The Australian Historical Association

Name (Individual/Organisation)

The Australian Historical Association

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 AHA favours a clear definition of the ARC’s role in the Act so that it includes a commitment to research excellence in Australian universities, the support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research capacity and opportunity, a commitment to gender equity, leadership in research policy and evaluation, and a fair proportion of funding for humanities and social science disciplines.

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.

There is considerable dissatisfaction with the current governance of the ARC. Most seriously, the organisation lacks sufficient autonomy to protect the integrity of academic research from political and media attacks. The minister has too much power; at the very least, a board needs to be re-established to provide an alternative source of advice to ministerial staffers and public servants. Alternatively, the ARC could be established as a statutory authority. Under such an arrangement, governments would still be able to set broad policy parameters and priority research areas, but they would not be able to engage in political interference in the allocation of grants to specific projects, which overwhelmingly affects researchers in the humanities and social sciences.

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 AHA is satisfied with the ARC’s recruitment of esteemed academics as Executive Directors and to its College of Experts. AHA members have served in such positions, in recognition of their standing in the discipline, and their capacity to serve the wider community of researchers.

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 power of the minister to veto grants should be removed from the Act. The AHA strenuously objects to the idea that removing secrecy provisions, while permitting the continuation of a ministerial veto, provides any protection whatsoever for peer review. Whether the veto is exercised or not, its existence is a menace to free enquiry. So long as the provision remains, it is a permanent temptation to ministers to override peer review. It is no answer to the problem that a government or minister promises to refrain from using their powers. The arbitrary power undermines the integrity of the system by promoting a process of second-guessing of fundamentally political judgements by practising politicians. Its exercise in recent years has damaged the reputation of Australia’s universities internationally and undermined trust between researchers and the ARC itself. The secret veto was especially pernicious in this respect. Historians have had their careers damaged through this process of political interference, which is invariably directed towards humanities and social sciences disciplines. The minister, the minister’s office and department need to be kept at arm’s length from assessing the quality of applications and determining funding, a process which should be carried out solely by those academically qualified to judge the work being proposed.

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

A National Interest Test applied by the minister separately from peer review is another vector of political interference, whatever its ostensible purpose in terms of enhancing social or public licence. It was an unnecessary addition to a process that already required applicants to explain community benefit. It does not serve the public or taxpayer but was designed in the context of complaints from researchers about the secret application of the veto. The concept of ‘national interest’ itself is dubious in the context of a research system. A nation is made up of multiple interests. Definitions of a ‘national interest’, once one moves beyond generalities, are inevitably political and vulnerable to manipulation by powerful individuals and groups seeking to annex the concept to advance their own sectional interests. In contrast, a concept of ‘public good’ – to be assessed through peer review and not ministerial fiat – requires applicants to consider the wider ramifications of their enquiry – not only for the nation, but for humanity.

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

There is a widely held view that the application process is too elaborate and time-consuming, including the expectation of budgeting that digs down to excessive detail years ahead of the activity concerned. Many historians would prefer a more iterative process, one that would allow the direction of the research project to exercise a greater influence on budgeting and activities in later years. While we understand the need for rigour and accountability, we also detect the dominance in application forms and processes of a scientific template with a rather technocratic bent, one that is ill-suited to many humanities and social sciences 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.

Given the low success rates of these schemes, there is concern about the mismatch between the burdens on academics and the success rates of the major schemes. Some historians have called for a two-stage application process such as that used in New Zealand involving a less detailed submission initially. The more labour-intensive work of a full application would be undertaken after assessment and longlisting of what would amount to expressions of interest. This would reduce the burden on applicants, assessors and university research offices.

Frustrations for researchers also include the unpredictable nature of the opening of grant rounds and delays in funding announcements. While an inconvenience to all, it is particularly troublesome for those dependent on funding announcements for employment via the fellowship schemes. The ARC imposes deadlines on researchers but not on itself; it should establish and maintain a rigorous and predictable timetable that will allow university research offices and applicants to plan ahead.

There are concerns about the lack of transparency concerning the relationship between comments and scores in peer assessments. Some applicants also fear that they are disadvantaged by greater weight being given to peer reviewed articles than monographs—the latter being the gold standard in the history discipline—and Non-traditional Research Outputs (NTRO) such as museum exhibitions.

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?

The AHA supports the shift over the last decade from quantity to quality of research. The sector does need ways of assessing the quality of its overall research effort, areas of strength, and the gaps and weaknesses in national research capacity. But it is hard to justify the amount of effort that goes into the ERA process in the absence of any link to funding outcomes. The AHA favours a continuing process of evaluation of research excellence as well as of impact and engagement in preference to periodic exercises based on a census system. It should deploy a range of excellence measures appropriate to the various disciplines and minimise disruption to the core activities of academic researchers and university research offices.

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?

There is a challenge in trying to find a one-size-fits-all model that will work across disciplines. History has been a peer-review discipline in previous ERA exercises and the quality of work being undertaken would not be captured by the metrics deployed in the sciences. Some form of peer review of work will likely be required in any process of evaluation, but it could be achieved via a more limited, and yet more continuous, process of sampling than occurs under the ERA. The case-study approach to Engagement and Impact fails to capture the rich, subtle and diverse ways in which a group of researchers at any particular institution exercises a wider impact on society. It encourages a limited, mechanistic understanding of how research is applies to real-world problems.

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

The AHA does not see any need for these matters to be included in the legislation.

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?

The AHA is especially interested in the potential for collaboration between universities and the Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museum (GLAM) sector. These institutions are the laboratories of the humanities at the same time as they rely, to some extent, on research generated within the university sector. Similarly, the school history curriculum depends on research undertaken in a university context. Film, television, radio and newspapers also draw heavily for historical content on research generated in universities. At present, however, there is no systematic evaluation of the impacts of university research in these sectors. The ARC’s capacity for research evaluation could be turned to examination of the impact of these kinds of engagement which would provide a clearer picture on the societal impact of historical research than current approaches.

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?

There are concerns that the DECRA scheme has drifted in a direction that makes it barely postdoctoral. It seems almost impossible for historians, at least, to win support except late in their eligibility period. Is a fellowship that is won five years after graduation, perhaps by a tenured academic who has already achieved a degree of seniority, fit for purpose? It seems deeply unfair that Early Career Researchers who have not had the benefit of paid research employment should be forced to compete with those in academic roles for DECRA fellowships. For Early Career Researchers, there might be separate schemes for those with and without continuing employment, for it seems doubtful that an individual who has recently been appointed to a continuing lectureship in a university should then be removed from teaching for three years to undertake a DECRA. Shorter fellowships of a year or two, for instance, could be created for this cohort. The professional development of this cohort will likely benefit from a capacity to advance a funded research project while undertaking teaching, service and administration.

In general, there is a feeling that too many good academics with strong records of research output are locked permanently out of the system. Many historians do not need vast sums of money to produce first-class research, but the ARC system tends to privilege the granting of large amounts – especially in the form of fellowships – over smaller sums that would make a significant difference to many capable researchers with strong records. Again, we detect a structure of funding driven by the natural sciences, one that takes little account of the nature of research in disciplines such as ours. We believe that the ARC should seriously consider the reinstatement of a small grants scheme that is geared towards the needs of the discipline we represent as well as many other fields in the humanities and social sciences. This would be of particular benefit to many Early Career Researchers in assisting them to build a track record. There is in the present funding arrangements a winner-take-all culture that is undermining the humanities and social sciences, as well as a privileging of certain inputs – notably Category 1 grants – over major outputs, such as monographs, as measures of academic achievement and esteem.

Submission received

13 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.