17 November 2009

Background to the ARC Peer Review Process

The Australian Research Council's consultation paper opens up examination of whether differing career pathways and employment environments in the HASS sector may disadvantage them in receiving grants within a system reflecting an older research structure, and which correlates more to pathways in the natural sciences.

The Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences thus welcomes the proposed "Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE)" criteria, and believes that this mechanism has the potential to expose and alleviate these issues. This is an exciting development, with the potential to make more competitive applications from the HASS sector.

The Council concurs with the consultation paper that these elements of the current selection criteria advantages those in research only positions, while those in research and teaching, teaching only, and administrative positions, early career researchers, and those who have experienced career interruptions or late entry into an academic career.

The Council agrees that the current selection criteria do not adequately consider the proposed research outputs and their impact within their disciplinary context.

The tendency of the current selection processes to squeeze researchers into a single model of research career pathway which may not reflect experience for researchers in the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences sector.

The ARC says that the 60/40 project/researcher ratio can result in a researcher with an excellent track record receiving funding over a proposal of greater quality by a less-established researcher.

The Council suggests that it would be premature to alter the current weightings assigned to individuals and project content before the impact of the ROPE mechanism on the selection processes and success rates can be properly assessed. While the Council believes the proposed ROPE mechanism has potential, CHASS members would like further information on how it would work in practice. In particular, concerns have been raised about the potential extra burden the ROPE mechanism may place on the application process.

The Council believes that the proposed "Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE)" - Research opportunity criteria should consider the pathways researchers have taken into a research career. While there is much anecdotal evidence to suggest the differing pathways people in the HASS sector take into a research career, a body of documentary evidence needs to be established to support these stories, and to develop equivalencies in track records to ensure that HASS applications are considered on an equal footing with those from other disciplines. Factors that can delay the entry of HASS researchers into a research career include less postdoctoral opportunities, increased casualisation of academic workforce in HASS disciplines, and a research career in disciplines for which extended work experience is a prerequisite, such as education and architecture. We feel that contextualising an individual's capacity to undertake research within relevant work experience and other such pathways to a research career would further ensure the ROPE mechanism is effective.

The Council suggests that the ARC consult with the Department on the work currently underway on the Research Workforce Strategy to further develop this aspect of the ROPE mechanism.

Council would need to undergo further consultation with membership in order to comment on other proposed changes to the peer review processes. While the above comments are a fair reflection of members' views and feedback, there will be significant diversity in detailed views given the range of the Council's membership.

 

Also read: Council's submission on the ARC Peer Review Consultation.

 

For more information, please contact:

Executive Director

Council of the Humanties, Arts and Social Sciences

Phone: +61 2 6201 2740

director@chass.org.au