Learning and teaching from the edge to centre stage : Critical factors in embedding sustainable university-wide engagement in external awards and grants funding initiatives.

Teaching awards, grants and fellowships are strategies used to recognise outstanding contributions to learning and teaching, encourage innovation, and to shift learning and teaching from the edge to centre stage. Examples range from school, faculty and institutional award and grant schemes to national schemes such as those offered by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC), the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in the United States, and the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning in higher education in the United Kingdom. The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has experienced outstanding success in all areas of the ALTC funding since the inception of the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in 2004. This paper reports on a study of the critical factors that have enabled sustainable and resilient institutional engagement with ALTC programs. As a lens for examining the QUT environment and practices, the study draws upon the five conditions of the framework for effective dissemination of innovation developed by Southwell, Gannaway, Orrell, Chalmers and Abraham (2005, 2010): 1. Effective, multi-level leadership and management 2. Climate of readiness for change 3. Availability of resources 4. Comprehensive systems in institutions and funding bodies 5. Funding design The discussion on the critical factors and practical and strategic lessons learnt for successful university-wide engagement offer insights for university leaders and staff who are responsible for learning and teaching award, grant and associated internal and external funding schemes.

Funding grant proposals for scientific research : retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel

Objectives: To quantify randomness and cost when choosing health and medical research projects for funding. Design: Analysis of retrospective data from grant review panels. Setting: The National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia. Participants/Data: All panel members’ scores for grant proposals submitted in 2009. Main outcome measure: The proportion of grant proposals that were always, sometimes and never funded after accounting for random variability arising from variation in panel members’ scores; the cost-effectiveness of different size assessment panels. Results: 59% of 620 funded grants were sometimes not funded when random variability was accounted for. Only 9% of grant proposals were always funded, 61% were never funded and 29% were sometimes funded. The extra cost per grant effectively funded from the most effective system was $18,541. Conclusions: Allocating funding for scientific research in health and medicine is costly and somewhat random. There are many useful research questions to be addressed that could improve current processes.

Reimagining learning spaces : A research report for the Queensland Council for Social Science Innovation

The purpose of the Reimagining Learning Spaces project was to conduct an empirical study that would result in findings to inform the design and use of physical school facilities and examine the ways in which these constructions influence pedagogy. The study focused on newly-established school libraries in Queensland, many of which had been established with funding from the Federal Government’s Building the Education Revolution economic stimulus program. To explore the field, the study sought multiple perspectives that included those of school students as well as teacher-librarians and other key school staff, addressing the following focus question: - How does the physical environment of school libraries influence pedagogic practices and learning outcomes? Further research questions that guided the inquiry included: - What are the implications for teacher-librarians when transitioning into a new library learning space? - How do members of the school community (principals, teachers, teacher-librarians and students) experience the creation of a new school library learning space? - How do school students imagine the design and use of engaging library learning spaces? An extensive review explored Australian and international literature based on the research questions, focused on the following major areas: • School library renewal: trends in reimagining the place of libraries in virtual and real space • School libraries as learning spaces: the expanded role of school libraries in whole-school pedagogical support. • The role of teacher-librarians in new times • Built environments and the implications for learning • Learners and learning in newly established spaces • Learning space design: perspectives, research and principles • Pedagogical principles and voices of experience • Transitions to newly created learning spaces Approach Using an innovative qualitative research design, Reimagining Learning Spaces investigated learner and teacher perspectives across three intersecting domains exploring: - Imagined spaces: learners’ imaginative concepts of learning within engaging learning environments; - Emerging spaces: experiences of teacher-librarians in the transition into new spaces for learning, and - Established spaces: learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of ways in which the physical environment influences and shapes pedagogy. Seven schools that had recently benefitted from the BER program became the research sites at which data were collected from teacher-librarians, teachers, school leaders and students. With this range of participants, an appropriately diverse set of data collection tools was developed, including video interviews, drawings, and focus groups. Evocative narrative case studies (Simons 2009) were developed from the data, representing the voices of users of learning spaces. Key findings The study’s findings are presented in this report and complemented by an array of visual materials on the project web site http:// The report includes: • a set of seven cases studies that reveal nuanced experiences of designing and creating school libraries, based on the narrative of key stakeholders (teacher-librarians, teachers, students and principals) • thematic discussion of student imaginings of their ideal school library, based on drawings and narrative of students at the seven case study schools • critical analysis of the case study and student imaginings, focusing on implications for (re)designing school learning spaces and pedagogy, and responding to the study’s overarching research question - .17 recommendations to support: designing, transitioning and reimagining pedagogy; leadership; and policy development

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships : a qualitative study of Australian researchers

Objective To examine the impact of applying for funding on personal workloads, stress and family relationships. Design Qualitative study of researchers preparing grant proposals. Setting Web-based survey on applying for the annual National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant scheme. Participants Australian researchers (n=215). Results Almost all agreed that preparing their proposals always took top priority over other work (97%) and personal (87%) commitments. Almost all researchers agreed that they became stressed by the workload (93%) and restricted their holidays during the grant writing season (88%). Most researchers agreed that they submitted proposals because chance is involved in being successful (75%), due to performance requirements at their institution (60%) and pressure from their colleagues to submit proposals (53%). Almost all researchers supported changes to the current processes to submit proposals (95%) and peer review (90%). Most researchers (59%) provided extensive comments on the impact of writing proposals on their work life and home life. Six major work life themes were: (1) top priority; (2) career development; (3) stress at work; (4) benefits at work; (5) time spent at work and (6) pressure from colleagues. Six major home life themes were: (1) restricting family holidays; (2) time spent on work at home; (3) impact on children; (4) stress at home; (5) impact on family and friends and (6) impact on partner. Additional impacts on the mental health and well-being of researchers were identified. Conclusions The process of preparing grant proposals for a single annual deadline is stressful, time consuming and conflicts with family responsibilities. The timing of the funding cycle could be shifted to minimise applicant burden, give Australian researchers more time to work on actual research and to be with their families.

Will the new ABC Arts Council Win Back the Arts Community?

The ABC’s major arts announcement this month appears at first glance to be good news for one of its core constituencies. The national broadcaster will establish an Arts Council and will roll out several new arts programming initiatives. The Corporation’s relationship with the arts community has been strained in recent years, so the new programming initiatives should be greeted positively. But without significant new funding, coupled with the uncertainties of a looming federal budget, some commentators are seeing this as little more than a shuffling of the deckchairs.

Including or excluding conflicts of interest among expert peer reviewers had little impact on funding success, a case study from Australia

Competition for research funding is intense and the opinions of an expert peer reviewer can mean the difference between success and failure in securing funding. The allocation of expert peer reviewers is therefore vitally important and funding agencies strive to avoid using reviewers who have real or perceived conflicts of interest. This article examines the impact of including or excluding peer reviewers based on their conflicts of interest, and the final ranking of funding proposals. Two 7-person review panels assessed a sample of National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia proposals in Basic Science or Public Health. Using a pre-post comparison, the proposals were first scored after the exclusion of reviewers with a high or medium conflict, and re-scored after the return of reviewers with medium conflicts. The main outcome measures are the agreements in ranks and funding success before and after excluding the medium conflicts. Including medium conflicts of interest had little impact on the ranks or funding success. The Bland–Altman 95% limits of agreement were ± 3.3 ranks and ± 3.4 ranks in the two panels which both assessed 36 proposals. Overall there were three proposals (4%) that had a reversed funding outcome after including medium conflicts. Relaxing the conflict of interest rules would increase the number of expert reviewers included in the panel discussions which could increase the quality of peer review and make it easier to find reviewers.

A randomized trial of fellowships for early career researchers finds a high reliability in funding decisions

Objectives Funding for early career researchers in Australia's largest medical research funding scheme is determined by a competitive peer-review process using a panel of four reviewers. The purpose of this experiment was to appraise the reliability of funding by duplicating applications that were considered by separate grant review panels. Study Design and Methods Sixty duplicate applications were considered by two independent grant review panels that were awarding funding for Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council. Panel members were blinded to which applications were included in the experiment and to whether it was the original or duplicate application. Scores were compared across panels using Bland–Altman plots to determine measures of agreement, including whether agreement would have impacted on actual funding. Results Twenty-three percent of the applicants were funded by both panels and 60 percent were not funded by both, giving an overall agreement of 83 percent [95% confidence interval (CI): 73%, 92%]. The chance-adjusted agreement was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.92). Conclusion There was a comparatively high level of agreement when compared with other types of funding schemes. Further experimental research could be used to determine if this higher agreement is due to nature of the application, the composition of the assessment panel, or the characteristics of the applicants.

The impact of a streamlined funding application process on application time: Two cross-sectional surveys of Australian researchers

Objective: To examine if streamlining a medical research funding application process saved time for applicants. Design: Cross-sectional surveys before and after the streamlining. Setting: The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. Participants: Researchers who submitted one or more NHMRC Project Grant applications in 2012 or 2014. Main outcome measures: Average researcher time spent preparing an application and the total time for all applications in working days. Results: The average time per application increased from 34 working days before streamlining (95% CI 33 to 35) to 38 working days after streamlining (95% CI 37 to 39; mean difference 4 days, bootstrap p value <0.001). The estimated total time spent by all researchers on applications after streamlining was 614 working years, a 67-year increase from before streamlining. Conclusions: Streamlined applications were shorter but took longer to prepare on average. Researchers may be allocating a fixed amount of time to preparing funding applications based on their expected return, or may be increasing their time in response to increased competition. Many potentially productive years of researcher time are still being lost to preparing failed applications.