Brian Yates

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Brian Yates

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.

1.1 It is true that the extent of the current role of the ARC is not captured in the Act, but maybe this is OK. Maybe it is better to make sure the governance is right (see question 2) so that these other functions can be negotiated, agreed and supported rather than enshrined in the legislation. It is better to have good governance and good overarching purpose, rather than be constrained by legislation.

1.2 I have read the ACDS submission to this review. I strongly support the notion that the ARC funds support just part of the overall research value chain. It is important to recognise this in the overall purpose of the ARC and to acknowledge that other agencies, institutions, industry and parts of government support research at different points along the research value chain, and particularly in the translation and commercialisation of research and in the transformation of industry.

1.3 The ARC has a role in terms of broader research management and the development of research policy in Australia. Again, it may not be appropriate to enshrine these aspects in legislation, but the contributions of the ARC in these areas should be encouraged.

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.

In my time working at the ARC (Executive Director 2013-2015), it seemed that although the Advisory Committee had good people on it, it was probably not engaged enough with the overall purpose and operation of the ARC. I support the idea of a Board, but the Board itself needs to be accountable and have a clear mandate to ensure that the ARC addresses the broader purposes of the agency to the best of its ability.

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?

I don't have any specific recommendations about the Act. I simply endorse the importance of taking genuine account of academic expertise and peer review.

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.

In some ways, I don’t think we want to lose the value of parliamentary oversight of how tax payer’s money is used. But ministerial intervention should be exceptional. It should include written justification of the decision to reject a recommended research proposal (more than just a single sentence) and a point-by-point rebuttal of the NIT of the grant application.

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

I think the modified requirements for the NIT are reasonable. Being able to identify the national benefits and think about a path to adoption is something every applicant *should* be able to do.

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

It is difficult to get the balance right. In relation to the panel suggestions:

• Announcements – yes, it is important that the Minister and the ARC stick to a schedule. People’s careers and livelihoods depend on the timing of the announcements; the dates are not arbitrary.

• Onerous requests for information – these should be balanced with a detailed understanding of the time required. Perhaps a starting point is to get a better understanding of the average effort involved in preparing different parts of the grant application, and then agree on a reasonable target.

• Onerous requirements of partner investigators – yes, these need to be reduced, in line with the research support provided.

• Prescriptions around budgets – there needs to be a balance between accountability (actually doing what you said you were going to do in the grant application) and reasonable flexibility. I think the balance is OK at the moment, but regular communication on this topic with researchers will help with this.

• Research outputs – The ARC has been very responsive to discipline differences in the type of research outputs that are considered to be important. This could be strengthened through regular feedback with discipline groups.
In terms of the number of research outputs that should be evaluated, I support the idea that in STEM it is better to include only a small number (perhaps 5) of your most significant publications over the last 5 years. In other disciplines it might be different. In addition, the total number of research outputs can be listed somewhere else in the application (or H-index or m-index or whatever is appropriate for a discipline).

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.

7.1 My main suggestion is that the ARC Act should empower the ARC to be able to act quickly to fix issues as they arise. It may be that this requires more ‘self-determination’ or autonomy for the agency, while still operating within the broad purposes of the ARC.

7.2 Secondly, the ARC should consider moving to a partially anonymised assessment process. The NCI facility in Canberra has adopted this approach and, from an applicant’s point of view, it is simple and it makes sense. One could envisage a two-stage assessment process where many of the assessment criteria (including part of the Investigator criterion) could be addressed anonymously in the first stage, followed by information about the particular applicants and institutions in the second stage.

7.3 In relation to other reform ideas mentioned by the panel:
• EOI? This is very complex in that there are good reasons for and against.
• Travel fund? No, travel should be encouraged but it should also be justified briefly in the budget.
• Research networks? I think these can become elitist.
• Longer funding cycles? (like DORA) An alternative may be to make it easy to extend the grant for another two years if there has been outstanding productivity. But my preference is to fund as many good researchers as possible, not to lock up the funding for a few people.

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?

It is important to consider what is needed for the future (in terms of managing the research landscape or developing government policy). At the moment, it does seem that ERA and EI have served their purpose and perhaps there is no need to continue.

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?

On the face of it, there does not seem to be a real need for this capability to be maintained. There would need to be a good justification and an agreed desired outcome.

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?

As mentioned under question 1, I think the ARC could have a greater role in contributing to research policy in Australia. It could draw on the expertise within the agency, as well as coordinating input from diverse sectors of the research landscape.

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.