Edward Doddridge

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Edward Doddridge

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 current framework does not sufficiently emphasise the importance of blue-sky research. The current focus on research applications and the National Interest Test hinders the ability of the ARC to fund and support the sort of research that will underpin applied research in the coming decades.

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 current model of requiring researchers who have received ARC funding to review grants ensures that reviewers have a level of expertise. While it excludes many early career researchers and those who have only recently moved to Australia, it is not an unreasonable position.

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.

There are many reasons to be opposed to the Ministerial veto power.

One pragmatic reason is that the amount of funding awarded to a Discovery Project is simply too small to be worth the Minister's time. Requiring a Federal Minister to review and individually approve grants for a few hundred thousand dollars is beneath their pay grade. They have responsibility for the overall funding process, and should be able to hold the ARC accountable in the event of poor decisions, but should not be called upon to approve such small individual grants. This argument could allow the Minister to retain discretionary approval over larger programs, such as Centres of Excellence.

However, the potential for routine intervention by the Minister undermines the integrity of the Australian research sector. It is a symptom of political overreach and diminishes our international standing.

In exceptional circumstances the Minister may well need to intervene, but the possibility of a Ministerial veto should not exist as a routine intervention.

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 use of Ministerial vetos undermines the social licence for public funding of research - it is a deliberately antagonistic and political act that pits researchers against the general public.

Ministerial support and championing of research enhances and strengthens the social licence.

As noted in the consultation paper, not all research has a clearly defined application at the outset. This should not preclude the ARC from supporting it.

The social licence for research could be strengthened by the ARC if they were to employ staff writers to produce stories promoting the research funded by the ARC. These staff writers could produce something very similar to the current National Interest Test statements, but by only doing this for successful grants, they would save a significant amount of time and money.

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

The uncertainty regarding timing of announcements leads to enormous inefficiencies. Many universities are forced to start applications before the results of a previous round have been released.

The frequent and onerous changes to requirements cause substantial amounts of unnecessary work for all.

The budgeting requirements of grant submissions are unnecessarily detailed. Streamlining the budgets to allow for a certain amount of travel per HDR or PDRA per year would be an excellent change. There will certainly be situations that do not fit this model, and those grants could add budget lines for these additional expenses such as fieldwork.

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?

Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback on the ARC.

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.