"It's another gut-punch to poor early career researchers".
The ARC have again raised extra barriers for ECRs, causing unnecessary delays & anxiety, wasting resources &, yes, …
Wasting. Tax-payer. Money.
Last year was #preprints, now it's #NITpicks.
Long 🧵 but stay with me🙏
The ARC have again raised extra barriers for ECRs, causing unnecessary delays & anxiety, wasting resources &, yes, …
Wasting. Tax-payer. Money.
Last year was #preprints, now it's #NITpicks.
Long 🧵 but stay with me🙏
The National Interest Test (NIT) was introduced by the previous Coalition Government.
It's a smoke screen for idealogical vetoing of humanities grants they want to parade in front of their supporters and ridicule, e.g.⤵️
smh.com.au/politics/feder…
It's a smoke screen for idealogical vetoing of humanities grants they want to parade in front of their supporters and ridicule, e.g.⤵️
smh.com.au/politics/feder…
It's an easy, lazy sell.
As "wise" former Minister @DanTehanWannon said, as he introduced it,
"NIT will give Minister of the day confidence to look Australian voter in the eye & say, ‘your money is being spent wisely’" ▶️parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/searc…
As "wise" former Minister @DanTehanWannon said, as he introduced it,
"NIT will give Minister of the day confidence to look Australian voter in the eye & say, ‘your money is being spent wisely’" ▶️parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/searc…
Who else was "wise"?
Oh yes, remember how @stuartrobertmp stole Christmas by vetoing #DiscoveryProjects grants on 24th Dec last year?
Justification? "The NIT statements weren't good enough".
Magic! The Minister can veto whatever, whenever, & hide behind the NIT smoke screen.
Oh yes, remember how @stuartrobertmp stole Christmas by vetoing #DiscoveryProjects grants on 24th Dec last year?
Justification? "The NIT statements weren't good enough".
Magic! The Minister can veto whatever, whenever, & hide behind the NIT smoke screen.
What's NIT-picking?
Previous Ministers asked ARC CEO – who, we should understand, is also "wise" – to assess NITs.
(whispers) That's right: Not peer reviewers, just the ARC CEO.
(whispers) What are the assessment criteria? *crickets*
CEO doesn't like a NIT? They NIT-pick it.
Previous Ministers asked ARC CEO – who, we should understand, is also "wise" – to assess NITs.
(whispers) That's right: Not peer reviewers, just the ARC CEO.
(whispers) What are the assessment criteria? *crickets*
CEO doesn't like a NIT? They NIT-pick it.
The ARC sends the NIT back to the applicant (strictly, their research office) & asks them to re-write it.
So far, this has only happened to grants that were subsequently recommended to the Minister for funding.
It used to only happen to a few grants per scheme.
So far, this has only happened to grants that were subsequently recommended to the Minister for funding.
It used to only happen to a few grants per scheme.
But the Christmas grinch, @stuartrobertmp, demanded a "strengthened" NIT ▶️arc.gov.au/about-arc/lett…
(Simultaneously, the previous ARC CEO resigned 6 months ahead of their contract ending🤔)
What does that mean? Well a lot more NIT-picking, for one thing!
(Simultaneously, the previous ARC CEO resigned 6 months ahead of their contract ending🤔)
What does that mean? Well a lot more NIT-picking, for one thing!
From direct messagers (DMers), we know 70-80% of #DECRA grants that ARC are considering recommending for funding were NIT-picked.
That was 3 weeks ago.
Yesterday, *most* of those were asked to re-write their re-written NITs!
Some unis have to do ALL of their NIT-picks again!
That was 3 weeks ago.
Yesterday, *most* of those were asked to re-write their re-written NITs!
Some unis have to do ALL of their NIT-picks again!
ARC's demands have been over-the-top, poorly communicated, with no clear criteria, & impossible to fit into 150 words "for a member of the public with no background".
Even deputy-vice chancellors for research (DVCRs) helped re-write some #DECRA NITs!
But ARC sent them back.
Even deputy-vice chancellors for research (DVCRs) helped re-write some #DECRA NITs!
But ARC sent them back.
What hope do early-career researchers have if DVCRs can't satisfy the ARC?
One ECR reported having a professional grant writer & their research office help re-write their NIT. Everyone thought it was perfect, after days of iterative wordsmithing.
ARC said "Nup. Do it again!".
One ECR reported having a professional grant writer & their research office help re-write their NIT. Everyone thought it was perfect, after days of iterative wordsmithing.
ARC said "Nup. Do it again!".
A politically motivated NIT, & ARC's botched, unworkable implementation, are costing early-career researchers dearly.
Not just time they could be spending on research.
It's shattering their confidence in Australia's research system: "it's another gut-punch to poor ECRs".
Not just time they could be spending on research.
It's shattering their confidence in Australia's research system: "it's another gut-punch to poor ECRs".
I've got DMs from more than 20 anxious early-career researchers since ARC requested re-NIT-picks yesterday.
They're all wondering why their "perfect NIT statement" isn't good enough.
They're all wondering why their "perfect NIT statement" isn't good enough.
Worse, they're worried what the ARC CEO will do if they're not happy with their re-write.
I'm worried too. Why would the ARC be demanding so many re-writes if their focus is making the NIT understandable by the public? That's no reason to demand highly wordsmithed NITs!
I'm worried too. Why would the ARC be demanding so many re-writes if their focus is making the NIT understandable by the public? That's no reason to demand highly wordsmithed NITs!
The only reasonable conclusion is that the ARC CEO plans not to recommend grants for funding if they – and they alone – are not satisfied with the NITs.
Read that statement again.
Read that statement again.
I don't think most realise the power the NIT grants to ARC CEO.
They can decide whether a grant's funded based only on whether a researcher – or even deputy vice-chancellor or professional grant-writer – is good at explaining a grant's benefits to "the person on the street".
They can decide whether a grant's funded based only on whether a researcher – or even deputy vice-chancellor or professional grant-writer – is good at explaining a grant's benefits to "the person on the street".
The judgement wouldn't be whether there'll actually be benefits from the grant. The peer review process has already determined there likely will be!
No, this is just the ARC CEO thinking "nah, Joe Blow down the pub won't understand it", then binning it.
That's the danger here.
No, this is just the ARC CEO thinking "nah, Joe Blow down the pub won't understand it", then binning it.
That's the danger here.
The NIT was political nonsense from the start – #DitchTheNIT
If ARC or Minister want "National Benefit" statements, in language the public can understand, then fund ARC to help researchers wordsmith something good enough *after* grants are awarded.
If ARC or Minister want "National Benefit" statements, in language the public can understand, then fund ARC to help researchers wordsmith something good enough *after* grants are awarded.
Or – and here's a thought – have a bit of bloody patience & accept that benefits from research aren't for a single electoral cycle, and let the researchers explain the benefits once the research is actually done 🤷
A researcher's ability to write "plain language" should *not* be a criterion for funding!
Even in principle that's a bad idea. But especially because, so far, even senior researchers & professional writers haven't managed to satisfy ARC's over-egged, under-thought #NITpicks.
Even in principle that's a bad idea. But especially because, so far, even senior researchers & professional writers haven't managed to satisfy ARC's over-egged, under-thought #NITpicks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
