Australia¡¯s government faces pressure to abandon the country¡¯s research evaluation exercise, with a key reviewer suggesting that it has done its job.

Former Australian Research Council (ARC) chief executive Margaret Shiel, who has been enlisted to?lead a review?of the organisation, appears likely to recommend the scrapping of the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) exercise.

Professor Sheil, who is now vice-chancellor of Queensland University of Technology, also appears set to urge the government to consider rewriting the controversial ¡°national interest test¡± (NIT) that governs access to research grants.

And she will argue for a legislative revision to ensure that ministers can only reject ARC grant recommendations in ¡°genuine and extraordinary¡± circumstances, a newly released??suggests.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The paper, drafted by Professor Sheil and fellow reviewers Susan Dodds and Mark Hutchinson, seeks feedback on issues ranging from the ARC¡¯s scope, purpose and governance to its grant approval mechanisms and other processes.

While the paper poses open-ended questions, it gives a strong indication of the panel¡¯s thinking about ERA and its companion Engagement and Impact Assessment.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°It can be argued that ERA has achieved its initial purpose and that the time and resources involved may be better redirected to other evaluation needs,¡± the paper says.

ERA has been ¡°tremendously effective¡± in shifting the focus of Australian research from ¡°quantity to quality¡±, but it has no influence on funding and it fosters institutional competition and ¡°counter-productive duplication of expertise¡±, the paper says.

¡°Is [there] a need for a highly rigorous, retrospective excellence and impact assessment exercise, particularly in the absence of a link to funding?¡±

The paper says the ¡°sophisticated evaluation capability¡± Australia has developed through ERA is a ¡°significant national asset¡±, but it could be better used to assess the outcomes of the council¡¯s grants and ¡°demonstrate value and excellence of ARC-funded research¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The panel also says it wants advice on how to ¡°normalise¡± ministerial acceptance of ARC recommendations and restore the academic community¡¯s ¡°confidence¡± in grant approval processes, after three former education ministers?refused to fund?almost two dozen ARC-endorsed research projects in recent years.

Ideally, ministers would only be able to reject funding recommendations for ¡°genuine and extraordinary¡± reasons which they would be obliged to explain in parliament, the paper suggests.

It also notes ¡°tension and confusion¡± around the NIT, after the ARC advised funding applicants not to focus their national interest statements exclusively on ¡°benefits to academia¡±.

The activities funded by the council include ¡°fundamental research that by its very nature may not have a clearly defined application at the outset, beyond adding to global knowledge¡±, the paper observes.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

It acknowledges the desirability of earning ¡°social licence¡± for taxpayer-funded research, but says ¡°there may be better ways to communicate¡± research spin-offs.

The paper says applicants for 322 grants have been directed to rewrite their national interest test statements this year, sometimes more than once. In testimony to a Senate estimates committee, ARC chief executive Judi Zielke ¨C who has headed the organisation since February ¨C conceded that she had ¡°requested more revisions¡± than her predecessor.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Ms Zielke said the ARC had changed its process for assessing national interest statements in March, partly at universities¡¯ request. ¡°The sector had made it very clear that they were looking for more advice on how to better complete the NIT,¡± she told the committee.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com