Alistair Paterson

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Alistair Paterson

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.

I support the proposal that the legislation locks in
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

There could also be reference to commitment to fund excellence across all disciplinary fields.

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.

I support the proposal that

An ARC Board appointed by the Minister, might comprise:
• a chair who is a prominent member of the Australian community held in high regard by the research community; * and
• four to six other members with a combination of skills, experience and perspectives relevant to the functions of the ARC (e.g. spectrum of ARC disciplines, Indigenous Australian leadership, research administration and leadership, research evaluation, and industry members with experience collaborating with universities); and
• the ARC CEO and Secretary of the Department or their delegates in attendance.

I would also add that there should be a clear statement regarding the independence of that Board in its ability to decide what research should be funded and to define and limit Ministerial 'cherrypicking' and interference along political lines.

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 Act should "include reference to expertise and the pre-eminence of academic excellence and peer review, through better definition of the role, coverage and characteristics 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.

There is a perception that the Minister has become too involved in decision making through culling projects. The NIT is widely considered to be a tool for decision making re funding AFTER the advice of the expert structures of the ARC.

The academic, Australian and International community need o know that Ministerial intervention only would ever occur in genuine and extraordinary circumstances.

I support that in such circumstances "they would be obliged to notify that intervention and give reasons in detail to the Parliament, in addition to their obligations under guidelines, senate orders and the provisions of any other legislation."

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 NIT should be removed or rebadged in the Benefit sections of the application.

It sends a message that pure research needs to understand its outcome, which is contrary to the research method.

It also sends a message about national interests, rather then benefits for wider humanity and communities of interest and need.

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

The application process should be simplified where possible, or tiered whereby by successful grants provide detailed budgets after initial approval (with final approval requiring a suitable budget).

The practice of cutting a portion of the requested budget is frustrating and leads to attempts to build in elements which can be sacrificed. Just fund the requested amount -- even though this means less funded projects.

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.

1. There should be scope for training of HDR students with industry partners.
2. As per the United Kingdom, research intensive non-university institution such as certain leading museums should be able to supervise HDR students in their own right. The British Museum for example runs a very effective program of HDR training, which is leading to job ready graduates of a higher competency that would be achieved through standard university training.
3. Following the last point, non-university research institutions should be able to compete in their own right with universities if they are suitably research intensive.
4. The practice of referring to chief investigators and partner investigators is confusing, rather they should be Lead Investigators and Investigators.
5. Where there are recognised problems that require dedicated research projects, then these should be identified by the ARC advisory structures and specific rounds of FUNDING committed to them. For example in United Kingdom the scheme titled towards National Collection specifically exists to fund projects for several years after which that program will close.

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?

I do believe that Research needs to be excellent, and that if it were not then this is something we should impact upon the ability of a researcher to receive funds in future. However I do feel that there may be the potential to be too focused on impact, especially in pure research. If the ARC advusory structures feel that specific researcher, or research team, were deserving of funding then it could be unnecessary to waste too many resources on attempting to capture whether that work with sufficiently impactful.

I would not think it necessary to describe in the act any research quality and impact assessment functions. The fact that the Act describes that the ARC exists to support the research landscape in Australia necessary requires some form of understanding of the quality of the research.

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?

Overall as a beneficiary of the support of the ARC I feel that it provides incredible support for Australian research.

That said, in conversation with colleagues internationally, it is clear that we could much more clearly explain to the Australian people the importance of research to a national economy and place in the wider world. The amount of funds spent on research should be increased. And the significant contribution made by the research sector to Australia should be celebrated. A program of better communicating the importance of research and research institutions to the wider public should be considered.

Submission received

01 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.