Go back

Rebuilding trust

Image: Australian Research Council

Australian Research Council leader Judi Zielke discusses priorities for the funder

After a string of controversies at the Australian Research Council, the funder’s boss wants to regain the trust of Australian researchers. In a wide-ranging interview with Research Professional News, ARC chief executive Judi Zielke admits there is a way to go before that is achieved.

“We have some ground to make up in that regard,” she says. “I’ve said before that we haven’t kept pace with the needs of the sector and the change that has happened in the sector.”

Given that it distributes more than A$800 million annually to fund research carried out by universities and university-industry partnerships, the ARC’s relationship with the sector matters. But in recent years, it has been marked by anger over administrative burdens and perceived communication failings.

Since she took up the role in February—after former ARC chief executive Sue Thomas stepped down—Zielke has been travelling to meetings with the sector and to launches of ARC-funded initiatives, partly in an effort to “show that we are listening, that we are taking on board the feedback and changing”.

“We need to rebuild trust, and that’s why we’re out and about as much as we are and trying to increase that,” she says.

Zielke is a long-term Canberra official with more than four decades’ experience in supporting Australia’s research and innovation sector. Before she took on the job of leading the ARC, she was chief operating officer at the national research agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

During her career she has worked as the deputy secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, and she has been head of the enterprise connect division in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.

Her experiences should help her to steer the ARC through this difficult period. The organisation has come in for criticism over its handling of a rule, which has since been scrapped, that banned the use of preprint citations in grant applications. It has also come under fire for delays in announcing grant decisions.

Accusations that ministerial powers of veto over the ARC created a chilling effect in Australian research did not ultimately result in changes, but a senate inquiry recommended a full review of the ARC Act, which education minister Jason Clare announced in July.

Clare’s terms of reference for the review promised that it will consider “the role and purpose of the ARC within our research system”.

Against this background, Zielke outlines the biggest issues for the ARC—and how she plans to tackle them.

Workloads

Clare’s statement of expectations called a halt to the time-consuming Excellence for Research Australia process, which scrutinises how well Australia’s universities are spending the ARC’s funds. At the time, Clare said the ERA should be replaced with “a modern, data-driven approach informed by expert review”.

Zielke says she welcomes the pause as it allows time to finalise reforms to the research assessment process. She is about to appoint a working group to come up with a more streamlined way of benchmarking research.

The ARC is also reviewing its internal processes. “I think it’s fair for me to say that there is a lot of information that we’ve been collecting because it’s helpful, not because it’s ultimately necessary for effective administration,” she says.

“So we’re [considering], what do we really need to know, how do we simplify and remove any duplication in our requests, and how do we, in a large way, do some processes in parallel rather than end to end, as we’ve done in the past?”

She also promises a fixed calendar for grant announcements and application deadlines to within a half-month period, explaining that when she started the job, timing issues were prominent in the feedback she was getting from the sector.

“We have done a lot of work through the [internal] process review to try and change the way in which we do things, to be able to give better clarity on our timelines,” she says.

NIT changes

One of the most contentious features of ARC funding in recent years has been the application of the so-called National Interest Test, in which applicants looking for funding through the ARC must outline how their research will contribute to areas that the Australian government wants to improve.

In late 2021, the test was given as a reason for the “non-funding” of recommended grants by then acting minister Stuart Robert.

As head of the ARC, the decision on whether a 150-word NIT statement is satisfactory rests with Zielke herself—and her disapproval could lead to a proposal missing out on funding. Researchers and research managers have recently raised concerns over the number of times the NITs are being sent back to them for edits, which can cause delays as the statements are rewritten.

But a recent proposal to tighten the rules around NITs led to concerns that instead of giving researchers too many chances to rewrite the pitches, opportunities for researchers to fix their NIT statements would slowly be reduced to zero.

However, Zielke ruled that out without specifying the final policy. Instead, she said, “We will reduce the number [of edits] but we’re not planning to remove it at this stage.”

Zielke frames the recent issues with the NITs as part of a settling-down process in the wake of the 2021 rejections. After publishing guidance on the NITs for universities in March, she says she is finding there’s “less of them needing review”.

Reforms and reviews

The three-person panel conducting the review of the ARC, led by former ARC chief executive Margaret Sheil, is yet to make any big announcements about how it will carry out its work. Zielke says she is keen to take part and that if submissions were sought, the ARC would make its own.

She hints that the review should take into account the wider research funding and policy landscape.

“I’d really like to think we can work with others in the sector to put forward joint positions as well—that adds value and shows the review panel where there is alignment,” she says.

She points out that the minister’s letter also asks her to “undertake a policy review of ARC programmes to determine programme needs following the review of the ARC legislation”.

In his statement of expectations, Clare also asked Zielke to conduct an “internal financial sustainability review” of the council, something she feels comes at the right time.

“There hasn’t been a financial sustainability review of the ARC that I’m aware of since having arrived,” she says. “There’s been a lot of conversation about the amount of [administrative] activity we have, [and] that we’ve had lots of things added to us without that being necessarily reflected in the funding we receive.”

Zielke says her financial review will cover the “capital investment” in the body’s research management systems.

“When I talk about financial sustainability, it is about our people and the task that we need to do,” she says. Ultimately, she is keen to stress that the ARC’s funding, and what it offers in grants, is “a government decision”.

Zielke has a lot on her plate. But it’s clear she is working towards rebuilding trust with researchers, one review at a time.