An Analysis of Australian Research Council’s Grants in Religion
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/jasr.20133Keywords:
religious studies, Australian Research Council, research grants, Excellence in Research for Australia, global rankingsAbstract
In this article, we used the meta-metrics approach to analyse research grants in the Religion and Religious Studies field of research (FoR) in Australia, with respect to their metric properties, significance, similarity, and usage characterisation. Whilst comparing and contrasting various results from the dataset of the Australian Research Council (ARC) on the success of its grant capture, we found the following: an imbalance in the FoR between the quantity of publications and that of national competitive grant capture in Australia (highlighting the problem of research significance) and a disparity between the use of keywords on religion without using corresponding FoR codes (as an expression of usage characterisation). These findings are examined in parallel with the last 2018 ARC’s Excellence in Research for Australia report.
References
ARC 2019a State of Australian University Research 2018–2019. ERA National Report. Online: https://dataportal.arc.gov.au/ERA/NationalReport/2018/ (accessed 20 October 2020).
b Gender and the Research Workforce: Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) 2018. Online: https://dataportal.arc.gov.au/ERA/GenderWorkforceReport/2018/ (accessed 20 October 2020).
Grant Search. Online: https://dataportal.arc.gov.au/NCGP/Web/Grant/Grants%20 (accessed 26 May 2021).
Barnett, A., D. Herbert, P. Clarke and N. Graves 2014 The Research Lottery: The Pressure on the Australian Grant System. Australian Quarterly, January–March: 4–9.
Bazeley, P. 1998 Peer Review and Panel Decisions in the Assessment of Australian Research Council Project Grant Applicants: What Counts in a Highly Competitive Context? Higher Education 35: 435–52.
Bromham, L., R. Dinnage and X. Hua 2016 Interdisciplinary Research Has Consistently Lower Funding Success. Nature 534: 684–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18315
Dhyani, D., N. W. Keong and S. Bhowmick 2002 A Survey of Web Metrics. ACM Computing Surveys 34(4): 469–503. https://doi.org/10.1145/592642.592645
Franzmann, M. 2002 AASR Presidential Address 2002. From Queen of the Sciences to the Rebel Alliance: Religion in the University. Australian Religious Studies Review 15(2): 5–12.
Herbert, D., A. Barnett, P. Clarke and N. Graves 2013 On the Time Spent Preparing Grant Proposals: An Observational Study of Australian Researchers. BMJ Open 3(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800
Hicks, D. 2011 Performance-based University Research Funding Systems. Research Policy 41(2): 251–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007
Karp, P. 2018 ‘Disgraceful’: University Decries ‘Political Interference’ that Blocked $4m in Grants. The Guardian, 30 October. Online: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/30/disgraceful-university-decries-political-interference-that-blocked-4m-in-grants (accessed 25 June 2020).
Kelly, A., and R. Burrows 2012 Measuring the Value of Sociology? Some Notes on Performative Metricization in the Contemporary Academy. The Sociological Review 59(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02053.x
Larkins, F. n.d. Anomalies in the Research Excellence ERA Performance of Australian Universities. Online: https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/3078099/FP-LARKINS_University-Performances-ERA-2018-12.pdf (accessed 20 October 2020).
Marsh, H., U. Jayasinghe and N. Bond 2008 Improving the Peer-Review Process for Grant Applications: Reliability, Validity, Bias, and Generalizability. American Psychologist 63(3): 160–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160
Martin, B. 2000 Research Grants: Problems and Options. Australian University Review 43(2): 17–22.
Merton, R. K. 1968 The Matthew Effect in Science. Science 159(3810): 56–63.
Moore, S., C. Neylon, M. Eve, D. O’Donnell and D. Pattinson 2017 ‘Excellence R Us’: University Research and the Fetishisation of Excellence. Palgrave Communications 3: 16105. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.105
Olsina, L., and G. Rossi 2002 Measuring Web Application Quality with WebQEM. Ieee Multimedia 9(4): 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMUL.2002.1041945
Oslington, P., N. Jensen and I. Ryan 2019 Enhancing the Evidence Base for Australian Theological Research. Colloquium: The Australian and New Zealand Theological Review 51(1): 5–24.
Possamai, A., and G. Long 2020 Losing Faith in the Classification and Evaluation of Research: A Meta-Metrics Approach to Research on Religion in Australia. Australian Universities’ Review 62(1): 3–9.
Renzaho, A. M. Polonsky, D. Mellor and S. Cyril 2016 Addressing Migration-related Social and Health Inequalities in Australia: Call for Research Funding Priorities to Recognise the Needs of Migrant Populations. Australian Health Review 40(1): 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH14132
Tilbury, C., C. Bigby and M. Hughes 2020 Analysis of Australian Research Council Grants Awarded for Social Work Projects 2008–2017. Australian Social Work 73(1): 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2018.1543437
Weyuker, E. J. 1998 Evaluating Software Complexity Measures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14(9): 1357–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.6178
Wilsdon, J. et al. 2015 The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Online: http://re.ukri.org/sector-guidance/publications/metric-tide/ (accessed 19 May 2021).
Published
Issue
Section
License
Equinox Publishing Ltd.
