Read on Twitter
Another big year in ARC land. A better one!
Mainly positive. Some head-scratchers but no major stuff-ups.
Some things bode well for 2024, but research funding remains shockingly low – cue the "waiting for the Universities Accord" mantra.
But first, an “ARC Year in Review”🧵👇
Mainly positive. Some head-scratchers but no major stuff-ups.
Some things bode well for 2024, but research funding remains shockingly low – cue the "waiting for the Universities Accord" mantra.
But first, an “ARC Year in Review”🧵👇
Overall, we’ve moved from Ministers & an ARC that didn’t seem to see researchers or hear anything they said, to a Minister & ARC who's seen the mounting problems, listened to advice, and started to act.
It’s worth reading that again. Not bad.
Not finished, but a welcome change.
It’s worth reading that again. Not bad.
Not finished, but a welcome change.
The ARC improved many “little” things for researchers this year – things within their power.
For the first time, they advertised when we can expect outcomes for all schemes, allowing proper planning etc.
Sounds so simple. Only took 21 years to happen 🤪
For the first time, they advertised when we can expect outcomes for all schemes, allowing proper planning etc.
Sounds so simple. Only took 21 years to happen 🤪
https://twitter.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1631497938060062722
We’re also now seeing more streamlined application forms across all schemes.
The time-saving is multiplied across researchers, research offices, peer reviewers including College of Experts, and the ARC.
Almost a no-brainer! 🤔
The time-saving is multiplied across researchers, research offices, peer reviewers including College of Experts, and the ARC.
Almost a no-brainer! 🤔
https://twitter.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1710090509363106067
Maybe reluctantly (🤭), the ARC also started providing assessor scores to unsuccessful applicants instead of only broad ranking percentiles.
Tested on the new Industry Fellowship schemes, then rolled out for all⤵️
What about successful apps? Maybe 2024.
Tested on the new Industry Fellowship schemes, then rolled out for all⤵️
What about successful apps? Maybe 2024.
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1670582630973337600
As promised, Minister @JasonClareMP has approved grants quickly, & ARC has announced the outcomes shortly thereafter.
Instead of 3 months, that part of the process is taking only ~1–2 weeks.
Great improvements🙏
Instead of 3 months, that part of the process is taking only ~1–2 weeks.
Great improvements🙏
Thankfully, NIT-picking is dead & now the National Interest Test statement is assessed as part of the peer review process.
Font micromanagement is also now where it belongs, i.e. 🚮
Font micromanagement is also now where it belongs, i.e. 🚮
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1612976485534662656
And then there’s a (potentially) big streamlining of Discovery Projects – the 2-stage application process.
In typical ARC style, the information was first only leaked from research offices⤵️
In typical ARC style, the information was first only leaked from research offices⤵️
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1698617582561992838
There was an official announcement, with a video, very shortly after the same people told Senate Estimates they were still working on the process & couldn’t possibly give further details⤵️
(I actually think was a low point for ARC this year.)
(I actually think was a low point for ARC this year.)
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1718765259836821639
The College of Experts was enlarged to 319 members to cope with reviewing the expected ~6000 EOIs.
And we now have “preliminary” instructions to applicants ⤵️
And we now have “preliminary” instructions to applicants ⤵️
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1722461808869683676
I think there’s a good chance this 2-stage process will save most researchers & reviewers substantial time.
There’s obvious potential for problems but – given how catastrophically low DP funding is now – a simpler, more straight-forward “entry point” is worth trying.
There’s obvious potential for problems but – given how catastrophically low DP funding is now – a simpler, more straight-forward “entry point” is worth trying.
Taken together, all these improvements really make for a markedly better ARC system.
Worth saying thanks to the ARC @arc_gov_au for implementing all this within a year.
I hope that momentum can be maintained, especially while searching for a new CEO.
Worth saying thanks to the ARC @arc_gov_au for implementing all this within a year.
I hope that momentum can be maintained, especially while searching for a new CEO.
But what’s that about “catastrophically low DP funding”? Yeah, it’s the worst it’s ever been ⤵️
Without *at least* doubling ARC’s budget, Australia’s basic research capacity – where big things start small – will die completely.
Without *at least* doubling ARC’s budget, Australia’s basic research capacity – where big things start small – will die completely.
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1719175929136824367
The way the ARC announce grant outcomes is still totally bonkers.
ARC tinkered this year with tweeting when RMS has new outcomes (ahem), then heads-up tweets when outcomes were imminent (but not when available). Plus an outright stuff-up or two, e.g.⤵️
ARC tinkered this year with tweeting when RMS has new outcomes (ahem), then heads-up tweets when outcomes were imminent (but not when available). Plus an outright stuff-up or two, e.g.⤵️
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1724190567578673419
OMG THIS IS SO MASSIVELY SIMPLE!
Just. Email. People.
Why can’t they do this? They said in Senate Estimates that it’s “IT issues”. Now they say “No emailed outcomes, but watch for improvements next year”.
I worry about what they’ve cooked up, to be honest.
Just. Email. People.
Why can’t they do this? They said in Senate Estimates that it’s “IT issues”. Now they say “No emailed outcomes, but watch for improvements next year”.
I worry about what they’ve cooked up, to be honest.
One other own-goal worth remembering is the ChatGPT assessments affair.
As usual, instead of the ARC detecting the (obvious) problem & alerting everyone transparently, it was researchers who anonymously sounded the alarm⤵️
As usual, instead of the ARC detecting the (obvious) problem & alerting everyone transparently, it was researchers who anonymously sounded the alarm⤵️
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1674570215949217793
But unlike with previous stuff-ups, the ARC responded immediately, publicly, & took clear action⤵️
One might disagree with an outright ban on generative AI in writing assessments, for various reasons, but the ARC limited the damage quickly here.
One might disagree with an outright ban on generative AI in writing assessments, for various reasons, but the ARC limited the damage quickly here.
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1677481309021798400
2023 also saw the ARC Review!
It’s fantastic to finally be changing the actual legislation, not just adjusting “little” things – changing how the ARC *can* work, not just how it does some things.
@MargaretSheil et al.’s work went public in April⤵️
It’s fantastic to finally be changing the actual legislation, not just adjusting “little” things – changing how the ARC *can* work, not just how it does some things.
@MargaretSheil et al.’s work went public in April⤵️
https://x.com/MargaretSheil/status/1648841386396094464
The ARC Review’s 10 recommendations were accepted by the Government, & the legislation is now in Parliament.
Most importantly, a new ARC Board will be established. They will approve grants, not the Minister.
No more politically motivated grant vetos!
Most importantly, a new ARC Board will be established. They will approve grants, not the Minister.
No more politically motivated grant vetos!
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1730101862718956029
Thanks to a Senate Order from the Coalition (!), we also saw the ARC’s commissioned review into their handling of grant processes, & it hits the mark in many ways⤵️
Hopefully this leads to further improvements in 2024 – a mandate for the new CEO.
Hopefully this leads to further improvements in 2024 – a mandate for the new CEO.
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1724561933788160120
So, a quite positive 2023, really.
BUT, what the ARC really needs is much more money.
The Unis Accord report is on the Minister’s desk. Does it recommend the massive funding increases needed? Will Government make good on its constant promise to more-than-double R&D spending?
BUT, what the ARC really needs is much more money.
The Unis Accord report is on the Minister’s desk. Does it recommend the massive funding increases needed? Will Government make good on its constant promise to more-than-double R&D spending?
Oh, and #RaiseTheStipend!
I hope the Universities Accord strongly recommends a huge increase to the minimum government PhD stipend. Any hints, @JasonClareMP?
Many PhD students live below the poverty line. That’s simply disgraceful.
I hope the Universities Accord strongly recommends a huge increase to the minimum government PhD stipend. Any hints, @JasonClareMP?
Many PhD students live below the poverty line. That’s simply disgraceful.
https://x.com/caitecassidy/status/1619586074023694337
These PhD students ran the parliamentary petition, that got almost 15,000 signatures, simply asking to raise the stipend TO THE MINIMUM WAGE.
Frankly, this is emblematic of where the whole research funding situation sits in Australia right now.
Frankly, this is emblematic of where the whole research funding situation sits in Australia right now.
https://x.com/ARC_Tracker/status/1662984510877868032
Have a good break everyone, if you get one.
Thanks again for all your support this year. It’s been quieter, with so many leaving Twitter & only some moving to Masto, BSky & Threads.
But my bot never stops & it’ll be pinging again in 2024.
🤖🕵️🧑🎄
Thanks again for all your support this year. It’s been quieter, with so many leaving Twitter & only some moving to Masto, BSky & Threads.
But my bot never stops & it’ll be pinging again in 2024.
🤖🕵️🧑🎄
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
