University of Tasmania

Name (Individual/Organisation)

University of Tasmania

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 University of Tasmania considers the purpose in the ARC Act should be broadened to include functions other than ministerial advice and administration. The ARC plays a critical role in supporting universities to attract and retain excellent researchers and in identifying gaps or weaknesses in Australia’s research capability; these roles should be captured by the ARC Act.

The Act should be expanded to include the role research needs to play with regards to prosperity, inclusiveness and sustainability. In a world marked by climate change, biodiversity loss, plastics and other pollution, deep and widening social inequality and widespread Indigenous disadvantage as a consequence of 500 years of colonialism, sustainability should be understood as the deep integration of economic, social, and environmental dimensions of a seamless reality at its heart. Thus, the Act’s fundamental purpose should be “to help shape the Australian research system, underpinned by research integrity, for the benefit of the nation and the world by enabling high-quality, world-leading research that contributes to the global bank of new knowledge, and fostering the translation and impact of research to achieve prosperity, inclusiveness and sustainability.” Greater emphasis and consistency and continuity of a national innovation framework that supports the translation and commercialisation of research will enhance the benefits and impacts of Australia’s research.



A) THE SCOPE OF RESEARCH FUNDING SUPPORTED BY THE ARC

The ARC Act should explicitly state the purpose of the ARC funding, namely to support non-medical basic and applied research for Australian universities and their partner organisations across all research disciplines.

The ARC Act should be revised to reflect the current scope of funding and expanded to capture research that collects data over longer time periods (e.g., decadal), equivalent to the USA’s National Science Foundation Long-term Research in Environmental Biology (LTREB) Program. Long-term datasets provide increasing value for answering questions about economic, social and environmental change with their longevity but are at risk of failure due to short-term funding cycles. The value of these data increases exponentially with program duration and the ability to integrate across disciplines and perspectives.

New investment in translation and commercialisation activities will help bridge current funding gaps in Australia’s innovation landscape.



B) THE BALANCE OF DISCOVERY AND LINKAGE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

The ARC Act should be revised to reflect the scope and balance of funding from Discovery to Linkage programs. The current schemes should be reviewed to remove artificial distinctions in research models supported by the different programs.

At a fundamental level, the ARC Act must capture the research ecosystem in totality. It has been estimated that the ARC is approximately seven per cent of the R&D funding within the Australian research ecosystem. If there is no space for fundamental, basic research to prosper and thrive, and for the people in that system to prosper and thrive, there won't be a pipeline of new knowledge being generated entering the research system to provide innovative, long-term solutions for those challenges ahead. This is a sovereign capability issue. By back-solving from impact, you always eventually map back to some form of basic, fundamental research that was generated recently or in the past. Australia risks becoming a net importer of new knowledge if talented researchers are not supported locally and forced to pursue careers overseas. This means that Australia will be starting from behind on impactful research and consequentially will not gain that most value that comes from a knowledge generating system.



C) THE ROLE OF THE ARC IN ACTIVELY SHAPING THE RESEARCH LANDSCAPE IN AUSTRALIA

The ARC is a keystone in the research ecosystem, particularly as an enabler of university research focus and setter of high standards of research excellence.

The ARC Act should:
o explicitly state equitable support for research done by diverse people.
o explicitly cover funding to support the research of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as individuals and teams through providing funding to research projects that aim to expand Indigenous knowledge systems and provide economic, commercial, environmental, social and/or cultural benefits for Australia
o support the retention of Australia’s early career researchers (ECR) by introducing a project scheme specific to ECRs. The DECRA scheme is currently the only viable option for ECRs to lead a project; in the latest round, the success rate was 15%, meaning 1135 high-performing ECRs were rejected.
o Lead Australia’s long term commercialisation funding support by providing new, additional Government funding.
The University of Tasmania suggests that the ARC follow the lead of the NHMRC in addressing gender equity of research funding.

The Act could consider capturing the ARC’s increasing role as a ‘brokerage’ to handle funding schemes for agencies/industries from a currently fragmented research funding ecosystem. In this way the ARC will provide an integrated and efficient funding ecosystem that helps curate funding to universities and ensuring research effort is of the best quality possible.



D) ANY OTHER FUNCTIONS?

The ARC Act should ensure the ARC have the ability to identify, in consultation with universities and government, areas of thematic priority and specific funding dedicated to such programs. At present this only occurs under the Minister’s direction through the Special Research Initiative scheme, which operates sporadically.

The ARC should have the explicit ability to form bilateral or multilateral partnerships with other nations, including forming joint funding schemes, where clear benefit to international partnership exists such as the successful joint National Science Foundation-Natural Environment Research Council program between the US and UK. One example is the focus on sustained research in an area of challenging logistic and scientific endeavour, where international cooperation would allow for significantly enhanced progress in understanding global sea-level risks from West Antarctica.



OTHER COMMENTS

Removal of the Ministerial veto powers, unless exceptional circumstances arise (e.g., national security) is critical, together with strengthening the requirement for explanation and transparency of any vetos made. Removing the power of veto removes the possibility of real and/or perceived political interference in the highest quality fundamental research and is especially critical given the ARC only provides approximately 7% of the R&D funding within the Australian research ecosystem.

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.

The current governance framework and model are limiting the ability of the ARC to fulfill its charter as presented in the legislation. The application of the model currently falls on a single individual whose appointment is prone to political partisanship. The current governance framework can be attributed for driving reactionary decision making and politicisation of the research programmes.



HOW COULD GOVERNANCE OF THE ARC BE IMPROVED?

The expertise-based board as proposed in the consultation document is appropriate. The advisory focus of the current structure means that expert decision-making is sidelined by ministerial discretion and decision making. As such, the work of peer reviewers is negatively impacted. The board should operate with independence from ministerial interference and should provide recommendations on the ARC’s CEO rather than the Minister, similar to the NHMRC model.

The ARC Act should include provisions for the CEO to be independent and have a strong research track record. In line with NHMRC, the ARC CEO should have more protection from political influence.

The board membership should be larger (12-16 people), with a balanced representation of gender, indigenous heritage, cultural heritage, sexual orientation, stage of academic career, and disciplines, including at least two members representing inter/transdisciplinary studies. The board would also benefit from including representatives of the end users, e.g. Local Government Associations, small-to-medium-sized enterprises, and those with experience in overseas funding agencies to ensure the ARC is operating at world’s best practice.

Board appointment should allow a possible extension for a second term and organised so that there is a rotation and refresh of board members.



PLEASE EXPAND ON YOUR REASONING AND/OR PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTIONS TO ENHANCE THE GOVERNANCE, IF YOU CONSIDER THIS TO BE IMPORTANT.

A board model will remove the perception (and practice) of arbitrary ministerial or government intervention in the allocation of funding and/or determination of successful grants. The board actions will be more transparent as they will be subject to review by the Auditor-General, in addition to the statutory requirements of ARC reporting to the Minister and parliament.

Relevant expertise is critical to the success of the board model. Decisions under a board with the breadth of required expertise will be more robust and supported by the research community.

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?

A return to an independent ARC Board, as specified in the original ARC Act, is one action to ensure academic excellence and research expertise is recruited and maintained. The independence of the board from the Minister is critical to the success of this model.

The Act should specify the roles of ARC Executive Directors and College of Expert panel members, and the process by which they are assessed.



HOW COULD THIS BE DONE WITHOUT THE ACT BECOMING OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE?

The ARC Act should include reference to the Haldane Principle – the idea that decisions on research funding should be made by peers not politicians. The Haldane Principle clearly encompasses the importance of academic expertise and peer review and the premise that it is in the national interest to fund the highest quality research.



OTHER COMMENTS

Other suggestions for improvement of the peer-review environment more generally include recognition of the time burden on College of Expert members, as well as the opportunity to upskill detailed assessors by providing feedback on how their scores compare with other assessors.

The possibility of Ministerial veto of proposals that have been recommended through the peer-review process is the cause of great concern and distress to the research community, and it is through this lens comments in section 3, as well as 4 and 5 should be read. Given the critical role in maintaining standards of research excellence, the College of Experts need to have confidence in a robust overall peer-review system.

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.

In light of the need for ARC to fund the world’s best research - and the gold standard for testing the validity, robustness and quality of ideas is peer review - amending the ARC Act to consolidate the pre-eminence and importance of peer review is critical.

As mentioned in Q3, the ARC Act should include the Haldane Principle to reinforce the importance of peer review in identifying high quality research and making decisions on allocating funding.

Removal of the Ministerial veto powers, unless exceptional circumstances arise (e.g., national security) is critical, together with strengthening the requirement for explanation and transparency of any vetos made. Removing the power of veto removes the possibility of real and/or perceived political interference in the highest quality fundamental research and is especially critical given the ARC only provides approximately 7% of the R&D funding within the Australian research ecosystem.

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

There needs to be more consistent messaging from the ARC, government, universities and the media on how research – across all disciplines – benefits the lives of Australians and global citizens. For example, promoting the successes of existing/completed projects at the same time as new funding outcomes are announced (see responses to Q8 and Q9 - publishing final report data).

Funding decisions need to be clear and transparent. The public should be made aware that funding recommendations are based on a two-part peer review process: by discipline specialists (multiple per application) and then by a panel of experts. This process should be independent of the Minister unless exceptional circumstances arise.

It is critical that the NIT Statement’s purpose, function and primary audience are clarified. There are concerns within the sector that if NITs are intended for Ministerial scrutiny, then funding decisions are subject to bias based on the political motivations of the day and the extensive peer review process becomes redundant. If the NITs are intended to enhance social licence, then the process could be improved by (1) using a standardised/automated readability test thereby removing subjective bias from assessment of NITs and/or (2) allowing different statements for fundamental or applied research (e.g. removing the onus to prove benefits beyond academia for fundamental research in Discovery program schemes).

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

The long and complex nature of ARC applications creates a large administrative burden. This is exacerbated by the highly competitive nature of ARC schemes and increasingly low success rates, meaning that a substantial amount of time and effort is directed towards high quality, yet unsuccessful applications.

TIME FROM PROPOSAL SUBMISSION TO GRANT COMMENCEMENT
Fixed announcement dates will assist but further action is needed. The time is currently far too long, especially when compared against international standards, and creates difficulty in retaining world-leading expertise. The length of the ARC review-to-approval cycle should be benchmarked regularly against international best practice, and tabulated by ARC for each University and summarised publicly. ARC should consider if there are ways to work with universities to speed up the process of award-to-commencement requirements (e.g. contracting delays, see below) and reducing any obstacles to this should be explored to standardise best practice. Standardised agreements between all Australian universities should be explored, reducing legal effort and delays.

CONTRACTING DELAYS
The Multi-Institutional Agreement (MIA) process is an impediment to collaboration both domestically and internationally. MIAs significant delays to research and extensive administrative burden on research offices and academics. There are many cases where the MIA process has resulted in up to six months delay in the start of a project, putting jobs and research at risk. ARC should explore reducing the burden on institutions to formally contract all participating organisations. There should be different levels of contractual requirements and obligations depending on the involvement and contributions of partners.

To ensure projects, partnerships and onboarding personnel are not negatively impacted, the ARC should consider providing start-up funds before the contracts have been finalised (as per UK Research Councils, see response to Q7).

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS
There are stringent, archaic formatting requirements that require intense scrutiny from research offices and investigators with no material gain in the quality of the application. For example, font size within figures that have rendered applications ineligible. The ARC should provide clear advice on what rules affect eligibility vs suggestions only.

REQUESTED BUDGETS
Projects that are successful should be funded at a level that does not compromise delivery of the project outcomes. Grant budgets are realistic; they have little ambit claims. Cutting budgets should be capped at a specific level (e.g. the US National Science Foundation cuts a maximum of 10%).

Complex budget requirements are onerous (noting that few projects are fully funded). Some suggestions for reducing the workload include:
• a two-stage approach whereby, if successful, a full project budget is provided alongside the other post award requirements; OR an indicative budget provided at EOI stage and a detailed budget prepared for full applications
• Remove budgets from Fellowships entirely (as per NHMRC) since the salary is already fixed and project costs are minimal (compared to other schemes)
• adopt an approach similar to the NHRMC’s Direct Research Cost Principles where funds can be expended as needed as long as they meet the principles and are directly achieving the outcomes of the proposal

IN-KIND BUDGETS
The ARC should reconsider the value of including a dollar value for in-kind support in applications. In- kind monetary calculations are not consistent, and they are difficult to quantify at both the application and reporting stages.

For salaries, the typical FTE is much higher in Australia (20%) compared to international standards (5-10%), indicating that the values associated are being inflated in Australia for some perceived gain. The reality is that partner investigators and organisations can be deterred from signing on to applications because of the high commitments expected. Guidance from the ARC on reasonable investments, particularly FTE, would help to resolve this.

COLLECTING RESEARCHER DATA
Universities already have robust and comprehensive research databases that collate academic track records and outputs – there is significant duplication with this information needing to be provided in lengthy detail in application. The ARC should explore ways in which existing track record data can be uploaded directly or via Application Programming Interface (API), or referenced via other sources.

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.

A) WHAT IMPROVEMENTS COULD BE MADE 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?

SIMPLIFY AND STREAMLINE THE APPLICATION PROCESS
The volume of paperwork for an ARC application is disproportionate to competitor nations, particularly for information on individual researchers. An ARC application is a factor of 2 to 3 longer than a US or UK proposal. The paperwork burden for international researchers results in some researchers declining to participate or additional workload for Australian researchers in preparing ROPE sections on their behalf.

SIMPLIFY AND STREAMLINE THE REVIEW PROCESS
The time taken from application to announcement is significant and may negatively impact international collaborations and partnerships (as discussed in the response to Q6).

REDUCE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL REVIEWERS
ARC currently seeks reviews from international researchers but requires of them to first give legal agreement. This is disproportionate to the approach taken by other countries which does not require legal agreement. Legal agreement is a deterrent, and its use should be reviewed. It is common practice internationally for researchers to suggest reviewers for this proposal or similar ones and ARC should consider requesting this information in grant submission as an optional category.

IMPROVE THE BALANCE BETWEEN TRACK RECORD AND IDEAS
ARC relies heavily on researcher track record to make decisions around grants to the detriment of ideas. This focus on track record may be a result of the breadth of research considered by the review panels, where track records are easier to benchmark than discipline-specific ideas. Focussed, discipline specific panels will assist with balancing ideas versus track record. For context, the ARC has a very small number of panels compared to international standards. The approach to panel composition and breadth could be improved by benchmarking internationally.

INTRODUCE AN EXPRESSION OF INTEREST TO MORE SCHEMES
This needs to be done in a way that creates equal opportunity for early career to senior researchers, and not burdensome to the College of Experts panel or University research offices.

EARLIER NOTIFICATION OF INTENTION TO APPLY
The NHMRC has a minimum data requirement due two to four weeks prior to the application deadline. This requires that researchers complete a small portion of their application by the minimum data date in order to submit a full application. This provides more certainty for research offices, research leaders and the funding body around application numbers. For example, if Fields of Research are requested, potential reviewers can be contacted prior to the application deadline.

RE-INTRODUCTION OF BANDED DISCOVERY PROJECT GRANTS: SMALL-, MID-, LARGE-GRANTS.
This would help to support ECRs/MCRs and HASS disciplines, fund pilot projects and promote progression and succession planning for sustained Australian research capability.

EVALUATING PROJECT OUTCOMES
Introduce a new scheme for supplementary funding for research teams who have completed an ARC-funded project to undertake an evaluation of engagement with their project outcomes and the likely path to impact. The funding would be competitive, assessed by a peer review, and project teams who have included an impact plan in their original project scoping will be favoured in the competitive process

IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS UNCONSCIOUS BIAS
This can make a difference to acceptance outcomes for women, ECRs, those not part of a large research group or Go8 University.



B) WHAT IMPROVEMENTS COULD BE MADE TO THE ARC ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THESE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS, OR DO YOU SUGGEST OTHER MEANS?

It is difficult to identify what specific changes could be made to the ARC Act to give effect to suggested process improvements.



EXAMPLES OF SUCCESS OR BEST PRACTICE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES OR COMMUNITIES

The NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (US) is well-funded, has a large and diverse range of schemes including supporting long term data collection (10 years), uses a short biography (5pp track record – what is your research expertise; provide 5 publications to demonstrate that you can publish high quality research in this area), and grants awarded are almost fully funded. For post award management, they use a streamlined approach of sub-award agreements to manage national/international collaborations (in comparison to ARC Multi-Institutional Agreements).

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA adopt a more streamlined process, with an EOI stage. If successful, applicants are asked to develop a full application.

UK RESEARCH COUNCILS allow spending immediately upon receipt of the award letter, without formal agreements [and approvals i.e. ethics] in place.

NZ MARSDEN FUND has an EOI process (2 pages), track record section is 2 pages.
Ask applicants to suggest peer reviewers.

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?

ERA has made a positive impact on the higher education sector in Australia over the last decade and it has been instrumental in shifting our research outputs to focus on quality over quantity. The benefits of ERA have largely been realised and the trend for high quality outputs over quantity has already become a key focus of Australia’s research culture. Australia’s high quality research performance is evidenced by a Field-Weight Citation Impact of 1.60 (UK = 1.57, USA = 1.6), whereas world average is 1.00 (source: SciVal, 2017-2022). This means Australian authored research outputs produced 60% more citations than world average.

The use of external citation providers for quality assessment data is already a large part of the current ERA process and could take on an automated assessment of citation analysis fields of research and thus easing the administrative burden on Australian universities. Given the high quality of Australia’s research, the availability of subject-level analysis from international ranking agencies (ARWU, THE, QS) and citation providers (SciVal, InCites), and an increased national focus on impact, there is limited benefit in future ERA assessments.

Engagement and impact are metrics that no external entity provides so the ARC’s EI exercise has inherent value. The methodology for EI 2018 was flawed (e.g., one case study for an entire field) and the outcomes are not widely utilised. However, it has significant potential if well-executed. Re designing EI in collaboration with the sector and especially research-end users who deliver impact, will ensure it is modern, relevant and of maximum benefit.



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?

The ARC currently collects a list of outputs produced with funding from its schemes via final reports. There would be benefit in collating these outputs into a repository for ARC use, sector use and public use.

This will allow research end-users, the ARC and universities to demonstrate the high-quality research outcomes arising from government funding by promoting it locally. It will also provide additional visibility to fields that may not be well indexed in traditional citation databases (e.g., HASS fields).

This approach could be iterated upon in the future by collecting engagement and impact outputs arising from ARC funding, in addition to research outputs. For example, positive community or government interventions/policies, community workshops, liaison with industry, research reports, policy documents, cultural endeavours. This would again provide end-users with transparency on the significant benefits of publicly funded research.

We do not believe ratings need to be assigned to this data; rather a repository demonstrating Australia’s excellent research. This promotes the excellent research nationally, rather than pitting universities against each other. Excellent research can be conducted anywhere, at any institution, regardless of whether or not they have achieved an ERA rating of 5.



C) SHOULD THE ARC ACT BE AMENDED TO REFERENCE A RESEARCH QUALITY, ENGAGEMENT AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT FUNCTION, HOWEVER CONDUCTED?

With the future of ERA and EI currently unknown, we suggest not amending the act to reflect this.



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?

We strongly support being consistent with global best practice and insights.

However, as noted earlier, there are many other sources of rankings (ARWU, THE, QS) and metrics (SciVal, InCites, Dimensions, Altmetric, Overton) available. The creation of another does not seem to be a good use of public funding, especially when other global companies are doing it already, with more resources.
We strongly support being consistent with global best practice and insights.



OTHER COMMENTS

TEQSA RESEARCH QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
The ERA exercise has contributed to the demonstration of research quality, which is a requirement for registration as an Australian university. Should ERA be discontinued, the Government should work with the sector to develop alternative methods for demonstrating research quality to meet TEQSA requirements.

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) 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?

We have proposed an approach to this in section 8(b) of the University of Tasmania’s response.
The approach outlined in section 8(b) would still promote the excellence of Australian research, in a much less cumbersome and time-consuming way. It would also equally reflect the work of all disciplines and allow end-users to track outcomes quantitatively across grant programs from the ARC, potentially including number of research outputs, citations, students trained, patents, together with engagement and impact data. There are many global companies providing metrics on research which could provide qualitative assessment without diverting academics away from conducting research



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?

Any proposed approach must equally reflect all disciplines with consistent methodologies. The split between assessment methodologies for ERA has been vocally criticised for many years. One approach to all research fields and disciplines is critical in providing fairness and transparency.



C) WOULD A DATA-DRIVEN METHODOLOGY ASSIST IN FULFILLING THIS PURPOSE?

Yes

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?

The University of Tasmania appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the role and function of the ARC.

The current funding model for competitive grants does not cover the full cost of research. The pool of funds for the Research Support Program has not kept up with the pool of research income earned by universities, resulting in an increasing burden on universities to cover the indirect costs (overheads) of research. The Government needs to work with the sector to develop a better model to fund the full cost of research.

As an overarching and concluding comment, and as flagged in the questions above, the ARC, the Australian Research Council, should play a key role in an integrated and efficient Australian research funding ecosystem that helps curate funding to universities and thereby ensuring research effort is of the best quality possible and maximised.

There are multiple elements to having a truly integrated research funding model, which are not mutually exclusive.

1. Addressing long-term, truly ambitious research agendas to address bold national objectives. As an example, there is a pressing need to deliver on the needs of our national science plan for the Antarctic. This means having funding structures that support the evolution of the eco-systems needed to support that decade capability, and appropriate governance that support independence assurance about quality while maintaining long-term coordinated work. We need to be able to link ARC competitive funding schemes with other government funding schemes, which are more commissioned based (with appropriate yearly deliverables). In the absence of integrated funding models, we will continue to have fragmented research, high transaction costs and risk losing research capability (career researchers and early career researchers) from the Australian research system. This sort of funding needs to be planned around a national agenda for building the appropriate hubs of research excellence, which have long-term funding commitments.

2. Addressing regional needs. This curation should also link research excellence from the ARC and research funding across other parts of the research ecosystem to the identified needs of regions, so that research impact can address questions of regional relevance. Although this could seem a difficult task, this is a necessary task to deliver on both national and regional needs, given the size and scale of Australia, otherwise regional areas of existing disadvantage will not be able to introduce community-led interventions to ensure prosperous, equitable and sustainable regions across Australia.

3. Addressing global needs. In the view of the University of Tasmania the most pressing and overwhelming need for Australia and, in fact, the world is to generate a zero-carbon, circular and sustainable economy and society by 2050 or earlier. Our current trajectory is taking resources that are needed by future generations of life on our planet, so this is a fundamental values-driven question of the legacy that we, as current research leaders, choose to leave. It is therefore vital for the nation that the new knowledge generated by the fundamental, discovery ARC funded schemes need to be connected and integrated to other research-impact funding schemes across the Australian research funding ecosystem to even have a chance of meeting this pressing need.

Submission received

14 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.