ARC Centre of Excellence in Exciton Science

Name (Individual/Organisation)

ARC Centre of Excellence in Exciton Science

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.

As it stands the object or purpose of the Act does not elucidate or inform policy makers of the true purpose and intention of the ARC.

A statement of purpose is required which:
(i) describes the objectives of the ARC in actively shaping the research landscape;
(ii) explicitly clarifies its role in the promotion and development of new knowledge for the betterment of Australia;
(iii) explicitly notes its role in rising to the challenges facing society; and
(iv) makes clear that the ARC ensures Australians can actively contribute to discourse and development of new knowledge and ideas at the highest levels.

Such a statement of purpose would align the ARC Act with the purposes outlined in the NHMRC Act, which expressly states that the NHMRC’s purpose is to ensure that the provision of grant funding raises the standards of health care, develops consistent health standards and contributes to the development and training of medical practitioners both in Australia and abroad.

The ARC is quite clear in its recent “Strategic Plan 2022-2025” that the purpose of the organisation is to provide ‘funding for blue-sky research and for practical research that links universities, industry and other research helps ensure Australia can maximise the benefits of having a strong and vibrant research sector.’ In addition, it has the extended role of providing ‘advice on research policy and integrity, assessing the quality, engagement and impact of research and providing grants services to other agencies.’

This purpose should be included in the Act, to assist policy makers and the administrative arm of the ARC to make decisions in line with these principles. A strategic plan should be maintained and updated on a regular basis that complements and brings these principles into practice in the operations of the ARC.

Additionally, statements that address priorities such as sex equality, gender diversity, support for indigenous Australians, support for researchers at each stage of their career, and inclusion should also be elucidated in the Act. Such statements will ensure the ARC is a progressive organisation and plays an integral part in ensuring Australia remains a world leader in the generation and dissemination of new knowledge and technology for the benefit of society.
Finally, the Act should highlight the different purposes and priorities of the ARC from the NHMRC and clearly demarcate that these two funding organisations work alongside each other as complementary funding bodies.

By legislating these above imperatives into its purpose, policy and decision makers will be compelled to adopt stronger stances and initiatives to ensure the Australian research sector is diverse, inclusive and world leading.


The ARC Centre of Excellence in Exciton Science recommends:

o The Act should be amended to strengthen and elucidate the purpose of the ARC to support fundamental and practical research in equal measures towards ensuring that Australia benefits from a ‘strong and vibrant research sector’.
o The Act should be amended to include a statement to the effect that the purpose of the ARC is to support diversity across its awardees and work towards addressing inequality and homogeneity.
o The Act should refer and differentiate itself from the purpose of the NHMRC Act and the provision of funding for medical and clinical research.
o The Act should include a mandate for a comprehensive strategic document to be developed and updated on a regular (2 or 3 year) basis. This strategic document will allow policy makers and the ARC to consult with the sector on how the ARC can best achieve the purposes of the ARC as elucidated in the Act.

A fundamental question here is the scope of the ARC. It is difficult to believe that the ARC can expertly oversee both fundamental research in Australia as well as its implementation and practical application across a broad swathe of impact areas. Funding for the ARC should be kept at a level consistent with the higher levels of research funding in the OECD. However, it urgently needs to be complemented by dedicated funding into more strategic areas through other government departments to be able to realise its full practical application.

We suggest that this could occur by linking ARC funded ‘blue-sky’ and early applied projects to alternate Departmental funding that enables researchers to carry their basic research findings into focused areas. R&D programs in areas such as Defence, Marine, Atmospheric, Building and Construction, Aviation, Shipping, and Agriculture would enable greater return on ARC funding and allow Australia to better exploit its investments in basic research.

Furthermore, such strategic funding would allow more applied science to be pursued in a more systematic way and enable the ARC to focus on ‘blue-sky’ ideas and ensure a higher and consistent success rate across its portfolio.

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 suggestion for the reinstatement of the ARC Board is welcomed by Exciton Science. The Australian research and academic community is a diverse community of peers with varying expertise, perspectives and opinions. The ARC as the major funding body of research in Australia should similarly be represented by a Board of diverse experts. Exciton Science agrees with the proposal as set out by the Review Committee.

One additional function of the Board could be to advocate for the sector including ensuring funding levels and distributions towards Discovery and Linkage Programs are not compromised by political volatility or caprice.

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 ARC Act should incorporate a principle of requiring robust peer review to ensure that all grants funded by the ARC are of the highest quality. The ARC draws scientists and academics from across Australian universities to assess grants in a comprehensive and multi-stage process. This work is done by all academics who receive grant funding from the ARC and is an accepted part of being a member of the Australian research community. This ensures that experts in a range of fields alongside experts from other fields are brought together to assess research projects for the specific field expertise, benefits, and additions to the Australian and international field of knowledge, as well as the broader applications of the proposed work. Reviewers understand the importance of rigorous review and the system works on the reciprocity principle that other reviewers will give equal and due consideration to their applications.

While the College of Experts are provided with remuneration for their service to the peer review process, much of the work is unpaid and due consideration must be given to the level of effort and time spent on this process. We will address the administrative burden issue in later questions.

Nonetheless, this level of rigour and commitment to funding only the highest quality of research as decided through the peer review process must be maintained. Principles of peer review have been adopted for centuries, and it is the opinion of Exciton Science that a new, modern Australian principle be developed and adopted by the ARC and written into the Act. This should address commitments to this process such as acknowledging that the best placed people to assess research proposals are the researchers themselves; that they evaluate the proposals for quality, excellence, and impact; and that ministers and government should not intervene on the fundamental freedom of thought and expression endowed to academic research.

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.

Yes, as above we believe that the principles of peer review, and a newly established modern statement in ensuring excellence and the highest quality of research should be elucidated in the Act. In addition, it should be stated that all funding decisions should be protected from ministerial veto or influence on this process.

This will then allow our policy makers and bureaucratic officers to develop instruments and policies that are consistent with the Act and the principles stated within.

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

Exciton Science supports the principle of a National Interest Test in grant applications to convey in simple and easy to understand language the importance of the work to be undertaken in the funding request. However, it disagrees strongly with the way in which the National Interest Test has been used to create additional administrative burden on researchers and university research offices. It should be made clear in the funding rules and instructions to applicants what the ARC require from applicants in completing this section of the application. It is unfortunate that many people have learned the intent of the ARC through what has become colloquially known as ‘nitpicking’ instead of the ARC communicating plainly and clearly their expectation in completing this part of their grant applications.

Exciton Science strongly supports the academic community increasing its capability to speak of the importance of their research to the Australian public. The ARC and universities should invest further in ensuring all academics who are recipients of ARC funding are able to clearly communicate their research and the impact it generates to the wider public.

Exciton Science welcomes the recent changes to the NIT announced by Minister for Education Jason Clare on 30 November 2022.

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

Significant time and energy every year is dedicated to submitting grant applications to the ARC through major Discovery Project grant rounds, the myriad of fellowships, as well as the rolling Linkage Program grants, and other major initiatives such as Industrial Transformation Research Projects and Centres of Excellence. Each of these grants takes significant time and energy from our researchers which could be better invested in doing research. This is an unacceptable burden on the knowledge generation capacity of this country.

The most objectionable aspect of this effort is the extremely low success rates of the ARC grant schemes. The most recent round of Discovery Projects for 2023 saw an unprecedented low of 18% and with $40 million less funding provided in 2023 comparable to 2022. This is an unsustainable trend, especially when so many of these grants are ‘near misses’ being in the top 10% of applications but not funded.

A more realistic grant application process which appreciates the effort and work that goes into these applications must be adopted. This requires a streamlining and shortening of grant applications which could include, but is not limited to, a reduction in pages for the research proposal, combining aim, methodology, and national interest test into the one document, a simpler and more streamlined budget and budget justification, and where required a two-page CV should suffice for assessing suitability of candidates. This would assist in the removal of much of the duplication of information within applications.

Furthermore, the ARC should move to a two-stage process for all applications. A simple one-or two-page proposal could be submitted and approved before moving onto the full application stage where more information could be provided.

This would help to cut down on the burden of applications for researchers but also reviewers, who as we explained above do the lion’s share of peer review on a voluntary basis.

Additionally, where proposals require the inclusion of external partner organisations and investigators, a more streamlined and easier to navigate addition to RMS, including account oversight by the main applicant, and approvals for addition to the grant should be considered.

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)

In summation of the issues discussed in the sections above, Exciton Science suggestions include:

o An incorporation of the purpose of the ARC in providing funding for blue sky discovery and practical applications of research in Australia of the highest quality and in equal amounts, and a continuing review of research investment to ensure Australia remains an innovative nation.
o A connection to funding schemes across government to better facilitate and translate ‘blue-sky’ research into practical applications in critical technology areas and beyond.
o A commitment to supporting and working towards equality in the research sector and supporting researcher development at all levels of academia.
o A reinforcement of the principles of peer review and development of a new and modern statement to this effect to be include in the Act.
o A protection of the peer review process from ministerial veto elucidated within the Act.
o A streamlining of grant applications and processes and a move towards a two-stage process for all applications within the ARC.

Further to the above, Exciton Science suggests the following applications of the above principles:

o A specific strategy to link Australian research excellence at the fundamental level across government and support critical areas of technology from ideation to the bench and into Australian manufacturing and resources.
o Requirement of a genuine commitment to recipients of ARC Fellowships to continued employment after the end of the fellowship period subject to performance within their university communities.
o Requirement of gender quotas in applications to Discovery Projects and Fellowships across the sector.
o A ‘make up’ program for funded projects which have had considerable parental or carers leave within its lifetime, to give researchers the time to finish their projects to their full potential.
o An extension of lengths and terms of grants depending on scheme of between 5, 7 or 10 years to provide researchers with greater security and the ability to focus on producing high quality research without the pressure of the 3–4-year cycle of reapplying for grants.
o A rolling Discovery Project application process, or a revised and rapid assessment of applications to ensure relevance of research projects and alignment with global trends.
o Designation of PhD stipend rate to be applied to all ARC grants which moves closer towards minimum wage and providing the researchers of the future with a living wage.
o An expansion of the newly announced PhD Industry Program which is bound to be a huge success in ensuring the talented research workforce redefines and drives new and existing Australian industries into an innovative and productive future.
o A stronger coordination between new Industry programs such as the Industry PhD program and ARC funded programs.
o Development of funding schemes which consider successful outcomes of previously awarded ‘blue-sky’ grants such as Discovery Projects and Centre’s of Excellence to take that work into a stage two grant scheme. This will give demonstrably successful grant teams the opportunity to further develop the work for commercial application in their same capacity. This recognises the importance of the capability, capacity and momentum built up in these projects over several years and seeks to retain those qualities for further application and ensuring the high-quality work is supported to full commercial success.
o A fixed timeline of grant opening and closing dates, announcements, and release of changes to funding rules each year to encourage transparency and take the anxiety out of the application process.
o A more transparent and open discourse with academics, universities and other stakeholders about grant changes, funding levels, and requirement to ensure a collaborative and healthy research sector.



B)
The above suggestions are a combination of principles to guide policy and decision makers when creating the structure and processes for funding research in Australia. These high-level principles should be elucidated in the Act to protect and provide stability to the ARC for years to come.

The other suggestions are practical applications of these principles to assist the ARC in maintaining its productive and respectful relationship with the Australian and international research sector, and to enact the principles that define it.

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)
No, unfortunately it is our experience that such ranking and assessments of Australian universities has presented perverse incentives and skewing of priorities, not necessarily in the best interest of Australia’s universities, its researchers, or its students. More qualitative measures and incentives should be adopted to increase and reward outstanding performance than a quantitative data driven process.

B)
No Answer

C)
We do not believe that the Act should be amended to reference a function to assess research quality, etc., however we do believe that through the adoption of a suite of funding schemes that reward research excellence, capability, and capacity through continuity of funding, we will see an even greater commitment by researchers and universities to willingly aim for and celebrate success in their research programs.
This, in collaboration with a renewed focus on supporting diversity, inclusion and researchers through all stages of their careers, more security and stability through longer fellowships and performance based continuing positions, the Australian research sector will see a renewed and revitalised confidence resulting in it aiming and achieving research excellence of increasing importance

D)
No Answer

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.