GrantEd’s submission to the ARC’s Policy Review of the National Competitive Grants Program.
- thegrantedgroup
- 1 day ago
- 6 min read
1. Does the proposed model provide a strong and clear basis for the NCGP over the next 20 years?
At GrantEd, we have partnered with universities across Australia who engage us to provide strategic reviews of their grant applications - we see hundreds annually. Our main focus is the support of grants for ARC, NHMRC and MRFF funding. The proposed model generally provides a clear basis for the NCGP over the next 20 years. It meets the brief in terms of simplifying what is administratively onerous and challenging the ‘linear model of innovation’ to provide strategic direction for prospective applicants. We see many applicants struggle to define their projects to fit within either basic science or applied research, since many projects often encompasses both fundamental and applied elements, which we hope the new model will alleviate. The new model has the potential to significantly reduce administrative burden, which hopefully translates into applicants being informed of successful applications in a more timely manner. This will also help them plan for the future and ensure all the necessary administrative arrangements are in place for them to successfully conduct the research.
2. Does the proposed model adequately address your concerns or those expressed in the initial consultations?
We had several concerns from the initial consultation, which we believe have not yet been adequately addressed.
We questioned whether the ARC’s research impact pathway could be reworked to include translational activities that would lead to benefit/impact. It is often confusing for applicants when the terms translation, benefit and impact are used interchangeably. The overview of the new proposed model does not include a discussion about the activities required to translate research findings into impacts/benefits even though the new model promotes a focus on generating economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits for Australia
We suggested including a definition for ‘research impact’ and to include ‘knowledge impact’, like the approach taken by NHMRC in its research impact track record assessment (RITRA) framework. N ‘Knowledge impact’ represents the impact that research findings have on further research. Regardless of the type of research being conducted, every application for funding should at least be able to anticipate how their research will be a major breakthrough in our current understanding AND the changes this will enable in their field of research going forward (‘knowledge impact’). The current model does not incorporate a definition of ‘research/knowledge’ impact and refers only to impacts for Australia, outside of knowledge generation.
3. Do you foresee any unintended consequences or significant ricks which have not been accounted for in the proposed model?
Several risks remain.
E/MCR SUPPORT: While the proposed scheme allows ECRs to be named as applicants, moving away from a top-heavy academic model, we question its long-term sustainability for junior academics. Do 2-year embedded fellowships provide sufficient career security? Early-stage research underpins Australia's research and innovation system, but its value must be better recognised. The model may prioritise quantity over quality. With an oversupply of PhD graduates and limited funding, many exit academia early. The new scheme may delay this exit but not resolve underlying issues. Should we fund fewer PhDs and offer more targeted ECR support through ARC-specific initiatives?
EMBEDDED FELLOWSHIPS: Embedding fellowships in schemes requiring existing Australian collaborations may limit our ability to attract international research leaders. Discovery and Linkage fellowships currently support emerging collaborations within project design. If track record remains a core assessment criterion, applicants with less established records may be disadvantaged—potentially favouring strong CVs over innovative ideas.
ASSESSING IMPACT: With industry engagement a focus, it’s vital to ensure support for fundamental research in HASS disciplines. There is a risk that research support staff lack training to assess impact, particularly where knowledge impact is key. Guidance on impact must align with application processes. Current university performance metrics disincentivise interdisciplinary work, especially where “right journal” pressures persist. Without clear definitions, impact may be inconsistently assessed. ARC could help by signing the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, encouraging broader institutional reform.
EQUITY IN ASSESSMENT: Though E/MCRs and Indigenous researchers are priorities, no scheme targets equity in senior leadership. Diversity is not a scored criterion in ARC funding—unlike NHMRC and MRFF—posing a risk to equity in research leadership.
4. What issues would need to be addressed in the translation from the current NCGP schemes to the new model?
There are several issues that must be addressed in the transition from the current NCGP schemes to the new model.
E/MCR SUPPORT: The ARC is encouraged to provide more guidance about how E/MCR researchers factor into embedded fellowships across different schemes, and what leadership roles they are likely to hold. The proposed model suggests these fellowships will fund short-term research and reduce disruption to teaching departments. However, this rationale overlooks the individual researcher and the importance of providing a mechanism to establish independent research careers and retain Australian-trained talent—key features of previous fellowship schemes. The new model’s emphasis on team-based research may limit the opportunity for individuals to make significant contributions and build their own research funding track record.
SUPPORT FOR WOMEN & PRIORITISED GROUPS: While embedded fellowships indicate support for women returning to research after a break, how will this be prioritised within a merit-based process? Does it reflect ‘relative to opportunity’ considerations in assessment? Lead and Mentor schemes will support women and Indigenous leaders, but limited detail is given on how diversity will be supported within postdoc/PhD roles they employ.
TRACK RECORD ASSESSMENT: Further clarification is needed on how track records will be assessed within embedded fellowships rather than standalone schemes. Researchers need guidance on how their achievements will be evaluated, and whether expectations vary by scheme. Assessment must go beyond research outputs to include supervision, leadership, engagement, advocacy, and service contributions.
TRAINING FOR APPLICANTS & ASSESSORS: Before implementation, the ARC should deliver strong training for applicants and assessors to understand the new model. This could be delivered by external consultants via competitive or invited tender, covering clear definitions of research quality, innovation, significance, benefit, and impact.
5. Are there any features that you would add to, or remove from, the model?
We have several suggestions for additions to the model:
REVIEW OF MILESTONES: To ensure success over 20 years, the model should include milestone reviews—e.g. every 5 years, with evaluations at 10 and 20 years.
SIGNIFICANT NEED: Clarify what constitutes “significant need” inside and outside academia. Applied researchers may respond to industry/government priorities, while fundamental researchers may align with long-term strategies (e.g. decadal plans).
BENEFITS OVER TIME: Applicants should outline short-, medium-, and long-term benefits, supported by an involvement scale showing how engagement activities evolve.
PILOT DATA: Clarify if pilot/feasibility data is expected across schemes, particularly those supporting innovative research.
TRACK RECORD: Clarify how track record will be assessed. Will it remain streamlined in schemes for high-potential researchers? Include questions like: “What impact has your past research had?”
CAREER STAGE DEFINITIONS: Define ECR, MCR, SCR by years post-PhD. Will career interruptions still apply? Consider quotas/resources for E/MCRs in each scheme. Clarify how support compares to prior fellowship schemes.
SUPPORT FOR SCRs: Ensure the model offers pathways for SCRs balancing research with teaching/admin loads. Clarify eligibility for each scheme.
ASSESSMENT PROCESS: Will a two-stage model (EOI + full application) be used, reducing applicant burden while encouraging bold ideas?
PARTNER INVOLVEMENT: Define “partner” consistently and promote co-design with community/industry via tools like a Consumer Reference Panel.
CI QUOTAS: Clarify the number of grants CIs can hold under the new model.
CAPABILITY: Define how the model builds research capability, drawing on NHMRC’s framing.
ACCESS & IMPACT: Support outcome sharing via project profiles and require impact/translation plans with built-in comms budgets.
PEER REVIEW QUALITY: Introduce review quality checks—e.g. flag vague, unoriginal, or biased reviews. Ensure alignment with updated criteria.
6. Do you have any feedback on the proposed grant schemes and their likely effectiveness?
Commentaires