Anonymous #33

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #33

Responses

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

I think it would be beneficial for the ARC to realize that the entire grant proposal and funding system of the ARC is a significant administrative burden, especially for Early Career Researchers, and many of the ARC practices increase this administrative burden without need or benefit.

For context, I am an Australian researcher in my 6th year post-PhD. My PhD was conferred in America, my first postdoctoral position in Canada, and my remaining time as a post-PhD researcher has been spent in Australia. After investing significant time in first learning how to write, and subsequently writing, two different DECRA applications I have been unsuccessful on my second and final attempt. This brings me to my first point:

1. ARC grant proposals are unlike anything you train for in academia.

New skills required: My academic writing training comes from a much larger international community focussed on writing papers and proposals for researchers within my field as the primary reviewers. The Australian research community is so small that the level of detail and scientific language that I would normally use is simply not viable to apply; rather, the primary evaluation becomes a question of “can I concisely summarise my research ideas in a compelling way to a general scientific audience”, rather than a specific scientific evaluation by peers in the field.

Limited examples: The resources to learn how to write a compelling ARC proposal are extremely limited. The published ARC handbooks are unhelpful as they are a strict description of the rules. Examples of previously successful proposals are not available unless you a) know a previously successful awardee that is prepared to share their application with you or b) ask the University administrative system through which you are applying; they may have a bank of them, albeit a bank that you can only read in a secure location. Neither of these examples give a broad nor convenient view conducive to learning these new skills.

Inherent biases: Given the only available access to previous successful grant proposals is through established academic and institutional connections, this results in an inherent nepotistic bias, with those established in Australian environments willing to share performing better than those without. This difference is due simply to access to experience and resources, rather than the merits of the proposal.

Proposed solution: A simple way to increase the available resources for refinement of grant proposal writing is the public release of all successful grant applications, after a set period of time, so that everyone has access this learning opportunity. This has potential to decrease some administrative load as the release of a full proposal will necessarily include National Interest Test and Project Summary information, reducing their necessity. This also addresses points asked in Q7 which allows researchers more resources to improve their skills (promoting excellence), and knowledge of changes in successful grant writing styles (improve agility). Further, this addresses points asked in Q5, allowing the general public to read specific details of funded Australian research, rather than a curated ~200 word statement. Such a short statement comes across as condescending gatekeeping of knowledge and contributes to the distance between the Australian people and their research community. Finally, I’m prepared to bet established senior researchers recycle significant parts of previously successful grant proposals. This contributes to a Matthew Effect where the administrative burden of grant preparation is greater for researchers that have not successfully received ARC funding.

I understand this suggestion will receive significant pushback, primarily that it could jeopardise the security of research programs and enable theft of intellectual property by other countries or research groups. I would respond that the research funded by the ARC is ultimately intended to be published publicly. My suggestion could be modified to only release a grant proposal at the conclusion of the funding term.

Learning Process: Part of the learning process is an ability to iterate and receive feedback. With the ARC only providing 1 opportunity per year to apply per program, with some grant schemes having a limited number of application chances, and heavy time investment required per application, there is very little chance to iterate and improve one’s grant application technique. A shorter, faster, more open and less restrictive application process would be beneficial in many respects, in particular promoting excellence and agility.

2. Significant disconnect between rejoinder comments and ultimate ranking.

Disconnected: I’ve been quite lucky in that my rejoinder comments have been consistently very flattering. This leads to severe confusion when I ultimately receive my rejection from the ARC. This year, with the encouragement of my academic community, I accessed my grades with a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, revealing a straight A assessment from my Detailed Assessors, and a straight B/C assessment from General Carriage 1.

The rejoinder process itself, with a two-week deadline and 5000 characters to respond to between 2-8 Detailed Assessors (who can use between 3500-8000 characters each), is a stressful balancing act to address criticism which (intentionally or not) can be rather personal given the time and effort invested in each proposal. This is a challenging project requiring different skills again, being able to respond to detailed and verbose criticisms in a very small space. This is perhaps an example where fewer words is actually a greater burden than a lengthy response.

Proposed Solution 1: Include the General Assessor comments with the rejoinder. Allow us to respond to the Assessor with the most power over our proposals, and to see what concerns that person has. Even after my FOI request the concerns of my General Assessors are not clear. I have no ability to adapt my proposal based on practical feedback, as all the feedback I do have is not relevant to my ultimate ranking. Alternatively, include the rankings associated with each set of comments to better guide candidate responses. Finally, if the opinion of the Detailed Assessors does not matter (as my experience seems to indicate) what is the point of responding to them, and the purpose of the rejoinder at all. Why not abolish it altogether?

Proposed Solution 2: The rejoinder step is an opportunity to send first round rejections. None of the ARC schemes have a success rate over 20%; why not coarsely rank and eliminate half of the ARC grants and save 50% of the applicants and their research offices the stress of that 2 week deadline?

Proposed Solution 3: The fact I had to submit an FOI to receive meaningful feedback on my application is an example of an administrative burden on both myself, and the poor paralegal that had to respond to my request. Release the grades to the applicants rather than vague scores.

3. Limited communication.

All communication I’ve received from the ARC about my grants have been through my institutional research office. This includes grant deadlines, grant application opening announcement, release of rejoinders, release of final feedback, etc. Further, the less official source @ARC_Tracker on twitter has been WAY more useful for finding of critical grant relevant information than the ARC website. Indeed, to date, my only positive interaction with the ARC as an institution administratively has been password recovery, and an FOI request, which were conducted by direct e-mail with ARC staff. This lack of clear communication, and insistence of requiring checking of the ARC website for critical information creates confusion, resignation, alienation and administrative burden on researchers and the public (Q5) alike as expectations are unclear and archaic.

Proposed solution: Simple measures can be taken to remedy this situation. I think an ARC announcement e-mail list would be a low effort, but highly effective communication mechanism. Alternatively, follow @ARC_Tracker’s example and announce key events on Twitter or similar platforms.

So far I have resisted suggesting legislative change, but I will here. Add ‘Timely communication of ARC funding schemes critical information on appropriate modern platforms.’ Or similar language to the ARC Act.

4. ARC grants are large (for comparatively little reward)!

Every ARC grant I have seen and submitted has exceeded 40pg. The main body of that grant application is a 10pg project summary and 5pg Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE). By some word-of-mouth estimates, applying for research funding consumes up-to 30% of an Australian academic’s research time, certainly a number I’ve experience to be realistic firsthand. Keep in mind no ARC scheme has a success rate above 20%.

By comparison, the Canadian National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) runs a Discovery Grants program that serves a similar function as ARC Discovery Program with a similar funding availability, ~$418 million in 2014 (http://www.labcanada.com/general-science-research/418m-in-nserc-funding-for-3-700-researchers/1003161300/) to ARC’s 490 million in 2021. NSERC application requirements are comparatively more modest, requiring approximately 10 pages, 5 of those being the research proposal. The NSERC Discovery Grant success rate is considerably higher, regularly over 50%! (https://www.canada.ca/en/research-coordinating-committee/services/publications/progress-reports/2019-2020/annex-2-early-career-researcher-data.html) Granted, the NSERC Discovery Grants are somewhat smaller than the ARC option, but… not THAT much smaller.

By comparison again grant applications to the National Science Foundation (NSF) in America come in at about 15 pages, this time with substantially larger $ values available than Australia.
Further, neither of the American or Canadian systems suffer from the same degree of issues mentioned in 1 and a larger body of local researchers allows expert assessors in each applicant’s specific field. I can’t comment on the review panels in America nor Canada, but I do know the European Research Council regularly consults international experts when making funding decisions.

Proposed Solution: There is no need for ARC applications to be more than double the size of other comparable international research agencies, and in being so the ARC is a prime example of an administrative burden.

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.