Anna Hickey-Moody

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anna Hickey-Moody

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) The scope of research funding supported by the ARC is unfairly weighted towards the hard sciences. ARC research priority areas currently exclude education, arts, humanities and social sciences. Research priority areas should be amended to include foci that draw on expertise fostered in arts, humanities, social sciences and education. Education Across the Lifespan or Cultural Histories or Art for Social Cohesion are rough examples of priority areas that are in the national interest and draw on expertise outside the hard sciences.

2) The Linkage program should not be limited to projects in manufacturing. It should fund projects across all disciplines, as it has done very successfully in the past.

3) The emphasis on metrics in research assessment is misplaced. Metrics only effectively evaluate hard sciences. Social sciences, arts and humanities are more accurately assessed through peer review and qualitative esteem measures.

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.

I think the board model has merit. The process through which the board is elected should involve nomination and voting in by the subject area experts that rely on the support of the board members.

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 think people who apply for ARC funding and who receive ARC should have the opportunity to vote in board members. I think the Minister for Education should not have the power to veto grants. He is not a subject expert.

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.

I think that all scores should be provided to applicants- both the reviewer’s scores and the panel of experts rankings. At the moment applicants only get reviewer feedback, not scores. We need to see how we have scored. The band rankings are not that specific. More detail would be useful.

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 there needs to be public facing education about the value of research in Australian culture. One third of a Vice Chancellor’s salary would fund an excellent public education campaign. It would be fantastic to see univeristy management set an example here.

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

1) ARC grants could be in two stages. A short EOI then a longer application for those who have been shortlisted. Like the European Research Council grant process. This means those whose projects are not going to be a near miss are not labouring in vain.

2) My university research office requires a substantial amount of forms to be completed when applying for funding, receiving funding, and administering ARC money. These forms are not needed. They can just use the details on the ARC grant applications. Some streamlining of process and ARC directives to univeristy research offices would be very useful.

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.

As suggested, the European Research Council is an excellent model. The two stage process could be implemented here very effectively.

The ARC grants assessment process needs to stick to pre established timelines to provide some level of reliability to researchers. Ministerial veto needs to be removed. Research priority areas for arts, humanities and social sciences need to be included. The linkage program needs to include all discipline areas.

For comparison - the UK has the ESRC and the AHRC for social research and arts and humanities research respectively. Australia does not even have a research priority area in these disciplines, let alone a whole funding body. We need to see some change here.

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?

ERA and EI need to be based on methods of assessment that fit the disciplines being assessed. Assessments of arts, humanities and social sciences should rely on qualitative data, case studies, new theories of change, and other markers of best practices.

It is not appropriate to use citation metrics and database scraping as forms of evidence for social sciences and humanities as these tools have been developed in relation to the hard sciences. The journal ranking systems they rely on do not capture expertise and cultural capital in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Disciplinary experts need to be consulted in developing appropriate methods of assessment.

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?

A) the ARC should fund a public education campaign illustrating the outcomes and impacts of ARC funded projects.

B) National working groups organised by discipline areas would be fantastic. Those funded in each scheme could be grouped into national working groups who share best practices and identify gaps and opportunities.

C) No. This is a terrible idea. “Data” is highly contractual and only tells stories that are specific to the hard sciences.

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?

Remove the Minister of Education’s right to veto projects that have been approved by the ARC. It undermines the expertise of the ARC and all researchers involved in the review process.

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.