National Association for the Visual Arts

Name (Individual/Organisation)

National Association for the Visual Arts

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.

ARC funding is crucial for extensive partnership-based research between academic and arts industry bodies as the basis for exploring developments in practice, responding to local and global impacts on Australian artists and organisations, as well as informing arts infrastructure reforms.

Earlier this year, NAVA raised concern that Ministerial discretion and alignment with the Government’s manufacturing priorities and commercialisation agenda will result in a loss of critical research, investment and innovation in the arts and creative industries across Australia.

NAVA supports the submission of the National Advocates for Art Education (NAAE) of which we are a member and affirms that it is in the ‘national interest’ for research to be funded that values the educational, social and cultural dimensions of human knowledge and experience. Creative arts research is critical to help promote social inclusion and cohesion, foster critical thinking, imagination and innovation – all aspects that are essential to Australia’s future.

Australia continues to lag behind other countries in recognising the value of creative arts research to national economic growth in a wide range of industries. Through evidence-based creative arts research, universities and key bodies enhance our understanding of the complexities of the human process, explore our capacity to create, and reflect and innovate in response to critical social, environmental and economic challenges in contemporary society.

The nine Science and Research Priorities must be expanded to include education, society, arts and culture. Further, the highly problematic National Interest Test should be deleted. ARC applications already include explanations, justifications, value of the research and a summary.

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.

NAVA reiterates the submission from the NAAE that the Act could be amended to include recognition of a requirement for the ARC to appoint key personnel and panels with expertise in research, academic excellence and peer review process.

NAVA promotes the long-established mechanism of arm’s length, peer review as a best practice process for grant approvals. One of the great benefits of peer-reviewed assessment processes is the shared value for the process’ integrity and ethical conduct of panel members. This approach is consistently respected world-wide. Academic research throughout the world is built on a foundation of review of research outputs and funding applications by those best able to evaluate the methodology, the knowledge context and the research claims.

Ministers and executive staff must not be able to change the decisions of the engaged peer-review assessment panel without a consultation and approval process between the Minister/staff member and the chair of the panel.

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

The overall success rate of applications for ARC grants dropped from just over 30% in 2002-07 to 20% in 2017-22. The overall success rate of Humanities and Creative Arts applications for Discovery Projects commencing in 2022 was just 18.7%, with 54 Discovery Projects approved for funding. It is time to review the funding pool.

Many Australian universities have benefitted from excellence in their arts faculties, earning international reputations for cultural sophistication and investment in experimentation and innovation. They have enjoyed a strong recognition amongst peers, seen to be providing specialist and multi-disciplinary approaches to research-based visual arts, craft and design education that reflects the diversity of professional art practice. Investment in creative arts research is critical for facilitating globally competitive research and partnerships.

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.

NAVA recommends an expansion of the ARC to offer small grants for investigatory research or small-scale projects. International examples include the Leverhulme Small Research Grants which is one of the British Academy’s highest profile programs with awards made to academics working at around 100 Institutions around the UK, and the National Institute of Health R03 small grant scheme in the US which supports pilot and feasibility studies; secondary analysis of existing data; small, self-contained research projects; development of research methodology; and development of new research technology.

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.