Anonymous #49

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #49

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 ARC system is so broken that the best course may be to abolish it and start again from scratch. Its role in 'actively shaping the research landscape in Australia' has been negative rather than positive, particularly for the humanities and more specifically for researchers in Australian culture and history.

Changes to the ARC obviously need to be considered in relation to other reforms to the Research Block Grant system, and clarification of the extent to which funding for teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students is also intended to/can be used to fund research activities (esp. for teaching-research academics).

The key issue with current ARC programs is that the majority of research funding is awarded a limited group of senior, predominantly male, researchers from GO8 universities. The key challenge is how to distribute funding to across a larger number of scholars.

The ARC focus should be on pure/basic research. The Linkage program should be abolished. Applied research should be funded through other bodies.

The ‘one size fits all’ approach means discipline-specific research needs are not accommodated. ARC programs are particularly unsuited for the humanities.

All ‘types’ of researchers are also lumped in together. There is nothing, for example, that is specific to the ‘typical’ teaching-research academic. Different programs are needed for different 'categories' of researchers (eg. those in ongoing academic positions vs those who are unemployed or employed on casual or short term contracts). Currently, much funding goes to 'honoraries' who may be retired.

The focus on internationalisation means research in Australian history and culture has less chance for success (and this is particularly ironic given the ARC is Australia’s national research funding body and is virtually the only source of external funding for scholars in these fields). These fields are drastically underfunded. This was evidence in the 2020 Special Research Initiative for Australia-related research, which had a 7% success rate.

Consideration should be given to new programs/revision of existing programs (either via the ARC, through changes to the RBG, or other bodies/funding mechanisms) to allow for:
-redirecting the vast majority of ARC funding to ‘pure’ research (with applied research funding through other bodies/programs)
-changing programs to ensure research funding is spread across a larger number of scholars,
-specific funding streams for FT teaching-research academics vs precarious employed academics
-humanities-specific research needs (eg. individual grants, teaching relief, smaller grants).
- specific funding streams for Australian culture and history

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.

An ARC Board would be a good measure. However, a greater diversity of representation should be considered (including HDRs, early and mid career scholars, casual academics etc.)

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 College of Experts is limited to senior scholars. There is thus a lack of diversity in perspectives, knowledge and experience. As the ARC outcomes demonstrates, this also results in the majority of research funding going to senior, predominantly male, researchers from GO8 universities.

The College of Experts also needs to have the confidence of the research community. The processes for nomination to the COE could be improved - to provide great diversity and ensure members not only have requisite scholarly standing but that they also have the confidence of their peers to represent their field/discipline. This would include a reputation for integrity and fairness, and a capacity to understand and support the needs of different researchers at different career stages. There are also clear COI issues when COE members apply for ARC funding that need to be addressed far more robustly than they currently are.

A better range of knowledge/perspectives might be obtained by:
-direct election of some COE members via disciplinary bodies
-inclusion of some early and mid career researchers
-more representation of Indigenous and NESB researchers
-better representation from non-GO8 institutions
-utilising the expertise of some retired academics

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.

Peer review should be the key component of ARC selection processes in terms of assessing the quality of the research project proposed.

The Ministerial veto powers should be removed or at the very least severely limited (eg. where there are issues of fraud, misconduct or national security concerns).

The principles of free inquiry and fundamental research should be the basis for all ARC funding.

The current ARC approach to peer review has a number of other specific flaws, that impact on assessments of both project quality and track record, eg.
-it is not ‘double blind’
-there is no reference to prior peer assessments for resubmitted applications
-the standing of the applicant’s institution (eg. G08) plays far too much of a role in assessment processes
-wealthier institutions that can promise substantial additional $$ to an application – ie. they can essential ‘buy’ ARC grant success
-the majority of reviewers are drawn from successful ARC applicants (which means they are skewed to senior, male scholars). The College of Experts is also limited to senior scholars. There is thus a lack of diversity and perspective. As the ARC outcomes demonstrates, this results in the majority of research funding going to senior male academics.

However, there are well-documented problems with peer assessment of ‘track record’, particularly in relation to:
-career interruptions and related (discriminatory) notions of career ‘trajectory’
-quality vs quantity of research ‘outputs’
-the fact that prior grant funding success is often viewed as key criterion (rather than the actual research outcomes achieved).

There are many outstanding scholars in my field who have had little/no success with ARC applications. While this is admittedly anecdotal, it points to broader issues with ARC selection processes.

I have been specifically advised numerous times that only applications that include a team of researchers and at least one professor have any chance of success (and this seems to be supported by the funding outcomes). Junior/mid-career researchers must ‘attach’ themselves to a senior scholar (and alter their research plans accordingly) in order to achieve funding success. This is particularly problematic in the humanities where research standing is determined by an individual scholar’s contributions/research.

Peer review also should not be used to ‘rank’ applications to the minute level currently expected, and against so many specific criteria (including the ‘National Benefit Test’ which should be abolished).

A better/fairer/more efficient system would be to limit peer review assessments to confirmation that the proposed research is ‘high quality’ and feasible/fundable, and then use a ‘lottery’ to determine final outcomes.

Given the ongoing gender disparities in research funding, a quota system or ‘women only’ funding round would also be worth considering.

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

Both the National Interest Test and the National Benefit selection criteria should be removed from ARC applications/selection processes. Neither has done anything towards 'strengthening the social license for public funding of research'. They both have too much potential for political manipulation and subjective interpretation. They also undermine the principles of free inquiry that must be the basis for all 'pure' basic research.

Strengthening the 'social licence for public funding of research' should be pursued by other means. University marketing and fundraising professionals already do this in a number of ways - via various glossy brochures and other avenues. There are some who would argue that too much money is already wasted on these kinds of activities.

But more fundamentally, there is a worrying defensiveness to this question. It seems to be responding to/based in the perennial critiques from some quarters that certain kinds of research supported by the ARC are a waste of money. This small sector of the community is entrenched in this view. Neither the NIT nor the National Benefit selection criteria have done, or will do, anything to change this.

The best way to respond to this critique is simply to face it down. Australia spends far less public money on research than other comparable countries. We punch well above our weight in internationally terms considering this limited investment. The Australian public gets excellent value for money from this investment - there have been many studies demonstrating this.

The majority of this critique is directed at humanities research - which receives a very small proportion of the total public funding of research. Many humanities scholars (including myself) sustain active research programs on little to no funding/self-fund their own research as no there is no research support available either externally or internally.

Advice from the ARC which cautions applicants against “focusing only on benefits to academia” should definitely be revised/removed as it antithetical to the objectives of the Discovery Program to support 'pure' research. The ARC should be a key promoter of the value of fundamental research that contributes to human knowledge and understanding.

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

ALL of the current ARC processes are unnecessarily burdensome, inefficient and costly. They represent a huge waste of money that could otherwise be devoted to actual research.

Specifically:
-The length and complexity of grant applications (where less than 20% are successful). Up to 3 months of applicants' time can be wasted on an unsuccessful application. This also represents an enormous waste in $ terms.
-The cost of university research offices (that are largely made necessary by the complexity of these applications).
-The cost in terms of time spent by peer reviewers and COE members in assessing applications.
-The cost of running the ARC itself.

Once all of these costs are factored in, they represent more in dollar terms than the amount of research funding the ARC distributes. There is an urgent need to address this wastage.

Some possible ways forward:
1. Increase the Research Block Grant and limit ARC programs to very large/costly projects and fellowships. More scholars would rely on regular internal funding/there would be far fewer ARC applications.
2. Introduce a 2-stage application system - ie. an initial short 1-2 page outline stage, followed by a full (but still shorter and simplified) application from those that 'pass' the first stage.
3. A simplified peer review process limited to confirmation that the proposed research is ‘high quality’ and feasible/fundable, followed by a ‘lottery’ to determine final outcomes.
4. Longer term funding that is linked to individual researchers rather than specific projects/outcomes.

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.

As per answer to previous question, improvements could be achieved through:

1. Increase the Research Block Grant and limit ARC programs to very large/costly projects and fellowships. More scholars would rely on regular internal funding/there would be far fewer ARC applications.
2. Introduce a 2-stage application system - ie. an initial short 1-2 page outline stage, followed by a full (but still shorter and simplified) application from those that 'pass' the first stage.
3. A simplified peer review process limited to confirmation that the proposed research is ‘high quality’ and feasible/fundable, followed by a ‘lottery’ to determine final outcomes.
4. Longer term funding that is linked to individual researchers rather than specific projects/outcomes.

There is an urgent need to address the needs of researchers in 'low cost' fields - ie. those who only need $5000-20,000 per annum. This is mainly humanities researchers. It may well be that the ARC is not the best mechanism to address this need. Research Networks or disciplinary Centres of Excellence (with powers to distribute small grants) are possible ways forward, along with increasing the RBG (and making this more or entirely independent of external grant funding).

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?

Both the ERA and EI are enormous waste of time and money, an unnecessary burden on the sector.

They have done little to shift the focus away from quantity/to quality.

Data-driven approaches have issues, and are not easily applicable to all disciplines, but would be far preferable to the current system

Submission received

14 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.