individualized Discovery projects. The overwhelming push on group projects led to many games and politics in the team forming.

ARC is supposed to promote blue sky research. So evaluating the projects based on benefit and feasibility for Discovery projects seems contradictory.

ARC should also support the university on costs. This is to balance the university funding scheme. These days teaching pays for research. That is, a common saying in universities is that the ARC dollar is actually less than a dollar and requires 30 cents from teaching. If ARC wants to finish the teaching-market-advertizing war, the research should be fully supported, not partially.

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.

No. The college of experts should have more academics from levels B, C, and D. The ARC should also be more transparent. Non-funded projects should receive detailed feedback from the college of experts and detailed marks from the assessors.

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?

The current ARC format supports current ARC grant holders, like a closed circuit. More diversity in gender, seniority, and academic background is needed in ARC.

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.

Yes. The role of the college of experts is now on paper 50%. In practice, they have 100% of the power to fund or not fund a project. This is not a peer review process. Because the college of experts is not actually detailed experts in the field of projects. More weight should be given to detailed assessors who are real peers.

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

Less bureaucracy, less paperwork, more diversity.

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

The constant annual change of formatting of the grant is a burden. The overall review process is too lengthy. The projects that are supposed to start in each calendar year would be announced just weeks before the new year. The whole process can be done in 3 months. The current timing is like 8 months!!

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.

Diversity of seniority and gender in the college of experts
Faster peer review process
More transparent process by communicating individual marks of assessors and the college of experts
A dedicated single-person project category
Funding more blue sky research by not evaluating for feasibility and benefit
Funding research in full (salary + on cost)

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?

No need for ERA and EI. There are already so many rankings and evaluation systems that ARC does not need to invent a new one!

Submission received

19 November 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.