摘要 :
Performance-based research funding (PBRF), the allocation of institutional funding on the basis of ex post assessments of university research performance, has been implemented in a large number of EU Member States. However, the ch...
展开
Performance-based research funding (PBRF), the allocation of institutional funding on the basis of ex post assessments of university research performance, has been implemented in a large number of EU Member States. However, the characteristics of this funding scheme differ widely. Apart from differences in the volume of funding, there are major variations in the assessments that feed into the funding allocation formula. Even within the two main groups of metrics based and peer review-based assessments the approaches adopted vary. Some of the main strengths and drawbacks of the various options are discussed in this article. An analysis of national Global Budgetary Allocations for R&D data reveals the distribution of project and institutional funding and the potential for PBRF. Given the heterogeneity of performance-based funding approaches, a comprehensive comparative assessment of the funding involved in this instrument requires further work. Nonetheless Member State governments can engage in institutional learning from good practices.
收起
摘要 :
Academic researchers, including those early in their careers, are under intense pressure to write research funding applications and obtain external research funding. Yet relatively little guidance helps them navigate the funding a...
展开
Academic researchers, including those early in their careers, are under intense pressure to write research funding applications and obtain external research funding. Yet relatively little guidance helps them navigate the funding application process. We provide insights into the funding writing process, with a special focus on resources available to business-to-business marketing researchers. The practical advice pertains to developing a funding strategy, navigating the funding review process, and providing information that reviewers seek when evaluating funding applications, among others. We also highlight the role of university leaders, who must effectively support and reward their faculty's activity of applying for funding, as well as the benefits of university-based research support offices. To conclude, we detail two recent successful examples of business-to-business marketing funding applications.
收起
摘要 :
Objective Analyze grants awarded between 2005 and 2014 to otolaryngology departments that appear in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER database, summarize characteristics of grant recipients associated with otolaryng...
展开
Objective Analyze grants awarded between 2005 and 2014 to otolaryngology departments that appear in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER database, summarize characteristics of grant recipients associated with otolaryngology departments as listed in the RePORTER between 2005 and 2014, and identify trends in otolaryngology NIH funding between 2005 and 2014 by topic.
收起
摘要 :
This article outlines the evolution of a national research funding system over a timespan of more than 40 years and analyzes the development from a rather stable Humboldt-inspired floor funding model to a complex multi-tiered syst...
展开
This article outlines the evolution of a national research funding system over a timespan of more than 40 years and analyzes the development from a rather stable Humboldt-inspired floor funding model to a complex multi-tiered system where new mechanisms continually have been added on top of the system. Based on recent contributions to Historical Institutionalism it is shown how layering and displacement processes gradually have changed the funding system along a number of dimensions and thus how a series of minor adjustments over time has led to a transformation of the system as a whole. The analysis also highlights the remarkable resistance of the traditional academically oriented research council system towards restructuring. Due to this resistance the political system has, however, circumvented the research council system and implemented change through other channels of the funding system. For periods of time these strategies have marginalized the role of the councils.
收起
摘要 :
Performance-based research funding systems have become popular over the last decades. One of the main reasons for these funding systems is to allow funding bodies to allocate public research funds more effectively based on the ass...
展开
Performance-based research funding systems have become popular over the last decades. One of the main reasons for these funding systems is to allow funding bodies to allocate public research funds more effectively based on the assessed quality. However, the performance-based research funding received by higher education institutes (HEIs) not only depends on the quality of research activity carried out but also on the funding formula used by funding bodies. This article examines the funding formula used by Research England (RE) and assesses the effect of this formula on quality-related research (QR) funding allocation using data of mainstream QR funding allocation for the 2017-18 period. RE's funding formula includes some value judgements by policymakers such as allocation of fourfold QR funding to 'world-leading' research compared to 'internationally-excellent' research, and the use of different subject cost weights. These value judgements play an important role in the allocation of QR funding beyond the assessed quality of research. This article finds that changes in some of these value judgments such as allocation of threefold (rather than fourfold) QR funding to world-leading research compared to internationally excellent research, or the use of alternative subject cost weights lead to major changes in the allocation of QR funding to different subject areas and HEIs. Results suggest that these value judgments are also important beyond the assessed quality of research, and that consultation of different subject areas and HEIs about these decisions and re-evaluation of some of these value judgements are needed for a more accountable distribution of QR funding.
收起
摘要 :
The influence of gender on the outcome of research evaluation activities and access to research funding has been heavily debated in recent decades. In this study, data from 6,393 applications submitted between 2011 and 2015 to the...
展开
The influence of gender on the outcome of research evaluation activities and access to research funding has been heavily debated in recent decades. In this study, data from 6,393 applications submitted between 2011 and 2015 to the Belgian funding agency Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique -FNRS (F.R.S.-FNRS) were statistically analysed to highlight any possible effect of gender on success rates. Results show no significant influence of gender on success rates or the likelihood of getting funding for most of the funding schemes we analysed. Research credit (RC) was the only one where gender and success variables were statistically dependent, although mean success rates of male and female applicants were not significantly different. Average grades given by remote reviewers to male applicants were significantly higher in the frame of RC applications. Among RC applications, the difference in success rates was higher in Humanities and Social Sciences, followed by Exact and Natural Sciences, and finally Life and Health Sciences. Proportions of male researchers who apply were shown to be higher for most of the funding schemes analysed, mainly for grant applications (such as RC) where only tenure researchers are allowed to apply. Taken together, our results show that access to F.R.S.-FNRS funding is not gender-dependent for the majority of the funding schemes except one where men represent the vast majority of the applicants. Reasons that could explain this statistical dependence are under investigation and could be due to the lower grading of women by remote reviewers.
收起
摘要 :
With this special issue, we would like to promote research on changes in the funding of the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Since funding secures the livelihood of researchers and the means to do research, it is an indi...
展开
With this special issue, we would like to promote research on changes in the funding of the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Since funding secures the livelihood of researchers and the means to do research, it is an indispensable condition for almost all research; as funding arrangements are undergoing dramatic changes, we think it timely to renew the science studies community's efforts to understand the funding of research. Changes in the governance of science have garnered considerable attention from science studies and higher education research; however, the impact of these changes on the conduct and content of research has not received sufficient attention, and theoretical insights into the connections between funding practices and research practices are few and far between. The aim of this special issue is to contribute to our theoretical understanding of the changing nature of research funding and its impact on the production of scientific knowledge. More specifically, we are interested in the interplay between funding and research practices: What is the impact of institutionalised funding arrangements on the production of scientific knowledge?
收起
摘要 :
Conservation biology is often defined as a "mission driven crisis discipline", and as such research priorities should ideally parallel the relative importance of different conservation threats. Conservation research has increased ...
展开
Conservation biology is often defined as a "mission driven crisis discipline", and as such research priorities should ideally parallel the relative importance of different conservation threats. Conservation research has increased exponentially over the last 22 years, rising from ＜150 articles in 1990 to ＞4000 articles in 2012. However, this growth has not and may not necessarily reflect changes in research needs. Consequently, it remains uncertain if growth and priori tization have been consistent between research themes, or subdisciplines. In other words, it is unknown if conservation priorities change in relation to research needs, or if instead to shifts in funding, which may or may not correspond to true research needs. Future conservation research priorities should ideally be based on conservation needs alone and must account for threats at both the immediate and long-term scales.
收起
摘要 :
Research groups spend time and resources in the process of applying for funding. This issue raises important questions regarding inefficiency and whether the currently used funding mechanisms are adequate. This article aims to ide...
展开
Research groups spend time and resources in the process of applying for funding. This issue raises important questions regarding inefficiency and whether the currently used funding mechanisms are adequate. This article aims to identify ways of reducing the inefficiency and the waste of resources when making research funding calls. We look at four ways of reducing inefficiency. Inefficiency decreases when: (1) the most productive research groups are favoured over the less productive ones, (2) the call is restricted to a small number of research groups actively working on the subject of the call, (3) the funding process is less dependent on the amount of effort spent on fund-seeking activities by the research groups, and (4) the number of research groups competing in the same call is small. However, not all these mechanisms are equally powerful or easy to implement. Our results suggest that (1) reducing the dependence of the funding process on funding activities' efforts, or (2) reducing the number of research groups by narrowing the subject of the call to groups that are very active in the call's subject might be particularly effective in reducing inefficiency.
收起
摘要 :
Abstract In this paper I focus on the substantial research funding cuts announced by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) in March 2021 to examine the process of funding for and participation in global research projects for researche...
展开
Abstract In this paper I focus on the substantial research funding cuts announced by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) in March 2021 to examine the process of funding for and participation in global research projects for researchers based in Southern institutions. I focus here on three key aspects of participating in global research projects: first, the structures through which these grants are created—the programmatic frameworks or other imperatives that confine and limit this work to Northern/Western‐centric frames; secondly, the precarity of these grants and the work that they generate; and, thirdly, the increasingly output‐related and time‐bound nature of work in light of limited support. I argue that the effects of these are felt disproportionately by those located in the global South and are therefore worth considering as part of larger debates centred on democratizing and decolonizing knowledge networks.
收起
原文获取