Anonymous #31

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #31

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.

Fundamental research should not be 'shaped'. By definition, it's random and its applications cannot be foreseen at the time of discovery. If a research proposal is evaluated based on its future potential, then it already has to fit within our current concepts and understanding of the world - preventing any truly ground-breaking work. In the end, all you can do is support excellent people to do excellent things.

However, there is also much to be learned when taking discoveries and turning them into practical applications, and collaborations with industry can considerably increase the potential of a project. Nevertheless, Linkage grants should not subsidise R&D for companies, especially at the cost of fundamental research. In addition, there are sufficient examples that show the absolutely critical need of independent research, which can only be achieved through independent funding. A commercial partner should bring expertise/capabilities to the project that are necessary for its success. It might be worthwhile to ask if a more organic approach that can model all kinds of contributions (expertise, equipment, cash, access to customers, etc.) is better suited. Also, the reasons for research findings not making it into products are manifold, but from personal experience seem to have a large social component. Thus, establishing long-lasting (decades!), reliable relationships with industry partners might be more effective than occasional research grants.

Overall, the Australian research landscape is much more defined by the people who are funded, and less by the individual projects. A better analogy might be an ecosystem with many different players, which needs to be nurtured, not forced into a specific shape.

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.

Whatever structure is chosen, the governance body needs the power to protect the ARC and its core mission, to fund basic research, and limit the interference on its daily operations from the minister.

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?

Including more junior researchers into the decision making (e.g. Level C, D) (and paying them for their time!) could help to provide the ARC with more up-to-date, in-depth expertise on current research developments.

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 clearly outline which 'genuine and extraordinary circumstances' would overwrite the outcome of the peer-review process.

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 impact of research can only be evaluated in hindsight. Wouldn't the ERA outcomes not provide good arguments?

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

One very limiting factor is the fact that there is only one funding round per year, which causes significant problems for researchers planning a family, and especially for early career researchers applying for the even stricter DECRA fellowships. I wonder how many applications or rejoinders are being written by researchers on parental leave.

Also, the reporting requirements for CIs could be reduced, especially if they are industry or international partners.

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.

I find that sometimes the mindset here is to import 'superstars' from oversees. In the internationally leading research labs I have seen, leading scientists are made (and retained) there. Also, so much expertise spanning decades is available there through software engineers and staff scientists. Building a research ecosystem where young researchers can thrive would benefit the Australian research enterprise enormously.

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) Given all the limitations in the consultation paper and the impact of structural parameters, I don't think this is a worthwhile exercise.
b) Without increasing the administrative burden, there is little that can be done. Data-driven doesn't mean automatic, on the contrary, a lot of work would be needed to make sure it's bias free.
c) No, not without a functioning system.
d) Keeping up with best practice and global insights for research assessment should be integral part of the ARC.

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?

Since you are struggling in Q5 to find arguments to strengthen the public license for publicly funded research, I can't help but wonder how useful this capability really is. There are more pressing issues to address, and this doesn't seem to be a good avenue to spend even more time and money.

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?

Excellence in research starts with the students. Making Australian universities independent from tuition fees from mediocre students, such that excellent students can become excellent PhDs end eventually excellent researchers would foster excellent Australian research.

Submission received

12 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.