What May the Review into the Australian Research Council Bode for University Research?

September 20, 2022 2008

Education Minister Jason Clare has just announced an independent review of the Australian Research Council (ARC).

This is the body that oversees funding for non-medical research in Australian universities and plays a critical role in the careers of academics.

After years of concerns about the ARC – about political interference and low success rates – the review is a welcome step. But will it tackle the big issues?

The Conversation logo
This article by Gregory Michael McCarthy and Kanishka Jayasuriya originally appeared on The Conversation, a Social Science Space partner site, under the title “A review into how university research works in Australia has just begun – it must confront these 3 issues”

ARC review

The review has been set up to look at the “role and purpose” of the ARC, its governance model and whether the ARC’s legislation creates an “effective and efficient university research system”.

However, this focus on operational issues is narrow and risks overlooking some of the most serious issues facing research in Australia. These include three ongoing challenges, as outlined in our recent paper.

1. Adequate funding

In Australia, the ARC does not usually fund the full cost of research. This is a mismatch identified as far back as the Bradley review of higher education in 2008.

This mismatch means government push funding back to universities, partly to save money and partly to encourage universities to be competitive to gain national and global ranking success.

As of 2018, universities spent about A$12 billion a year on research. About $6 billion came from the government while $6 billion came from universities’ own funds, of which $3 billion was from overseas student fees.

So universities must transfer funds from teaching overseas students to fund research grants. They then seek to attract overseas students based on research rankings. The risk here is that a decline in international student enrolments means a decline in research revenue – if one side fails so does the other.

For researchers, the task of funding projects is more complex and onerous than it should be. To even apply to the ARC, they have to be able to show the rest of the costs can be met by the university.

2. Political interference

All ARC research proposals need to include a “national interest test”. This is a 150-word statement that explains the benefit of the research to the Australian community.

Clare has recently said he will keep the national interest test, but make it “clearer”. This is a significant missed opportunity to abolish this problematic test.

The test was introduced in 2018 by then education minister Dan Tehan, who said it would “improve the public’s confidence” in why grants are awarded.

Former Australian education minister Dan Tehan, shown speaking with supporters in 2017, introduced the national interest test in 2018. (Photo:
Love Makes A Way from Australia
CC BY-SA 2.0/Wikimedia Commons)

It followed a public outcry after his predecessor, Simon Birmingham blocked about $4 million-worth of grants in humanities subjects.

The national interest test has not stopped the vetoing of research (as this is allowed in the ARC’s legislation). But it has increased the justification for it. Former acting education minister Stuart Robert vetoed six grants in late 2021, including one on student climate protests. His spokesperson argued, the proposals did not “demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money nor contribute to the national interest.

This has only increased academics’ concerns about political interference in their research.

The role of security agencies in the ARC process is also a deeply concerning development, thanks to the secretive nature of vetting. In late 2020, Tehan blocked five grants on national security grounds.

On top of all this, the national interest test is a highly time-consuming and frustrating process, as there is often a cumbersome back and forth between the ARC, university and researcher to clarify the statement.

3. What is university research for?

There is a misguided view in Australian politics that university research is flexible and easily adaptable to whatever industry needs.

For example, in late 2021, the Morrison government announced $240 million in grants for universities that could commercialize research. The new Labor government wants to see research conforming to the national reconstruction fund priorities, which is geared at projects that expand Australian industry. Its focus is on areas including mining, transport, medical science, renewable energy, defense technology and robotics.

Clare has specifically told the ARC he wants to see “impact with industry”.

This emphasis is concerning because it sees research as a commercial, economic or “value-added” property, rather than something centered on discovering things in an independent, scientific way.

Governments also of course choose which industries they want to support based on their political priorities, which tend toward short-term objectives, based on the electoral cycle.

What next?

The new review began work in early September and will provide an interim report in December. A final report will be handed down in March 2023.

This review is important but it cannot obscure a much-needed debate about the purpose and value of research in Australia.

Australian researchers want to be able to do their work with secure, adequate funding. And they want to be able to do it independently of government. Meanwhile, governments want to be able to “use” the research to suit their own priorities. It is easy to see how the two don’t easily align.

Greg McCarthy (pictured) is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Western Australia. He was the BHP Chair of Australian Studies (2016-2018) at Peking University. McCarthy has published widely on both China and Australia relations and higher education. Kanishka Jayasuriya is currently a professor of politics and International studies in the School of Business and Governance at Murdoch University.

View all posts by Gregory Michael McCarthy and Kanishka Jayasuriya

Related Articles

Pandemic Nemesis: Illich reconsidered
June 14, 2024

Pandemic Nemesis: Illich reconsidered

Read Now
Beyond Net-Zero Targets: When Do Companies Maximize Their Potential to Reduce Carbon Emissions?
Business and Management INK
June 4, 2024

Beyond Net-Zero Targets: When Do Companies Maximize Their Potential to Reduce Carbon Emissions?

Read Now
Rob Ford on Immigration
Public Policy
June 3, 2024

Rob Ford on Immigration

Read Now
Biden Administration Releases ‘Blueprint’ For Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy
May 17, 2024

Biden Administration Releases ‘Blueprint’ For Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy

Read Now
Tavneet Suri on Universal Basic Income

Tavneet Suri on Universal Basic Income

Economist Tavneet Suri discusses fieldwork she’s done in handing our cash directly to Kenyans in poor and rural parts of Kenya, and what the generally good news from that work may herald more broadly.

Read Now
There’s Something in the Air, Part 2 – But It’s Not a Miasma

There’s Something in the Air, Part 2 – But It’s Not a Miasma

Robert Dingwall looks at the once dominant role that miasmatic theory had in public health interventions and public policy.

Read Now
To Better Forecast AI, We Need to Learn Where Its Money Is Pointing

To Better Forecast AI, We Need to Learn Where Its Money Is Pointing

By carefully interrogating the system of economic incentives underlying innovations and how technologies are monetized in practice, we can generate a better understanding of the risks, both economic and technological, nurtured by a market’s structure.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments