Linkage Projects 2020 Round 3 Announcement Banner

Policy Review of the NCGP - FAQs

Purpose:

Why is the National Competitive Grants Program being reviewed? 

The National Competitive Grants Program (NCGP) is being reviewed to ensure it remains effective and relevant in supporting high-quality research that addresses the evolving needs of the Australian research sector. The review aims to maximise the impact of public investment in university research and ensure the program is well-aligned with national priorities.

What are the main objectives of the review? 

The main objectives of the review are to: 

  • Assess the current strengths and weaknesses of the NCGP
  • Ensure the program is well-designed and fit for purpose in building and supporting Australia’s research capacity and capability
  • Enhance the program’s ability to deliver visible returns on public investment through strengthened collaboration between the research sector and industry
  • Align the NCGP with other government programs that support and invest in research.

Key Findings: 

What are the significant findings of the review so far? 

The review identified that while some features of the current NCGP continue to deliver high value, there are major shortcomings in its ability to meet future needs. 

Key findings include the need to simplify schemes and reduce complexity, drive and support the best early-stage research, and deepen collaboration across the full research spectrum – including with industry and other end-users. The full findings are on p17-18 of the Policy Review of the National Competitive Grants Program Discussion Paper: A new plan for ARC funded research.

How did the ARC come to these findings?

In early 2024 the ARC held 42 in-person or virtual workshops across Australia with leaders from 35 universities, over 100 ARC College of Expert members, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and research leaders, and 20 major peak bodies including the Learned Academies. The ARC also received 95 submissions to the first Policy Review Discussion paper.

How does the review align with broader reform processes across Government?

The Review will ensure that the NCGP aligns and contributes to: 

  • the ARC’s renewed role and purpose as defined in the Object of the Act under the recently amended Australian Research Council Act 2001  
  • the Government response to the Review of the Australian Research Council Act 2001 (ARC Review)  
  • recommendations set out in the Australian Universities Accord Final Report (Accord).  

Proposed Changes to the NCGP: 

What changes to the NCGP have been proposed?

The ARC is proposing several changes in the NCGP, including: 

  • A re-designed scheme structure that replaces the current Discovery and Linkage programs 
  • NCGP will be reduced from 15 schemes down to 6 schemes, organised by scale.
  • Schemes will no longer be modeled according to a distinction between basic and applied research. Rather, all schemes will support the full spectrum of early-stage research.
  • New program objectives that reflect national priorities
  • Embedded fellowships and salaried, named support for early-career researchers
  • A standalone scheme for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers, developed in consultation with the ARC Indigenous Forum 
  • Improved assessment processes that ensure transparency, fairness, and efficiency 
  • Enhanced mechanisms for collaboration between researchers, industry, and other end-users.

Why isn’t the ARC maintaining schemes based on a split between basic and applied research?

The ARC is a major funder of basic research in Australia and the discussion paper argues strongly that the new NCGP should continue to support research at the earliest stages of development. There has been a perception that the subdivision between Discovery and Linkage is based on the division between ‘basic’ and ‘applied’ research. In practice, most of the research the ARC funds is a combination of basic, strategic basic and applied research.

The distinction between basic and applied research tends to be blurred. The new NCGP aims to encourage collaboration across the full spectrum of early-stage research we fund and support the highest quality early-stage research, whether basic or applied.

Why is the ARC reducing the number of standalone fellowship schemes?

The ARC is proposing to remove most standalone fellowship schemes, and to embed fellowships into project grants in the new NCGP. While fellowships allow researchers to concentrate on research for an extended period, traditional 4-year fellowships concentrate a significant amount of funds on a small number of individual researchers.

Embedded fellowships for up to 2 years will reward excellence by financially supporting outstanding individuals at key points, while distributing NCGP funding to more people and projects. Recipients can use their 2 years of funding flexibly to focus on their research at critical periods but will not be removed from the university environment for the grant full duration. 

Will researchers still be able to draw a salary through these schemes? 

The new schemes expand salary support for early career researchers, by allowing them to draw a salary from any grant on which they are a named investigator, for the full duration of the project. This means early career researchers will no longer have to choose between receiving credit for their work and getting paid. 

Past consultation indicated that the NCGP should not be funding the full salaries of established researchers who already have university positions, especially the most senior. Therefore, the proposed Lead and Mentor grant only covers the salaries of the postdocs and PhDs, not the senior researcher. 

Teaching relief will also remain eligible expenditure under all grants, not limited to researchers who win fellowships. 

Embedded fellowships will be awarded on top of a project’s budget, while ECR salaries must be factored into the budget of any proposal with a named ECR. This means that ECRs can still benefit from winning an embedded fellowship. 

For Example: An ECR is a named investigator on a 4 year grant. The project budget includes 4 years of salary for the ECR. When the ECR wins an embedded fellowship, they receive 2 years’ worth of salary funding on top of the budgeted amount – and can therefore reallocate 2 years of their budgeted salary to another priority for the grant. 

Without fellowships, how will the ARC support early and mid-career researchers to build a career? 

Early and mid-career researchers will have several opportunities to build their careers through the new NCGP: 

  • Early-career researchers will be able to draw a salary from any grant on which they are a named investigator, for the full duration of the project. 
  • Early and mid-career researchers will benefit from Initiate grants, which place a higher emphasis on the research idea than on track record.  
  • First Nations early and mid-career researchers will be eligible for Realise Indigenous Capability, which is designed to launch careers and get more First Nations researchers into mainstream grants. 
  • Embedded fellowships will be salaries awarded on top of the project’s budget, while ECR salaries must be factored into the budget of any proposal with a named ECR. This means that ECRs can still benefit from winning an embedded fellowship. 
  • Example: An ECR is a named investigator on a 4-year grant. The project budget includes four years of salary for the ECR. When the ECR wins an embedded fellowship, they receive 2 years’ worth of salary funding on top of the budgeted amount – and can therefore reallocate 2 years of their budgeted salary to another priority for the grant. 
  • The new NCGP also features larger grants with longer timeframes in Collaborate and Prioritise, which will create more opportunities for early and mid-career researchers to work in teams alongside eminent researchers. Those longer timeframes should give some additional stability, which we know the sector wants. 

What is the benefit of embedded fellowships? 

Embedded fellowships allow the ARC to support a greater number of fellows and projects. They increase flexibility by allowing recipients to focus their 2 years of funding on research at critical periods and keep the fellow integrated in the university workforce. Embedded fellowships also expand opportunities for team-based research and mentoring. Lastly, they increase support for ECRs, as 2 fellowships are available per grant, and one must be an ECR. 

How will the designated programs be affected by the changes?

There are currently three designated programs: Centres of Excellence, Industrial Transformation Research Hubs and Industrial Transformation Training Centres. 

The ARC is proposing that the Industrial Transformation schemes be discontinued in their current form. The new Collaborate scheme will be similar in scale, supporting multi-institutional programs of work involving end-user and/or international partners.

Centres of Excellence will be remodelled into the Prioritise scheme, focused on long-term and multi-institutional research conducted to drive knowledge in priority areas identified by government and the ARC Board.

Collaborate and Prioritise will become designated programs. 

How do the proposed NCGP changes aim to provide better support for underrepresented groups in research?

The new NCGP aims to increase support for underrepresented cohorts in Australian research while continuing to fund excellent research.

Reforms include:

  • an updated scheme for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers,
  • dedicated prestigious Lead and Mentor grants for women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers,
  • enabling early-career researchers to draw salaries from grants on which they are named as investigators.

Will funding for access to equipment and infrastructure still be available?  

Infrastructure will be supported through all schemes at difference scale. 

The Collaborate scheme will provide infrastructure investment for multi-institutional collaborations through a Research Infrastructure Fund, as well as providing funding towards infrastructure running costs and maintenance.  

The Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities (LIEF) grant has played an important role as a standalone research infrastructure fund to-date. Feedback is being sought from the sector about challenges posed by LIEF and whether the new Research Infrastructure Fund needs to be, for example, a standalone fund, but subject to the same overall guidelines as Collaborate. 

Do the proposed changes to NCGP still support collaboration with Industry and end-users?

Effective collaboration with a wide range of end-users remains a priority for NCGP. Rather than being limited to specific schemes, industry and end-user collaboration will be supported through all schemes.

The new NCGP includes two schemes for major investments in which collaboration with research end-users will be mandatory. Collaboration will be optional but facilitated in all other schemes, so universities and their partners will be able to scale up their involvement from small, short projects through to major co-investments.

How will the ARC encourage riskier research in practice? / How will you encourage assessors to embrace riskier proposals? 

This element of the proposal relies on careful implementation planning and collaboration with universities and researchers who contribute to the peer review process. We anticipate implementation will include significant rethinking of assessment criteria and guidelines of each grant scheme, as well as new approaches to the selection and training of assessors. We welcome feedback on how we can support assessors to embrace higher risk proposals. 

Stakeholder Impact: 

I am a researcher who was intending to apply for one of the current schemes in 2026. What does this mean for me? 

The NCGP policy review final report will be provided to Government in June 2025, with changes potentially implemented in 2026. The ARC will advise the sector as early as possible about the transition from the current NCGP to the new schemes. 

We are committed to ensuring a smooth transition to the new NCGP and will provide clear information in advance to help you understand your options. 

How will existing schemes be affected while the review is in progress?

Schemes currently underway will not be affected while the review is in progress. The review process will conclude when the final report is delivered to Government in mid-2025. 

When will changes arising from the review be implemented, and will universities have time to prepare?

The ARC will confirm an implementation timeline as we work towards finalising the review. We will work closely with universities and other stakeholders during the transition period to ensure sufficient time to prepare. 

How will the outcomes of the review affect researchers and institutions?

The review will affect researchers and institutions by: 

  • introducing a more streamlined and efficient funding process, 
  • allowing researchers to apply for funding based on the scale of their project, rather than the nature of their research,
  • providing greater opportunities for collaboration, and 
  • ensuring that funding decisions are aligned with the ARC Board strategy and, where appropriate, national research priorities. 

Researchers and institutions can expect a more transparent and fair assessment process, as well as increased support for innovative and impactful research projects.

What support will the ARC provide to researchers and institutions in managing changes that will arise from the review?

The ARC understands that successful implementation of the new NCGP will require a thoughtful transition, which must occur in partnership with universities. 

We are committed to continue working with the university sector and other stakeholders at each turn to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible. 

Consultation: 

Who was consulted in developing the proposed changes?

Following consultation with the sector in early 2024, the ARC worked with the ARC Board, the ARC Indigenous Forum and the ARC Policy Review Steering Group to develop the proposed changes outlined in this Discussion Paper.

How can stakeholders provide feedback on the proposed changes?

Stakeholders can provide feedback on the recommendations by making a written submission through the ARC website. The submission process is open until 13 April 2025. 

Are stakeholders who did not participate in the first round of consultations (in 2024) still able to provide feedback?

Yes. We encourage all interested stakeholders to submit a response to the Discussion Paper, regardless of whether they chose to participate in the first round of consultations. 

Next Steps:

What are the next steps and timeframe following the release of the discussion paper? 

Following the release of the discussion paper, the next steps include: 

  • Conducting stakeholder consultations to gather feedback on the proposed changes. 
  • Analysing feedback, conducting further modelling, and revising the proposed NCGP architecture and scheme structure.
  • Preparing and delivering a final report to the Government, via the ARC Board, in mid-2025.

Will there be further opportunities for stakeholders to provide feedback on the NCGP policy review?

This discussion paper is the key opportunity for stakeholders to provide input on the overall design of the NCGP. We encourage stakeholders to share their views at this stage to shape the future of research funding in Australia. 

The ARC will consult with stakeholders on future aspects of the new NCGP, such as the implementation process.

Will the ARC publish stakeholder responses to the policy review consultations? 

At its discretion, the ARC may publish submissions (with consent) following the second round of consultations and the delivery of the final report to Government in later 2025. 

All individuals and organisations who submitted a response to either consultation period are welcome to publish their own submission. 

Back to top