Australia and New Zealand Association for Medieval and Early Modern Studies

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Australia and New Zealand Association for Medieval and Early Modern Studies

Responses

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 Australian and New Zealand Association for Medieval and Early Modern Studies (ANZAMEMS), is a scholarly organisation that exists to promote and foster all aspects of Medieval, Renaissance, and Early Modern Studies in Australia and New Zealand. ANZAMEMS advocates for revision of the Act to remove Ministerial power of veto on four grounds:
1. Academic freedom is fundamental in a liberal democratic society, and to the moral, material and intellectual advancement of the human condition. Academic freedom, therefore, ought to be treated as a ‘defining value’ by governments as well as universities.
2. Ministerial veto damages Australia’s standing globally by contradicting agreed international principles.
3. The Australian system of peer-review of applications for public research funding is rigorous, and conducted by experts who have an unparalleled understanding of the potential value of each proposal.
4. Humanities research offers insights that are crucial to understanding people, society and the world, and our past, present and future.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS A ‘DEFINING VALUE’ OF AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH
Academic freedom is a ‘defining value’ of the Australian university sector. The 2019 Report of the Independent Review of Freedom of Speech in Australian Higher Education Providers (French Review) was accepted by the (then) Minister for Education Dan Tehan. The ‘Model Code for the Protection of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Australian Higher Education Providers’ (Model Code) offered by the French Review has been widely adapted and adopted by Australian universities with the active support of the government.

The Model Code set out, as a key objective, “[t]o ensure that academic freedom is treated as a defining value by the university and therefore not restricted nor its exercise unnecessarily burdened by restrictions or burdens other than those imposed by law and set out in the Principles of the Code.” Universities and academic staff cannot exercise their academic freedom without public funding processes that are free from Ministerial veto once rigorous, independent assessment by experts has been undertaken.

The Model Code asserts the right of scholar to pursue research topics without undue burden or impediment in its definition of academic freedom: “the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and beliefs, and to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research”.

ANZAMEMS believes that Ministerial veto of research projects that have been recommended for funding by the ARC impinges directly on this right to academic freedom.

Legislation that allows ministerial veto of funding that has been recommended by the ARC after rigourous peer-review by experts is at odds with the ‘defining value’ of academic freedom and ought to be changed. Amending the Act to ensure that funding is awarded based on peer-review is the best method for ensuring academic freedom in national competitive funding schemes.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS AN AGREED INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLE
Academic freedom is fundamental to the conduct of a liberal democratic society, and to the moral, material and intellectual advancement of the human condition. In global contexts, the importance of academic freedom in research is widely recognised, and the current review of the Australian Research Council Act is a critical opportunity to bring national legislation in line with this principle and with comparable legislation in other liberal democracies.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) is a multilateral treaty to which Australia is party. Article 15. 3 states that signatory nations “to the present Covenant undertake to respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity.” This broad statement pertains to academic freedom as well as to other domains in the principle it expresses.

Academic freedom is enshrined into law in other international contexts, as the French Review notes, for example in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is also guaranteed in the national constitutions of liberal democracies Brazil, Japan, South Africa, Spain and Germany.
Research funding in the United Kingdom has been structured by the Haldane Principle since the early twentieth century. This principle is described in the UK Higher Education and Research Act 2017: “decisions on individual research proposals are best taken following an evaluation of the quality and likely impact of the proposals (such as a peer review process).” The principle was fundamental to the 2017 restructuring of UK research funding under one body, United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) by a Conservative government. This transformation of the UK research-funding landscape articulates processes for grant award based on peer review, and without ministerial right of veto.
Australia should adopt a model that reflects its commitments to academic freedom and international practice which award grants based on peer-review processes.

ARC EXPERT PEER-REVIEW PROCESSES ARE RIGOROUS AND ROBUST
The Commonwealth government is profoundly involved in shaping research funding, including by setting national Science and Research Priorities and by determining the nature of funding schemes and their criteria. The ARC has robust and rigorous assessment processes that ensure priorities are adhered to and rules followed before funding is recommended.

Every research proposal recommended for funding by the ARC has undergone a rigorous peer-review process, involving two stages, by national and international research experts in its respective academic fields. The scholars who undertake this work have unparalleled understanding of the potential value and benefits of the proposed research precisely because of their expertise. The process includes consideration of ‘value for money’ and national benefit – the grounds on which the most recent ministerial vetoes were made. These justifications of value are necessarily thorough, and account for diverse forms of scholarly, community and national value that have been accepted by the process of peer review. Ministerial veto of the successful applications, justified most recently on the basis that these proposals failed to offer ‘value for money’, threatens the careers of individual researchers. It also constitutes a rejection of the high standards of the assessment processes themselves.

The ARC administers assessment with stringency, and at great expense. These processes depend upon the uncompensated labour of scholars across Australia. Ministerial veto jeopardises the good faith that scholars bring to assessment and applications, and profoundly undermines the ARC’s legitimacy, both nationally and internationally.

ANZAMEMS strongly advocates removal of Ministerial power of veto over grants recommended as a result of peer-review processes from the Act.

HUMANITIES RESEARCH HAS SOCIAL, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Research in the Humanities is valuable to Australian social, cultural and economic life. ANZAMEMS agrees with (then) Chief Scientist of Australia Ian Chubb who wrote in 2014: ‘The humanities, arts and social science (HASS) disciplines provide vital knowledge and understanding of our world, its peoples and societies.’ The global covid-19 pandemic has highlighted is the essential nature of Humanities research. Where science has provided life-saving vaccines, understanding human nature and social forces plays a critical role in ensuring they are used.

Humanities research can also have unexpected impacts. The Power of the Humanities Report highlights a case study where a supercomputer methodology created to tell whether an anonymous play was written by Shakespeare was then adapted to diagnose cancers.

Research in HASS is linked closely to the creative industries sector, which makes very significant contributions to Australian social, cultural and economic life. The Austrade website summarises this:
The Australian government recognises that a creative economy contributes to cultural diversity, social inclusion, environmental sustainability and technological advancement. Creativity is key to innovation, driving sustainability and prosperity. Creativity and innovation play an important role in Australia’s resilience to recent global economic challenges, helping Australia to register 22 years of uninterrupted economic growth.

The engaged, impactful nature of humanities research, including in Medieval and Early Modern studies has also been recognised in the inaugural Australian assessment. In the 2018 ARC Engagement and Impact Assessment, Humanities projects were recognised as having had environmental, social, economic, and cultural impact, that is, as having impact across the full range of possible domains. A project rated ‘High’ from Charles Sturt University, for example, which engaged with Medieval Studies, was recognised as having had social, economic and cultural benefit. In the same Assessment, the activities of the ARC-funded Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions, which was principally focussed in Medieval and Early Modern studies, were central to the ‘High’-rated Engagement narratives from History and Archaeology at the University of Western Australia and Language, Literature and Culture at the University of Queensland.

The highly successful ARC Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions exemplifies the engagement and impact that characterises Australian Humanities research. The Centre collaborated with community, arts and government organisations from the Kalbarri Development Association Inc, to Opera Australia, the National Gallery of Victoria, Sydney Dance Company, the Koorie Development Trust, NSW Department of Family and Community Services, theatre, music and arts companies, festivals, galleries and museums, schools, and Australian and international research institutions. Findings from researchers’ projects were used to produce radio, tv, art, drama, computer games and more, enhancing Australian culture, and contributing to arts and cultural industries, including economically. Methods and findings also informed contemporary applied research, particularly relating to democracy and political engagement, law, media, social care, and well-being.

Recent Ministerial veto of Humanities projects disregarding the significant value research in those disciplines has demonstrably had, highlighted problems associated with political control over academic freedom and over-riding of peer recommendations.

CONCLUSION
Vetoing funding for Humanities projects recommended by the ARC impinges on academic freedom, goes against international principles agreed by and practices in comparable liberal democracies, undermines Australian expertise and peer-review processes, and fails to recognise the value of Humanities research in Australian social, cultural and economic life. A fit-for-purpose and best-practice system of public funding for academic research should not include power of veto by elected official or bureaucrats, but should rely solely on peer-review by experts. ANZAMEMS, therefore, strongly recommends revision of the Act to remove Ministerial power of veto.

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.