Why we’re stuck with data reports that are so hard to share

It’s not about misleading – it’s about survival. It’s about trying to be seen as worthy of support in a system that often equates complexity with risk, a system that makes it genuinely hard to communicate impact with honesty, clarity, and confidence.

So we report what’s safe. We soften what’s tricky. And we miss out on the real gold: the insights that would help us do better.

The ARC funds about 7% of the government’s investment in research and development and about 40% of competitive research grant funding; it allocates $1.03 billion in total each year.

The discussion paper A New Plan for ARC-Funded Research sets out a blueprint for streamlining processes, boosting early-career and Indigenous research, and fostering greater collaboration between universities, industry and communities.

The proposed changes follow a 2023 government-commissioned review of the ARC – including the council’s governing act – that found trust in the body had been “dramatically eroded” by several ministerial interventions.

That lack of trust came to a head when the former Coalition government, led by Scott Morrison, used its veto powers on Christmas Eve in 2021 to cancel $1.4 million in funding awarded by the ARC to six humanities projects, triggering a petition by academics and intellectuals.

Let’s ask better questions

At a recent Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS) gathering, I shared this message with grantmakers and changemakers: we don’t need more data – —we need a better relationship with the data we already have.

If we want to shift the culture, we need to shift the conversation. That starts with reframing the way we talk about data.

Instead of “Subjective participant experience relating to interpersonal safety and dignity,” how about: “Did participants feel safe and respected?”

Instead of “Participant likelihood to recommend program to others,” try: “Would they tell a friend to come along?”

Plain language is not a downgrade. It’s an invitation – for your board, your team, your funders – to lean in and actually engage.

And when you combine the resulting data with context and a participant voice? That’s where real meaning lives.

“I walked in expecting to feel awkward and leave early. But I stayed the whole session. People asked my pronouns, used them, and actually listened. I didn’t know how much I needed that until it happened.” – Alex, 19

No bar chart can carry the kind of impact that Alex’s personal account does. Pair it with data, and it becomes a powerful insight, not just a number.

Alongside perceptions of political meddling, the research community has long been concerned about the ARC’s independence, long delays in assessing applications, difficult application processes, grant review methods, lack of focus on “basic research”, funding levels, success rates and flagging international partnerships.

A March 2022 Senate examination of the ARC Act found it “prescriptive, inflexible, and outdated”, weighed down by “a high level of old-fashioned administrative and legislative burden”.

After Labor took office in 2022, federal Education Minister Jason Clare ordered a formal review in August of that year amid sustained criticism of the way the ARC had handled grants.

The review suggested that more “checks and balances” were needed and that the minister should intervene in funding decisions only in the event of “a potential threat to national security”. Instead, recommendations and approvals “should be made by those best placed to judge the intrinsic merit of the proposals”.

The review, led by a former CEO of the ARC, Professor Margaret Sheil, also proposed clear separation between ARC grants programs and other funding that meets strategic government research objectives.

Communicating for learning, not just compliance

We often treat impact reporting like a finish line. But what if it were more like a feedback loop?

The organisations I see reporting their impact well are creating space for reflection. They’re experimenting with dashboards, yarning circles, even art. They’re designing reports for different audiences and using the 1-3-25 model to give everyone something they can actually use (one page of main messages, a three-page executive summary, and no more than 25 pages of findings).

They’re designing reports for different audiences, and using the 1-3-25 model to give everyone something they can actually use (one page of main messages, a three-page executive summary, and no more than 25 pages of findings).

Crucially, they’re transparent about their achievements and findings.

A gentle nudge toward change

This isn’t a call-out. It’s a call-in.

To the funders reading this: ask good questions. Make room for grey areas. Reward curiosity.

To the not-for-profits: you’re doing hard work under complex conditions. Don’t be afraid to show what you’ve learned as well as what you’re achieved.

To all of us: let’s stop seeing data as a performance, and start using it as a tool for collective growth.

Because when we shift the culture of data – from fear to reflection, from proof to learning – we make it easier for everyone in the system to do better work.

For grantmakers who want more on impact without performance pressure, I recommend visiting simna.com.au and exploring how SmartyGrants is helping grantmakers to have braver conversations about data over through its new analytics tools.