Anonymous #38

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #38

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 might be usefully adjusted to reach a better balance between excellence in research and support of career progression. Currently too many grants are going to people already retired and early and mid career grants support people who have reached job security already. As a result Australia is failing to retain talent in its research landscape.

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

Include compulsory spending on open access publications in all budgets of grant applications.

Emphasise what Australia gains from non-commercial research activities such as better staff, makes better universities for Australian students, etc.

Stop giving airtime to idea of collaborative research funding between industry and gov. If industry see commercial potential in research they should pay for it themselves.

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

The applications in general are too long and onerous when in reality, after having met a basic merit bar, outcomes are a lottery. One suggestion would be to open a very brief EOI round prior to DE and DP rounds to shortlist projects for full submissions. Another would be to set criteria and actually conduct a lottery on those applications that meet the criteria.

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?

This question seems to pander to the idea of prioritising research that is foremost commercially applicable again. It's a shame that the coalition government has been so successful is shaping the discourse around this and the ARC should be careful not to make it a permanent part of its DNA.

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.