Roy McBurney

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Roy McBurney

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.

a. The scope of research funding supported by the ARC should be broad and not prescriptive as new research areas emerge over time. The clash between ARC and NHMRC funding should be better described. There are many research projects at the interface, such as developing AI, machine learning, etc, that use medical data but does not deliver a health outcome as part of the project. Many researchers are ruled ineligible due to a poor choice of words despite the project having a fundamental science research purpose.

b. The balance is fine. However, the Linkage Program needs to be re-evaluated given that industry finds it hard to 1) commit to 5 years of funding in the case of ITRP or even 3 years for an LP, 2) waiting 9 months to a year for an outcome, and then 3) having to negotiate with one or several Universities on IP whilst taking into account the tax-payer contribution.

c. The ARC is the peak funder for non-medical/health funding. It needs to better advocate for research in Australia, to draw new talent in and retain that talent, and to drive partnerships with key strategic international partners. The ARC should not determine the research focus for Australia, the research sector can drive that.

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.

A Board needs to be established to oversee the ARC. The current framework does not work. The Board should be made up of leading national and international researchers and key industry CEOs or CTOs.

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.

Academic peer-review is the best model we have for determining the need and worthiness of research proposals and as such should be consolidated as the pre-eminent method of awarding grants, in conjunction with any required eligibility checks and/or national security matters. The CEO should not have a veto on the NIT.

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

This requires a culture change, perhaps best done through the Fellowships schemes. Fellowships represent our best and brightest and they should be encouraged and provided funding for creating links to create or enhance the social license for pursuing their area of research which then benefits public enlightenment. Noting that in some disciplines the public understanding is limited which merits greater support to bridge that gap.

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

1. Poor training of ARC staff. I used to work in a central research office, everyone who dealt with ARC post-award had stories of conflicting advice and lack of responses. This was across all levels of the ARC. Many processes were only communicated by email or telephone call and these at time conflicted with the publicly available stated process. This led in many cases to wasted time and bad outcomes for researchers.

2. Eliminate several budget categories in the grant applications and have a budget ceiling per annum. At present we have 1) personnel, 2) project costs, 3) travel 4) maintenance, 5) Teaching Relief, 6) other. Simplify this to 1) personnel and 2) project costs. Teaching relief is always cut from a budget. HDR stipends should also be variable to allow award at the varying institutional rates. Many researchers pad the budget as they know for DPs that it is often cut by 80%. Therefore, just eliminate the budget evaluation process and award the full amount.

3. Rejoinders. Eliminate this process. It only matters for maybe 5% of researchers who are borderline fundable, yet 100% of researchers and many professional staff have to spend time finessing these. Some even pay external consultants to help!

4. Variation to funding agreements. There are many aspects of this that the Universities could manage themselves without seeking ARC approval, specifically: a CI or PI moves organisation, PO changes it's name, a PO withdraws from the project but yet you need ARC approval for them to be removed? There are myriad common sense streamlining efforts that would shape post-award better. The NHMRC is a good example.

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. use data better, actually partner with leading international funders on joint funding opportunities.

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. It's a wasted effort where everyone, rather than conduct research, spends their time gaming the system for a good score.

b. use publicly available datasets that are discipline specific to evaluate 1) research output and quality, and 2) research impact evaluation which is actually used to deliver funding to enhance impact to end-user groups, not necessarily the researcher or Universities where the research is performed. This could be an annual round of light touch case studies demonstrating partnerships between academia and end-users or groups in-between. This would be a better use of tax-payers money compared to the pork-barrelling endemic in Australia.

c. Yes

d. Yes. ERA and EI are woefully out-dated.

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. draw on the College of Experts

b. use publicly available data

c. 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?

learn from the best funders around the world.

Submission received

10 November 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.