Anonymous #48

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #48

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.

It is crucial for Australia’s long-term prosperity to support and strengthen Australian fundamental research programs, primarily through the Discovery Project scheme.
Most technological and scientific breakthroughs are based upon fundamental research that, at the time when it was carried out, had no targeted commercial application.
The ARC should explicitly recognise the key role that the ARC should have in providing support for fundamental research. The ARC funding should be focused on the pursuit of academic research excellence and training, and should not defined by commercial application.
The Discovery program is massively underfunded, both relative to the Linkage program and overall. A 4-fold increase in funding in the Discovery scheme is needed, just to begin the rebuilding process.
The ARC must appoint active research leaders to drive its regeneration. Only those involved in research can improve the research landscape in Australia.

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 ARC Act should instate a governance model that establishes a board which should consist of prominent, active research leaders. The ARC CEO must also be a research leader. The ARC Board should provide the ARC CEO with key advice and direction on the application and review process. These processes should be in line with best practices internationally.

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?

Expert assessments should carry a significantly higher weighting, relative to opinions of (non-expert) selection advisory committee members. There is insufficient discipline expertise on the selection advisory committee.

Several discipline-focused reviewers could be involved in ranking applications in each discipline, then cross-disciplinary panels could focus only on the final balancing of funding decisions.

The National Interest Test should be removed.

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.

Peer review must be retained for all applications. An absolute minimum of 3 expert assessments is needed for each application.

Applications should be written for - and assessed by - discipline experts.

More international experts should be involved in peer review for Discovery, Linkage, Future Fellow and DECRA schemes.

Centre of Excellence and ARC Laureate Fellowship applications should involve greater contributions from international experts.

Unsuccessful applicants receive insufficient feedback.

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

No other advanced democratic country includes a ministerial veto over research funding. This system damages Australia’s international reputation. No minister should have veto power over research grants. This power undermines the public credibility of researchers, hence publicly funded research.

Researchers devote enormous (and steadily increasing) amounts of time applying for ever diminishing amounts of ARC funding. If researchers were better funded, then they would have more time to prosecute research, more time to convey the enormous benefits to the public, and be able to deliver more benefits to the public. The solution is simple - more funding for research.

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

● Uncertainty regarding announcements;
● Changes to grant rules and deadlines;
● Onerous requirements made of partner investigators who do not receive direct funding;
● The scope and currency of Australia’s Science and Research Priorities.

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.

Deliver grant rounds on time, to a predetermined time frame.

The application and review processes could be simplified a lot, without negative impact.

Significantly increased funding to the Discovery Grant scheme and two or more application rounds per year.

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?

They are expensive and should be discontinued. ARC data portals are sufficient.

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?

The ARC spends too much time and money on speculation, data collection and analysis and far too little on funding excellent research which trains future leaders and drives technological advances.

Perhaps this is an answer also to a previous question: there is insufficient trust from government in (particularly scientific) experts, and this impacts negatively upon the public perception. The government needs to (re)gain their trust in experts to perform groundbreaking research. The more "reporting" hoops the ARC makes researchers jump through, the more $$$ are spent on bureaucracy instead of research.

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?

Significant change is needed. I hope that those involved take this opportunity to improve the ARC.

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.