🎙️ Podcast Link 🎙️
The Australian Research Ecosystem is the subject of at least two major reviews, that could result in the biggest change to how things like grants are assessed and enacted.
In my opinion, there are a handful of super important concepts that should shape this review. Some can’t be said “officially”. That’s what this video is about, these key issues!
🔍 My sector health check indicator: the likelihood that a talented, driven and hard working early career individual will make it: not guaranteed, and not even super high, but high enough that people feel like they have a real chance. Also relevant to grant funding scheme acceptance rates.
😓 How tightly squeezed the sector is – very few if any “freeloaders”. Almost everyone is working hard, hustling hard, and periodically or always stressed by their prospects. Any reform should not revolve around further squeezing!
🕰️ The impossibility of performing at a world class research level in academia whilst teaching, doing service, and all within a theoretical working week’s formal hours. At least for the vast majority of people, and especially for those doing things like trying to raise a young family and be a present parent. And how this is both a problem and not a problem: many researchers love their job and happily do research outside of normal hours, but at the same time this is in tension with the much-needed moves to formalize workloads and protect workers…
🤔 Disagreement and confusion over the role and responsibilities of universities, and of research bodies. As represented by examples like the angst over Associate Professors getting DECRA fellowships – the appropriateness of which really depends on what you think these fellowships are for.
🎯 How implicit and explicit optimization (and some gaming) will result from any reform – so reform that is aware of how this will unfold, and minimizes vulnerability to egregious gaming, is important.
🎲 High risk fundamental research and “having your cake and eating it too”. High risk research is essential, and whilst it will always generate some sort of output, in many cases it will largely be a bust. For the aggregate system, this isn’t a problem. But how we treat, assess and support the individual, given volatility of outcome, is challenging and vital.
🌱 Decoupling being research-active with research KPIs and performance. Academics should at least dabble in a little (cheap) research for interest and to inform teaching, but their enthusiasm is often killed by unreachable KPIs. I think there’s a viable system where most at least dabble and remain enthused about research.
DISCLAIMER: the views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
#research #reform #academia #Australia #grants
Full Video Notes
Australian research is at a crossroads at the moment, and we have been working hard to submit feedback to two major reviews of the Australian research ecosystem. One is on the National Competitive Grants Program, and the other is on the strategic research and development landscape. In doing so, I wanted to share a few common points that I believe are important, at least from my perspective, in informing how we think about reforming these systems.
I work across a large number of sectors, or at least interact with them. The nature of my academic role means I spend a lot of time speaking with people from a wide range of sectors, both across Australia and internationally. One way I like to judge the health and viability of a sector is by looking at its new and emerging talent. Specifically, I ask: if a very talented, passionate, and hardworking young person sets their mind on building a career in this sector, what are the chances they will succeed and secure a sustainable, productive position?
My assertion is that, in the current Australian research ecosystem, those chances are very low. In fact, I believe they are substantially below the minimum efficiency point of the system. One way to think about this efficiency point is to consider grant acceptance rates. Of course, not every grant proposal is excellent, but in many funding schemes, you could reasonably argue that the top 30 percent of applications represent high-quality research with strong potential to deliver advances in knowledge or impact for industry, government, or society.
When acceptance rates are only five or eight percent, we are essentially discarding large volumes of strong research almost arbitrarily. Once you get into that top tier of proposals, it becomes very difficult to differentiate between them. One key outcome I hope to see from the reform process is a system where a talented, driven person may not be guaranteed success, but at least feels like they have a real chance. I think that sense of opportunity is one of the clearest indicators of a sector’s health.
Another important point is the perception of people within the academic research ecosystem. I have been in the sector for 20 years, gradually progressing to more senior roles. When I first started, there may have been a small number of people who were not especially effective. However, I believe most of them were not ineffective due to any deliberate gaming of the system. Rather, they had joined academia at a time when universities and the research environment looked very different. As the landscape changed dramatically, some of them found themselves out of sync with the current demands of the sector.
In contrast, in 2025, I would argue there is very little, if any, “dead wood” in the system. There are few, if any, academics coasting along without contributing meaningfully. Almost everyone I know is hustling, working hard, feeling pressure, and often under considerable stress. Of course, there are exceptions, but the idea that reforms can squeeze significantly more productivity or output from a relaxed and underworked workforce is not realistic. People are already pushing themselves hard.
Another key concept, which is somewhat sensitive, is the idea of a balanced academic workload that fits neatly into a 37, 38, or 40-hour work week. Extensive surveys show that academics often work far beyond these hours. The joke is that we do our research on weekends. This is both a problem and not a problem. Many researchers love their work and are willing to give extra time. At the same time, universities are rightly trying to protect staff wellbeing by formalizing and accounting for workloads.
However, in my opinion, these two things are fundamentally in conflict. If we want to maintain current standards of research output and quality, but limit formal working hours to 40 per week, something has to give. I do not think it is possible to reconcile those goals without trade-offs.
A further issue is the ongoing debate about the respective roles and responsibilities of universities and research funding bodies. This comes up repeatedly, directly and indirectly. One prominent example involves early career research fellowships, such as DECRA. These are designed to support early career researchers over a three-year period.
There was a lot of frustration recently when some associate professors were awarded DECRA fellowships. The controversy often reflects differing views of what these fellowships are meant to achieve. On one hand, there are applicants who, despite being at associate professor level, meet the eligibility criteria because of their prior career paths or timelines. On the other hand, critics argue that these fellowships should be reserved for more vulnerable early career researchers trying to get their start.
Whether you think associate professors should receive these fellowships depends on whether you believe the goal is to support vulnerable researchers or to fund the strongest applicants likely to produce good research. Either approach has merit, but they lead to different interpretations of fairness and eligibility.
Whatever reforms are made, universities, individuals, and institutions will adapt and optimize around them. This is a natural and expected behavior. What we should aim for are reforms that are relatively resilient to gaming. For example, we would want to avoid scenarios where institutions delay someone’s promotion just to preserve their fellowship eligibility, only to immediately promote them once the fellowship is secured. That is probably not the type of behavior we want the system to incentivize.
In reading various position papers, one recurring theme I find troubling is the implicit assumption that all high-risk, fundamental research will eventually deliver major returns. I do not agree. Some high-risk research will not pan out. It may produce a few publications and contribute useful knowledge to the broader field, but it will not yield a breakthrough or direct impact. Meanwhile, another person working on a similarly high-risk idea might achieve major success.
At a system level, this is not a problem. You want some researchers taking risks, because breakthroughs often come from that. But at the level of the individual, the outcomes are highly volatile. One common suggestion is to ask high-risk researchers to also produce some low-risk research, just in case. But in practice, this dilutes their focus. It reduces their chance of a breakthrough, while generating work that may not be enough to sustain their career anyway. We need to treat individuals differently from how we treat the system in aggregate.
The final point I want to raise is the idea of decoupling research activity from research performance. I believe that any academic who teaches should still be involved in research to some extent. Not necessarily publishing or leading big initiatives, but doing enough to remain informed and relevant. However, coupling all research activity to performance metrics and KPIs is, in my view, toxic.
There is a subset of academics who enjoy research and want to stay engaged, but who do not perform at the highest level. Pushing them to meet benchmarks that are unattainable for them often leads to burnout and disillusionment. It would be worth exploring ways, both within universities and across the sector, to decouple these pressures. Let some staff contribute through modest research engagement while recognising they are unlikely to bring in major grants or lead large centres. That is fine. It does not mean they should be excluded from doing research entirely.
The world is changing quickly. Australia is changing. The nature of research is changing. I have seen a lot of change over my 20 years in this sector. Reviewing and reshaping our research ecosystem is a welcome move. It can be confronting, especially for early career researchers who are most affected in the short term. But I am optimistic that we can emerge with a system that is substantially better for everyone involved.