Proposed Australian Research Council reforms get backing, but concerns over funding remain
Australian research organisations have expressed their support for the recommendations of the Sheil review of the Australian Research Council.
The vice-chancellors’ group Universities Australia said the ARC review had provided “a path forward”, while the Australian Academy of Science said it welcomed the report.
Academy president Chennupati Jagadish said the report supported “fundamental research” as a key part of the ARC’s role. “The academy views this as important to safeguard fundamental research that grows our knowledge base.”
Science and Technology Australia, which represents more than 100,000 scientists and technologists, called the review a “comprehensive, thoughtful blueprint for modernisation”.
Assessment exercises
The final report—Trusting Australia’s Ability—was released on 20 April. It was produced by a group led by Queensland University of Technology vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil.
It made 10 priority recommendations, including: enshrining a clearer definition of the ARC’s purpose in the council’s founding legislation; appointing an expert governing board to handle senior hiring and approve grants; bringing the council’s administration in line with similar organisations around the world; and advancing the council’s work on supporting Indigenous researchers.
The council should continue to play a role in evaluating research quality, but the resources formerly poured into the Excellence in Research for Australia and Engagement and Impact assessment exercises “could be more effectively redeployed and utilised to guide the current and future design of the National Competitive Grants Program and the identification of future research priorities”.
The assessment exercises should not be replaced by a “metrics-based exercise”, the review said. Instead, the ARC should work with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to verify university research standards and develop “a framework for regular evaluation and reporting on the outcomes of the National Competitive Grants Program over a timeframe that allows the full impact of research funding to be assessed and the public benefit explained”.
Trust, workload and respect
Recent ministerial interventions in ARC funding decisions, most recently by the previous government, have “dramatically eroded” trust in the council and created a significant “perception of arbitrary intervention” internationally, the report said.
Ministers should only intervene in funding decisions in cases of national security concerns, the report said. If they do so, they should give their reasons to parliament or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Administrative burdens could be reduced by the adoption of a two-stage application process, similar to that used by New Zealand’s Marsden Fund. That process begins with expressions of interest, followed by full proposals from selected applicants.
Science and Technology Australia chief executive Misha Schubert said the idea “would be a game changer for productivity, wellbeing and morale in Australia’s brilliant research workforce”.
The review said there was “a high level of respect and historical goodwill towards the ARC”, based on its unique expertise.
It said there was evidence for supporting “the nation’s best researchers with funding portfolios over sufficient time periods to pursue new knowledge and ideas without always having an obvious or immediate application in sight from the outset”.
Funding concerns
Some of the many submissions to the review were outside the scope of the inquiry, including the effect of “indirect costs” of research and calls for further funding, the report said.
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering chief executive Kylie Walker said that while her academy welcomed the governance recommendations, funding remained an issue.
“The review…fails to address funding the full cost of research, relegating this to the concurrent Universities Accord process. This issue must not be allowed to fall through the gaps.”
The report is now with education minister Jason Clare awaiting a formal response.