Bond University

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Bond 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.

Bond University supports the continuation of research funding that is directed to support the discovery of new knowledge and expansion of research capacity, as well as forging linkages between researchers, industry, and the community. Striking the right balance as not to restrain the discovery of new knowledges that may have broader application is important for the prosperity of the nation.

Presently the Objects of the Act are to fund, recommend, provide advice to the Minister. Bond University supports extending the purpose of the ARC Act similarly to the purpose defined in the ARC Strategy 2022-2025 which includes translation, impact and integrity.

The NHMRC Act provides for good model that could be applied to the ARC Act.

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.

Bond University recommends the establishment of an ARC Board/Council that is accountable to the Minister. The Board/Council should be established with the appropriate skills matrix that ensure the functions and accountabilities of the ARC are well governed. The Board/Council should include representatives from diverse backgrounds including public/private research institutions, industry and community representatives. Potentially, like the NHMRC Council’s State CHO representatives, an ARC Board/Council could include State Government Chief Scientist and or equivalent positions that could assist in the translation and assessment of the impact of research.

The Board/Council should be responsible for the CEO’s appointment and performance. To ensure effective governance, the Chair of the Board/Council should be independent of any direct benefit of the ARC itself.

While acknowledging the research and research management credentials of the CEO, it is equally important that the CEO have a breadth of other necessary skills including strong strategic and team leadership, communication, and contemporary technology and data skills.

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?

Bond University supports the peer review assessment process.

Prescribing the role of assessors, and terms of function of the Selection Committees should be included in the Act. Incorporating these considerations into the Act can work towards protecting the integrity of the decision-making process.

It is important to ensure there is diversity in the assessment panels, and that all institution types/disciplines/regions are represented appropriately in decision making processes.

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.

Bond University supports the view that the ARC should uphold the principles of peer-review and academic merit throughout the grant review and awarding process, and that the process should be distinct from political influence or opinion. Only in exceptional circumstances (for example for public security or safety purposes), ministerial interventions may be appropriate and only if the rationale for such intervention is made public.

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

Bond University supports the principle that strengthening the social licence for public funding is of critical importance. However, we believe that the National Interest Test (NIT), even with its proposed modifications, are overly burdensome and do not necessarily demonstrate the societal benefits to the general public. Moving the responsibility back to the University to certify NIT statements should improve the process going forward. However, there is the potential risk that excellent research applications are overlooked because the NIT plain English explanations do not meet a prescribed formulaic expectation. In some disciplines it is difficult if not impossible to prepare 200 word plain English explanations without using technical and complex terms. Potentially, to minimise efficiency of the process, rewriting of these NITs should only be asked of those applications that have progressed to be awarded.

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

The RMS system could be dramatically improved to enhance usability for researchers and for research offices.

The current ARC processes do not easily handle non-standard situations such as the early ending of the grant, the return of funds, and transfers to other administrating organisations. Even with several clear communications from the research office to the ARC these matters are not easy to resolve and often take months to rectify.

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.

Universities spend considerable resources preparing research applications with a reducing success rate. Potentially implementing a ‘gating’ system of approvals and increasing the amount of material necessary to progress through the gates could be one way to improve the efficiency of the process. This system could be applied more easily to smaller grants rather than larger grants.

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?

Over a decade has passed since the first ERA, and the commercial tools and the sophistication of universities to monitor the quality and rigour of their own research has reached a point of maturity, such that there is little need for the ARC to undertake this exercise. The ERA process is resource intensive, and it is unclear as to who values the resultant outcomes.

Universities should be accountable for their own assessment of quality and for making decisions that align with their specific Missions and Strategies. Nevertheless, it may be appropriate for a five yearly Sector Research health check as a way of providing assurances of the overall quality of the Australian Research System.

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?

A data driven approach risks the exclusion of the non-citation disciplines. However, potentially drawing on other existing data sources and analysing these as part of an assurance of research standards and future capability may be useful.

A considerable amount of effort was put into the Indigenous studies Research Codes in preparation for the next ERA round which will now not occur. It is important for this information to be regularised as part of acknowledging research activity in this important area going forward.

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

While Bond supports the pursuit of quality, engagement and impact we do not think the Act should be amended to incorporate these assessment functions until an efficient and effective means for operationalising assessments (reducing administrative burden on institutions) can be agreed by the sector.

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?

Bond supports an open and transparent research system that recognises the full cost of research and research training. Bond also supports the realisation of the full potential of university research through translation and commercialisation. While only a small institution, Bond delivers high quality research in areas aligned to our core strengths. A 2022 measure of innovation weighted for size (the proportion of successful entrepreneurs among graduates in the last decade), Bond was ranked second, marginally behind the University of New South Wales.

While public institutions subsidise research from their Commonwealth Grant, Bond’s research activity is limited by funds to develop and seed research activity as the current Research Block Grant distributes funding on lag indicators, benefiting those institutions that can invest upfront in scale. Not unlike the student experience and teaching quality, a reconsideration of research funding that benefits small high-quality institutions should also be considered as part of the Accord, and also in consideration of how the ARC funds research.

Submission received

09 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.