Southern Cross University

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Southern Cross University

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;
Yes, currently, the scope of ARC funding is defined by the CEO and approved by the minister and does not capture the ways in which the ARC acts to shape the research landscape in Australia. This is a bureaucratic rather than strategic approach to advancing Australia’s research potency. This type of decision making should be placed in the hands of a representative body that has direct engagement and insight into Australia’s research needs. There also needs to be more equity in distribution of grants to regional universities. Further, gender equity in terms of the under representation of women CIs needs to be seriously addressed, as does the scope across disciplines. Gender parity also needs to be considered if innovation is truly what the ARC stands for-lack of diversity -a weakness that needs to be addressed by both ARC and universities

b. the balance of Discovery and Linkage research programs;
There should be opportunities to simplify the Act yet retain the commitment to this important balance to ensure Australia continues to invest in Discovery or fundamental research to underpin the remainder of the research ecosystem.
The principal source of Cat 1 funding for educational researchers is the Discovery program. For example, in educational research, from 2009-2017, nearly one-third of all projects had no partners, which, given the emphasis on industry focused research, is a concern for educational research in Australia. This disjuncture however needs to be viewed in the context of a complete lack of funding for ‘pure’ research from other sources.

c. the role of the ARC in actively shaping the research landscape in Australia; and/or
A key recommendation is that the ARC is split into two councils – essentially a humanities/social sciences council and science council. The current ARC system doesn’t work well for HASS disciplines. There is also a significant metropolitan/regional divide where regional universities are historically less successful in obtaining Cat 1 funding through the ARC, performing poorly in comparison to other Australian university groupings. There appears to be a preference towards allocating funding to the Go8 universities. Consideration be given to encourage metropolitan universities to partner with regional universities.

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 ARC governance model is not adequate for the ARC to perform its functions; a different model is needed. A greater push is needed for ensuring research integrity, ethical research and equity. Values around the whole ARC application process through to the end need to be more transparent and clearer to academics, industry and the public. Re-establishing the ARC board (with modifications) to oversee the functions, scope and purpose of the ARC might be an effective way to strengthen governance and improve efficiency and ethics.

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?

Better definition of the role of Executive Directors and the College of Experts including definitions of academic excellence and appropriate expertise might be helpful in improving the Act to ensure that peer review is high quality and that the College of Experts in particular has credibility within the research community, as well as greater transparency and accountability. There should be equitable representation from all disciplines within the college of experts. Ie agriculture seems to be left out.

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, not only is there strong support in the sector with respect to the significance of peer review in the grant approval process, confidence in approvals being at the discretion of the minister has been eroded in recent years. Of particular importance is transparency in the grant approval process. Given the significant research expertise within the ARC, the discretionary power of the minister to ignore or intervene in the grant approval process is of concern.

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 National Interest Test has potential benefit in terms of enhancing public support for research funding through the ARC; however, the NIT is not necessarily well understood by the community. A clearer definition of the NIT would help with communication.

The word limit is too short to get the message across on the National Interest.

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

Uncertainty regarding timelines, particularly announcements of grant funding, is a considerable challenge, as are the prescriptive financial requirements, variations and approvals.

Smaller universities usually have 1 person who manages multiple individual schemes at the same time, consideration of this when setting timelines and announcements.

NTROS only work for the ARC when there is an equivalence -ie., documentaries/exhibitions. There is no real understanding of how, for instance, a novel or a film, might function as research, and to my knowledge no novels/films (except docos) have been funded. Most funded projects involving creative disciplines actually have traditional outputs, this is also true of the more practice-based disciplines such architecture and fashion. While ‘practice’ is not research as such, the ability to combine research and practice is critical to transdisciplinary approaches to the wicked problems facing society.

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. 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?

The ARC is far too competitive and has not nearly enough collaborative and partnership focus. It would be very helpful to have clarity about the focus and process of the ARC on how cross- university-industry partnerships might be better facilitated /coordinated by the ARC to increase research collaboration between research teams doing the same

b. To the ARC Act to give effect to these process improvements, or do you suggest other means?

An EOI stage for Discovery and Linkage applications would streamline processes along with reducing administrative burden on individual researchers and on University research offices.

c. Please include examples of success or best practice from other countries or communities if you have direct experience of these.

The Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [SSHRC] includes a focus on research partnerships and development grants (connection program) – see https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx. which is very supportive of educational research.

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?

Yes, ERA in its current form has outlived its usefulness. It has also been extremely labour- intensive and in recent submissions pushed the divide of STEM and HASS further apart.
This is an opportunity to align TEQSA, Department of Education and the ARC in requirements and opportunities. Ie HERDC, HESDEC, ERA, EI
Review the intersection of the R&D expenditure (ABS) submission to HERDC submission, in particular SEO codes
Use new technologies to support future requirements for TEQSA, Department of Education and the ARC


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?

There will be a significant cost to universities in both infrastructure and resources, current systems and processes need to be taken into consideration regardless of the decisions.

If both HERDC and HESDC are managed by the Department of Education and have the correct metadata components then upgrading repository’s is an option to explore if the sole purpose is the capture and curation of scholarly research outputs for the purpose of external reporting. Use of SEOS to inform Engagement and Impact should also be considered.

Universities and ARC to co design and create models (in the first instance) for both infrastructure and metadata for STEM, HASS, Indigenous disciplines.

Due consideration to be given to how adjunct research outputs can be included, adjuncts do not form part of any other submission process, hence not included. The inclusion of adjunct PIDs to be considered in the repository design as adjuncts play an integral role in regional universities research.


c. Should the ARC Act be amended to reference a research quality, engagement and impact assessment function, however conducted?

As long as the Act does not specify a particular approach to assessing research quality, engagement and impact.
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?

Absolutely

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?

This capability can be significantly enhanced by redefining and expanding expertise. While academic/ research expertise is a given in processes, capability needs to be expanded to include leading education practitioners (consumer groups) and ‘others’ who have specific expertise and experience in situational problem areas. This strengthens the evaluation from an application fit to real -world problem circumstances and within various education settings and situations, creating a balance between the technical and application merit of research. This type of approach has the potential to significantly enhance the value and excellence of Australian research especially when this expertise is expanded to various societal demographics, particularly those who are underrepresented in such areas.

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?

When you redefine and expand ‘expertise’ in an ARC sense, as outlined previously, you bring in new ideas and generate the potential for a refocusing of priorities, process, merit and research value, and this has significant benefit for various stakeholders. Creating positions within the ARC establishment to enable this expertise diversity would be a key consideration, as would generating and sustaining research networking communities to enable the engineering of approaches to sharing best practices and identifying national gaps and opportunities

c. would a data-driven methodology assist in fulfilling this purpose?

Having data systems which enable the identification and evaluation of capability provisions and profiles can be effective tools in such processes, however it is important to ensure the methodology supports the desired outcomes and not create circumstances that hinder these new capabilities

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?

This review is timely. Australia, as a member of a highly technology intensive globalised society is facing a myriad of challenges, but is equally positioned for opportunities. Research is key to creating, identifying and tapping such opportunities and accordingly, a refocusing of the ARC into education research is now an urgent matter. The education system is the cornerstone of Australia’s prosperity and the future of young people and for too long ‘education’ has not been prioritised for research funding. This is a significant contrast to the rhetoric of Government policy positions and it needs to be rectified as a matter of urgency.

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.