Anonymous #27

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #27

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 Act should specifically state that the scope of research funding should balance the need for fundamental/basic research and applied/translational research.

Some of Australia's most successfull applied research came from basic research. For example, research in radio astronomy led to wireless LAN (WiFi) and Dr. Cathy Foley's research on high temperature superconducting Josephson junction has led to the LANDTEM sensor which has improved mineral deposit detection.

It's therefore imperetive to fund basic research (which may have no clear application today) to provide the groundword for future innovations and technologies.

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 agree that a board should be established that is appointed by and can advocate for the research community. The board should have the power to appoint the ARC CEO, who should have some prior experience in the research sector.

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 Act should enshrine the importance on peer review as the only method for evaluating grant applications. This means the ARC should have no veto power over decisions made by peer review and the college of experts.

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

Lack of a defined timeline for grant outcome releases.

Constant changes to grant rules.

Long applications (compared to other countries grant systems).

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.

To improve agility and excellence efforts should be made to fund more younger researchers and help them takes risks while establishing their career.

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. No.
b. None.
c. No.
d. No.

Any of these will add to administrative burden and lower value for money.

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. Disciplines should be consulted to understand the best way to evaluate their research outcomes.
b.
c. Yes but see above.

Submission received

09 December 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.