Dr Harry Rolf

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Dr Harry Rolf

Responses

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?

Lessons from tech and research policy
I am submitting this response to the review of the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to recommend that the review consider lessons from tech and research policy when thinking about the future role of the ARC.

Technology policy deals with the results of research, their development and innovation in terms of use and adoption, while research policy works to enable and measure these outcomes to emerge. The two areas of policy deal with opposite ends of the same problem.

Globally tech policy is grappling with how to regulate the use of a growing range of technology, while seeking to maintain the promise of innovation and productivity that it brings. In Australia a relevant example is the Productivity Commission’s Productivity Inquiry (2022).[Footnote 1]

Research on the other hand tends to do a good job of self-regulation within well established frameworks and processes. Peer review ensures that research that is trustworthy and the accepted norms of reproducibility and openness ensure that to an extent it is accountable. Although, some argue that technology such as AI is also causing problems for research integrity.[Footnote 2]

Instead, research policy grapples with how (or what) research is resourced, its communication, translation and the realisation of social, economic and commercial benefits. The quality, integrity and conduct of research, as well as equity, diversity and inclusion in its reward and recognition systems are also important. The measurement of these issues and outcomes, particularly resulting from policy, continues to represent a challenge shared by both tech and research policy.

In this brief context, what role could the ARC play?

I recommend that the ARC should not see its role as a regulator of research. Rather, its mandate should be to enable and strengthen existing systems of self-regulation.

• The ARC should enable, support, and encourage best practice and standards setting across the research sector.
• The ARC should be given a range of policy levers and means by which it can do this, including the funding of research into regulatory matters, data collection, awards, recognition, and training.

The measurement of outcomes in connection with ARC policy is also critical. In this regard, this review is set against a critical public discourse of the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) and Engagement and Impact (EI) assessments. The results of these exercises while about ‘excellence’ can also be seen as measuring the results of research policy in Australia.

Evaluating the impacts of research and research policy is an important role that the ARC should continue to play, but one that could be undertaken differently going forward. Comprehensive data collection and sharing, along with policies that promote transparency and reporting can enable the research and policy community to participate in the evaluation of research and policy outcomes. Enabling community led evaluation in a similar way to self-regulation is one potential approach.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission and for taking the time to read it. I would be happy to answer and questions or provide further information.


Footnote References
[1] https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/productivity#report
[2] https://www.wired.com/story/machine-learning-reproducibility-crisis

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.