Anonymous #39

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #39

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.

I think there should be more funding made available to researchers through the ARC. The success rate of grants in Discovery Projects was lower this year than last year and this is in an already reduced funding environment thanks to a shrinking university sector post-pandemic.

There should also be a streamlined application process. It is ridiculous to bring together a complete application for DPs or Linkages given the very low success rates. I have been involved in bringing together Linkage and DP grants and have been blown away by the hundreds of hours involved in bringing together teams, helping partners navigate a complicated system, and coordinating feedback from research offices.

It would be so much more practical to have an EOI system where we put in an overview of a proposed project and then are invited to create a complete research plan and application. This would be more efficient for the ARC too in terms of review hours.

I think more funding should be made available to HASS disciplines as well. It is extremely hard in Linkage rounds to compete against engineering/science teams that have well-funded partners who are able to commit large funds to potential projects.

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 governance of ARC could be changed so that it is accountable to the academics who submit and review applications rather than politicians who have in the past exercised vetoes against approved applications.

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.

The process of evaluating applications and releasing decisions on approvals has improved since the Federal government change this year but more transparency about release dates and a quicker turn around would be preferable. It is a long time between submitting a grant and seeing if you do/don't get it for research partners.

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

A few things can be done:
1. Don't veto approved grants
2. Reduce time between submission and approvals/completion of evaluation
3. Allow for an eoi process so that grant writing efficiency is increased

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

Writing a complete grant application that has limited chance of success is a huge waste of researcher's time.

Asking research partners in Linkage applications to fill out high level admin forms that don't work really puts off potential collaborators. I had a manager of NSW government nearly pull out of my linkage application because of how hard it was to write the application. Please make it easier to work with collaborators who are already super busy and overstretched.

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.

I understand that the Wellcome Grant process has an EOI procedure - ARC could learn from them.

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
B. let peers evaluate quality
C. Yes - less emphasis on number of publications and grants already won - if people have won an ARC grant, they are inevitably going to get another one. It is deeply inequitable.

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.