A review of the Australian Research Council finds stakeholders have “low levels of confidence in grant outcomes,” and the ARC has “limited knowledge and capability” to deliver a “best practice” National Competitive Grants Programme.
The review, from consultants Iceni (“not your usual consultants”), was commissioned by ARC chief Judi Zielke at the start of her term, as part of a performance assessment package. The Senate directed its release, and it was tabled Tuesday, five months after being delivered.
Iceni concludes the council’s “operating model, culture and organisational capability do not support the ARC to adopt and implement the principles of effective scheme design and delivery.”
Findings, based in part on consultations with and a survey of stakeholders include:
- ARC attempts to simplify grants processes have been “largely unsuccessful” and in some cases have increased administration requirements.
- The council’s risk-adverse culture, “leads to a bureaucratic and process driven approach”.
- NCGP design is “not aligned” with the ARC’s “vision and purpose”.
Admittedly, the ARC is not unique, its “existing processes for the NCGP are similar to those of other Australian and international grant programmes.” But whether the ARC achieves anything is unknown.
“There is an absence of NCGP performance measures to provide assurance that ARC grant funding is advancing Australian research and innovation and benefiting the community.”
Iceni reports scathing stakeholder responses, such as:
- Inconsistent and opaque application of eligibility criteria.
- ARC changing budgets for approved grants.
- “Little transparency” in peer review.
- Absence of information on how applications are assessed/scored.
What is to be done? Recommendations include:
- “Refocus ARC culture on achieving outcomes”.
- “Design new or update existing schemes for the NCGP, including application and assessment materials”.
- Ensure agency staff understand roles and responsibilities.
- “User-centred and collaborative approach to NCGP scheme design and delivery that enables transparent communication and engagement”.
The people’s choice
Two-thirds of Selection Advisory Committee assessors and research officers call for more grants, receiving less funding.
