ARC Policy Issues and Funding
Australian Business Deans Council
15 July 2016
Professor Aidan Byrne

Outline

  • Overview of the Australian Research Landscape
  • ARC funding by discipline—focus on Accounting and Finance
  • ERA and Impact

2015–16 Federal Budget—$429 billion

Diagram to illustrate proportion of funding allocated in 2015–16 Federal Budget to all Australian departments and agencies. Dollars allocated to agencies are shown by the size of the circles of each department and agency.

[top]

2015–16 Federal Budget—R&D $9.7 billion

Diagram to illustrate proportion of funding allocated in 2014–15 Federal Budget to all Australian departments and agencies.

Diagram to illustrate proportion of funding allocated in 2015–16 Federal Budget to all Australian departments and agencies. Dollars allocated to agencies are shown by the size of the circles of each departments and Agency. This graph particularly illustrates about $9.7 billion of this funding which is allocated to R&D.

[top]

Commonwealth Investment in R&D 2015–16 (%)

Pie chart of Commonwealth investment in R&D 2015-16

There are the following segments in this chart:

  • 7.72% CSIRO
  • 4.44% DSTO
  • 8.13% ARC
  • 8.70% NHMRC
  • 6.42% Australian Government R&D 
  • 29.89% Industry R&D Tax Measures
  • 2.65% Business Innovation
  • 20.54% Block Funding
  • 0.44% Higher Education R&D
  • 0.60% Other Health
  • 1.51% CRCs
  • 3.13% Rural
  • 3.73% Energy and the Environment
  • 2.10% Other R&D

[top]

Selected research agencies 2003–2016 funding ($m)

Source: Science, Research and Innovation Budget Tables 2015–16

A graph showing funding in the millions of dollars adminstistered by NHMRC, ARC, CSIRO and DSTO in 2003 to 2016.

[top]

ARC NCGP % funding by institution 2008–2015

ARC NCGP % funding by institution 2008-2015

Stacked area chart showing ARC and NHMRC percentage funding by institution over the years 2008–2015.  

[top]

Research grants funding by institute (%) 1971–2014

Grants funding by institute (%) 1971–2014

This is a stacked area chart showing a long time series of funding to universities and institutes under the ARC and previous similar grants funding agencies/schemes.

[top]

National Competitive Grants Program

National Competitive Grants Programme

Graphical representation of schemes in the ARC's National Competitive Grants Program.  Each scheme is a rectanlge with the area of the rectangle representing amount funded over the period 2011–2015.

Area of box represents amount funded over the period 2011–2015.

  

N.B.

  • Centres of Excellence, SRIs, not awarded in every year.
  • ITRP and DECRA only funding since 2012

[top]

ARC NCGP funding by scheme 2008–2015

ARC funding by scheme

Stacked area chart showing ARC funding by scheme 2008–2015 with Discovery Projects being the largest through this period, but significant growth in Future Fellowships.

[top]

Discovery Projects—success and return rates

Bar Chart Discovery Projects—Success and return rates

Discovery Projects—Success and return rates for the years 2008–2016. The success rate is about 20 percent for most of these years.

[top]

DECRA—success rates

DECRA—return and success rates

Success rates for DECRA over 2012–2016, with the success rate ranging from about 12 percent in 2012 to 16 percent in 2016.

[top]

First-time awardees by ARC scheme 2008–15

First-time awardees by ARC scheme 2008–15

First-time awardees in Discovery Projects and DECRA, 2008–2015 (Note: DECRA scheme commenced in 2012).

[top]

ARC NCGP funding by Fields of Research 2007–2015 

ARC NCGP funding by Fields of Research 2007 to 2015

This is a stacked area chart showing a long time series of funding by Fields of Research.

[top]

FoR Network mapping… All disciplines

Field of Research Network mapping chart LEeend for network map all disciplines

This networks the connexions between all disciplines, with different colours representing different disciplines.

[top]

Discovery Projects 17—‘Is your project interdisciplinary?’by 2-digit FoR code

 

Stacked bar chart showing split of interdisciplinary research across different Field of Research codes. Also shown as a percentage.

[top]

 

IDR—by type

 

Pie-chart showing interdisciplinary research by type—design, investigatory team, methodology and other shown in numbers and percentage.

[top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 01

 

This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Mathematical Sciences) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 02

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Physical Sciences) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 03

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Chemical Sciences) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 04

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Earth Sciences) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 05

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Environmental Sciences) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 06

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (BIological Sciences) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 07

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Agricultural and Veterinary Sceinces) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 08

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Information and Computing Sciences) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 09

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Engineering) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 10

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Technology) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 11

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Medical and Health Sciences) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 12

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Built Environment and Design) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 13

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Education) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 14

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Economics) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 15

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 16

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Studies in Human Society) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 17

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Psychology and Cognitive Sciences) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 18

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Law and Legal Studies) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 19

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Studies in Creative Arts and Writing) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 20

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Language, Communication and Culture) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 21

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (History and Archaeology) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by scheme  2011–2015—FoR 22

 This slide shows the success rate of the selected discipline (Philosophy and Religious Studies) within different ARC schemes, for years 2011–2015, and compares this to the overall success rate of proposals in that scheme in those years.

 [top]

Success by Year  DP DECRA LP—Success rates for Economics

 

This bubble chart shows the relative success rates of four digit FoR codes under Economics for projects submitted to the Discovery Projects, DECRA and Linkage Projects schemes in the years 2002–2016.

 [top]

Success by Year  DP DECRA LP—Success rates for Commerce

This bubble chart shows the relative success rates of four digit FoR codes under Commerce for projects submitted to the Discovery Projects, DECRA and Linkage Projects schemes in the years 2002–2016.

 [top]

Histogram of Rank for DP 2012–2016

Histogram DP

This slide shows for the selected scheme (Discovery Projects) and for each two digit discipline code, a histogram illustrating the number of proposals which occupied each rank, counting all proposals submitted from 2012–16 with funded rank bands coloured red.

[top]

Histogram of Rank DE 2012–2016

Histogram DE

This slide shows for the selected scheme (DECRA) and for each two digit discipline code, a histogram illustrating the number of proposals which occupied each rank, counting all proposals submitted from 2012–16 with funded rank bands coloured red.

[top]

Linkage Projects—return and success rates

Linkage Projects - return and success rates

This chart shows the number of proposals received and funded, and the success and return rate for the Linkage Projects scheme for the years  2003–2016.

[top]

FoR Network mapping…Linkages with 14 (Economics)

FoR 14 Network map

This chart shows the linkages between six digit FoR codes, with a filter to only show linkages which include a code in the selected discipline group (Economics). Funded projects (since 2011) which nominate more than one FoR code create a line to connect the relevant nodes.

[top]

FoR Network mapping…Linkages with 15 (Commerce, Management, Tourism & Services)

FoR 15 Network map

This chart shows the linkages between six digit FoR codes, with a filter to only show linkages which include a code in the selected discipline group (Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services). Funded projects (since 2011) which nominate more than one FoR code create a line to connect the relevant nodes.

[top]

 

Linkage Projects—return and success rates

Linkage Projects - return and success rates

This chart shows the number of proposals received and funded, and the success and return rate for the Linkage Projects scheme for the years  2003–2016.

Chart showing components of POs on LP grants - govt, non profit etc. Downward trend on govt!

This chart shows the number and kind of partner organisations associated with Linkage Projects proposals for the years 2006–2014.

National Innovation and Science Agenda

  • In December 2015 the National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) was announced
  • ARC measures within NISA:
    • Continuous Linkage Projects scheme (opened 1 July)
    • Research Engagement and Impact Assessment

[top]

Engagement and Impact Assessment

  • National Innovation and Science Agenda—7 December 2015.  $1.1 billion over four years on a range of initiatives
  • Includes $11.2 million over five years ($2.2 million on average) to conduct a national assessment measuring impact and engagement in university research
  • Government invests $3.5 billion a year in university research. The assessment will:
    • examine how universities are translating their research into economic, social and other benefits and 
    • incentivise greater collaboration between universities, industry and other end-users of research 

[top]

The Annual Cycle

The Annual Cycle

This chart compares the annual grants cycle of the previous Linkage Projects scheme with the new continuous LInkage Projects scheme.

[top]

Engagement and Impact—Development 

  • Assessment will be developed by ARC and Department of Education and Training as a companion to ERA
  • Steering Committee—which includes higher education and industry leaders—overseeing the development of the framework for the assessment. Committee supported by two working groups:
    • Technical Working Group provides expert advice on the development of indicators that will support the engagement and impact assessment 
    • Performance and Incentives Working Group provides advice to the ARC about the potential incentive effects of the preferred model
  • Extensive consultation with the sector and other stakeholders will be essential to development and implementation

[top]

Engagement and Impact—Timeline 

  • Methodology being developed in 2016, with extensive sector consultation
     
  • Sector feedback received on the Engagement and Impact Consultation Paper
     
  • Pilot exercises in 2017
     
  • Full assessment in 2018 as a companion to ERA

[top]

Engagement and Impact—Key Questions

  • What are the appropriate definitions for engagement and/or impact?
  • How should the scope of the assessment be defined and who should be covered (e.g. HDRs)?
  • To what level of granularity and classification should measures be aggregated?
  • What timeframes should be used for assessment?
  • What types of engagement indicators should be used?
  • What types of impact indicators should be used?

[top]

[top]

Research commercialisation metrics

 

Source: Metrics for Research Commercialisation: A Report to the Coordination Committee on Science and Technology, 2005, “Table 2: Matrix of research commercialisation metrics” p. 16. 

[top]

Linkage fraction vs Discovery fraction

LP vs DP Fraction

This slide charts the success of each university in terms of the percentage of total scheme funds awarded, and compares this for Discovery Projects  on one scale, and Linkage Projects on the other. The diagonal line indicates where the percentage of scheme dollars awarded is equally balanced. N.b. Log scales are used for this scatter chart.

[top]

 

Mapping Engagment

Mapping Engagement:   Linkage Projects  vs. Discovery Projects

These charts compare the relative success in obtaining funding through the ARC’s Linkage Projects scheme vs the Discovery Projects scheme for selected regions, cohorts, and individual universities.

[top]

Engagement by Cohort—Strength in Linkage and Discovery Schemes

Engagement by Cohort Strength in Linkage and Discovery Schemes

These charts compare the relative success in obtaining funding through the ARC’s Linkage Projects scheme vs the Discovery Projects scheme for selected regions, cohorts, and individual universities.

[top]

Engagement by University Strength in Linkage and Discovery Schemes—Strength in Linkage and Discovery Schemes

Strength in Linkage and Discovery Schemes

These charts compare the relative success in obtaining funding through the ARC’s Linkage Projects scheme vs the Discovery Projects scheme for selected regions, cohorts, and individual universities.

[top]