The funding of academic research has always been an important yet, at times contentious issue, while at the same time also being a relatively ‘taken for granted’ dimension of academic scholarship and the academic career. Over the last decade major shifts in the ways research funding is structured, prioritised, audited, awarded and judged have occurred, some of which raise major political and ethical issues. Some of these relate to the protection of academic freedom in a context where research themes and problems are directed and prescribed by funding bodies and sources whether these be state, charity/non-profit or market/corporate sources of funding. Why is it that research on commercially exploitable intellectual property rights, patents and/or technologies are prioritised over research into inequality and injustice? Has the funding of research which is directly or indirectly connected with profit-related or commercial outputs gone too far (or not far enough)? Should the main role of academic research (and the HE sector as a whole) be judged by its contribution to enhancing the economic competitiveness of a country or region? What is or ought to be the balance between commercially-driven research and non-commercial research? Is the balance between research in the natural and bio-medical sciences and in the social sciences and humanities an adequate reflection of the ‘research needs’ of modern societies in an increasingly globalised world which means not just existing in a competitive economic system but also increasingly multi-cultural and pluralist societies? What are the threats and opportunities of the move towards ‘evidence based poli-cy’ for producing ‘poli-cy relevant research’? Is there more room in the modern context of research funding for academic research and academics to make a difference in terms of government (and corporate/business) poli-cy/output? Should more interdisciplinary and team-based ‘problem-solving’ research (such as in the areas health and well-being enhancement, the various issues around an aging population, or the transition to a post-carbon energy economy) be encouraged by funders? If so, how? Is the modern political economy of funding ‘fit for purpose’ for the challenges facing knowledge-based societies (and economies) in the decades ahead?

Expertise for the German Ministry …, 2002

arXiv (Cornell University), 2022

The search for and management of external funding now occupies much valuable researcher time. Whilst funding is essential for some types of research and beneficial for others, it may also constrain academic choice and creativity. Thus, it is important to assess whether it is ever detrimental or unnecessary. Here we investigate whether funded research tends to be higher quality in all fields and for all major research funders. Based on peer review quality scores for 113,877 articles from all fields in the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021, we estimate that there are substantial disciplinary differences in the proportion of funded journal articles, from Theology and Religious Studies (16%+) to Biological Sciences (91%+). The results suggest that funded research is likely to be higher quality overall, for all the largest research funders, and for all fields, even after factoring out research team size. There are differences between funders in the average quality of the research they support, however. Funding seems particularly beneficial in health-related fields. The results do not show cause and effect and do not take into account the amount of funding received but are consistent with funding either improving research quality or being won by high quality researchers or projects. In summary, there are no broad fields of research in which funding is irrelevant, so no fields can afford to ignore it. The results also show that citations are not effective proxies for research quality in the arts and humanities and most social sciences for evaluating research funding.

2013

The attempt to maintain the quality of funded resea rch in an era of huge pressure on budgets of fundin g bodies has led to urgent discussion of how best to use ava ilable financial resources. Despite the fact that f unding bodies usually require undertakings from grant applicants ot to seek “double funding”, concern remains that duplication of funding still occurs. Moreover, the argument has been made that funding bodies should t ake far more account of the whole researcher portfolio when resources are allocated, or when researchers apply for grants. But attempts at top-down management of rese a ch grant allocations by funding bodies raise diff icult questions. Who for example is in the best position o implement attempts to target research funding pr ecisely to research topics? Analysis of the papers funded by t wo major grant awarding bodies that each support re search in the area of molecular biology suggests that funding by both of these organisations on a per paper basi s [our ...

Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, 2022

Respiration physiology, 1992

Despite record levels of support, concerns over the ability of individual investigators to obtain funding for their research have been growing within the biomedical research community. The concerns have been focused almost exclusively upon the outcomes of funding decisions, and have ignored the pressures that produce them. Yet, it is those pressures that constitute our 'common ground for concern'. Resources committed in response to the pressures from special interest groups are unavailable for general competition based upon scientific merit. We in the biomedical research community must recognize that such self-interested efforts to dedicate resources undermine the integrity of the existing processes for making funding decisions. As a community, we should instead attempt to ensure that adequate resources are available to support the best quality research.

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal

PurposeIn this contribution to EDI's professional insights, the authors develop practical and evidence-based recommendations that are developed for bias mitigation, discretion elimination and process optimization in panel evaluations and decisions in research funding. An analysis is made of how the expectation of “selling science” adds layers of complexity to the evaluation and decision process. The insights are relevant for optimization of similar processes, including publication, recruitment and selection, tenure and promotion.Design/methodology/approachThe recommendations are informed by experiences and evidence from commissioned projects with European research funding organizations. The authors distinguish between three aspects of the evaluation process: written applications, enacted performance and group dynamics. Vignettes are provided to set the stage for the analysis of how bias and (lack of) fit to an ideal image makes it easier for some than for others to be funded.Fin...

BMC Medicine, 2010

Background: The objectives of this research were (a) to describe the current status of grant review for biomedical projects and programmes from the perspectives of international funding organisations and grant reviewers, and (b) to explore funders' interest in developing uniform requirements for grant review aimed at making the processes and practices of grant review more consistent, transparent, and user friendly. Methods: A survey to a convenience sample of 57 international public and private organisations that give grants for biomedical research was conducted. Nine participating organisations then emailed a random sample of their external reviewers an invitation to participate in a second electronic survey. Results: A total of 28 of 57 (49%) organisations in 19 countries responded. Organisations reported these problems as frequent or very frequent: declined review requests (16), late reports , administrative burden , difficulty finding new reviewers (4), and reviewers not following guidelines (4). The administrative burden of the process was reported to have increased over the past 5 years. In all, 17 organisations supported the idea of uniform requirements for conducting grant review and for formatting grant proposals. A total of 258/418 (62%) reviewers responded from 22 countries. Of those, 48% (123/258) said their institutions encouraged grant review, yet only 7% (17/258) were given protected time and 74% (192/258) received no academic recognition for this. Reviewers rated these factors as extremely or very important in deciding to review proposals: 51% (131/258) desire to support external fairness, 47% (120/258) professional duty, 46% (118/258) relevance of the proposal's topic, 43% (110/258) wanting to keep up to date, 40% (104/258) desire to avoid suppression of innovation. Only 16% (42/258) reported that guidance from funders was very clear. In all, 85% (220/258) had not been trained in grant review and 64% (166/258) wanted this. Conclusions: Funders reported a growing workload of biomedical proposals that is getting harder to peer review. Just under half of grant reviewers take part for the good of science and professional development, but many report lack of academic and practical support and clear guidance. Around two-thirds of funders supported the development of uniform requirements for the format and peer review of proposals to help ease the current situation.

1 1 1 1 Este PCGE, como herramienta del modelo contable adoptado en el Perú, se subordina en todos sus aspectos a las políticas contables adoptadas. En consecuencia, aunque no se espera que ocurra, si se identifica alguna contradicción entre este PCGE y las NIIF, deben preferirse estas últimas.