Social change grant-making : a failure of innovation?

Focusing primarily on Anglophone countries, this article begins by looking at the changing environment of foundations, the pressures on foundations and some responses to those pressures. It then focuses on the potential of a structural change approach - often known as 'social change' or 'social justice' grant-making - as a solution to some of the modern dilemmas of foundations, and considers why this approach has, with some exceptions, gained relatively little support. This raises the wider issues of why and how resource-independent, endowed foundations change when conventional explanations of organisational change do not easily apply. Researching a 'lack' is clearly difficult; this article adopts an analytic perspective, examining the characteristics of the structural change approach as a mimetic model, and draws on the work of Rogers (2003) on the characteristics required for the successful diffusion of innovations. It suggests that the structural change approach suffers from some fundamental weaknesses as a mimetic model, failing to meet some key characteristics for the diffusion of innovations. In conclusion, the article looks at conditions under which these weaknesses may be overcome.

The return of manhood suffrage to Queensland, 1863-1872

In 1859, Queensland was separated from New South Wales as an independent colony. At this time the new Governor conspired to ensure the citizens did not inherit the old colonies system of full male suffrage. This was not returned until the Elections Act of 1872. However, the extended franchise was not a result of either democratic values or other ideological intentions. This article will analyse parliamentary debates to show that the revision to full suffrage was a result of administrative expediency driven by an inability to prevent abuse of the limited franchise.

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.

Peter Alwast talks to Grant Stevens

This interview was published in the catalogue for Peter Alwast's solo exhibition, "Future Perfect", at the Institute of Modern Art, Brisbane, in August 2011.

Grant Stevens : Are You Upset with Me?

Grant Stevens is ambivalent. The young Brisbane artist made his name with a series of computer-generated animated-text videos that explore clichés but seem undecided as to whether they are trivial and vacuous, profound and authentic or somehow both at once. Stevens plunders mass-media sources (the familiar image repertoire dished up by Hollywood, television, pop music and the Internet) as readymade content. He explores this everyday language, sometimes for its ambiguity, but more often for its almost uncanny lucidity. Resembling meditation and relaxation guides, his recent videos beg the question: what made us so anxious? This book examines Stevens' artistic output over the first ten years of his practice. It includes essays by Mark Pennings and Chris Kraus.

APS grant enhances educational psychology’s impact in Bangladesh

The APS Grant for Intercultural and/or International Projects of up to $10,000 supports innovative projects that have an intercultural and/or international focus, particularly in countries where psychology is an emerging discipline. Associate Professors Linda Gilmore MAPS and Marilyn Campbell MAPS from Queensland University of Technology were awarded the APS Grant in 2010-11. Their project aimed to promote and advance the profession of psychology in Bangladesh by supporting the newly introduced specialisation of educational psychology. With a population of 159 million in a country only twice the size of Tasmania, Bangladesh is one of the poorest and most densely populated countries in the world. Yet at the time this project commenced, there was only one school psychologist in the entire country. Linda Gilmore shared her experiences and insights about the project with InPsych.

Funding : Australia’s grant system wastes time

We found that scientists in Australia spent more than five centuries' worth of time preparing research-grant proposals for consideration by the largest funding scheme of 2012. Because just 20.5% of these applications were successful, the equivalent of some four centuries of effort returned no immediate benefit to researchers and wasted valuable research time. The system needs reforming and alternative funding processes should be investigated...

Reply to William B. Grant

THE UVI working group acknowledges the contribution of Vitamin D to bone health as stated in our paper. However, we concluded that an optimal level of Vitamin D for humans has not yet been established with any certainty...

On the time spent preparing grant proposals : an observational study of Australian researchers

Objective: To estimate the time spent by the researchers for preparing grant proposals, and to examine whether spending more time increase the chances of success. Design: Observational study. Setting: The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. Participants: Researchers who submitted one or more NHMRC Project Grant proposals in March 2012. Main outcome measures: Total researcher time spent preparing proposals; funding success as predicted by the time spent. Results: The NHMRC received 3727 proposals of which 3570 were reviewed and 731 (21%) were funded. Among our 285 participants who submitted 632 proposals, 21% were successful. Preparing a new proposal took an average of 38 working days of researcher time and a resubmitted proposal took 28 working days, an overall average of 34 days per proposal. An estimated 550 working years of researchers' time (95% CI 513 to 589) was spent preparing the 3727 proposals, which translates into annual salary costs of AU$66 million. More time spent preparing a proposal did not increase the chances of success for the lead researcher (prevalence ratio (PR) of success for 10 day increase=0.91, 95% credible interval 0.78 to 1.04) or other researchers (PR=0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17). Conclusions: Considerable time is spent preparing NHMRC Project Grant proposals. As success rates are historically 20–25%, much of this time has no immediate benefit to either the researcher or society, and there are large opportunity costs in lost research output. The application process could be shortened so that only information relevant for peer review, not administration, is collected. This would have little impact on the quality of peer review and the time saved could be reinvested into research.

Wasted efforts : centuries wasted on unsuccessful grant applications : new study

New Australian research has found scientists spent the equivalent of 550 working years applying for grants from the country's largest health and medical research grants scheme in 2012, and that around 75% of this time was spent on unsuccessful applications. The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) study also found that spending more time on a funding proposal did not equate to a greater chance of success.

The research lottery : the pressures on the Australian grant system

NHMRC Project Grants and ARC Discovery Grants are two of the major sources of funding for new ideas in Australian science. Many scientists rely on them for their job or the jobs of their staff. They are highly competitive with only around 1 in 5 applications winning funding. To increase the chances of winning funding, scientists spend a long time writing carefully crafted applications, generally at the sacrifice of their research output. And the pressures on the system and our scientists are only going to get worse.

Communication : use multimedia in grant applications

The format of grant applications should be updated to incorporate multimedia video. This would help researchers to convey complex topics to grant-review panels. If time-poor research panels cannot quickly grasp the scientific ideas presented in a paper application, other factors, such as author affiliations and track records, may disproportionately influence project rankings...

Reducing grant application numbers : the shame stick or prize carrot?

Researchers spend an average of 38 working days preparing an NHMRC Project Grant proposal, but with success rates of just 15% then over 500 years of researcher went into failed applications in 2014. This time would likely have been better spent on actual research. Many applications are non-competitive and could possibly be culled early, saving time for both researchers and funding agencies. Our analysis of the major health and medical scheme in Australia estimated that 61% of applications were never likely to be funded...

Grant application: QUT Learning and Teaching scheme 2012 Cracking the Code - A checklist to complement CRAs for first year Justice students.

Widening participation brings with it increasing diversity, increased variation in the level of academic preparedness (Clarke, 2011; Nelson, Clarke, & Kift 2010). Cultural capital coupled with negotiating the academic culture creates an environment based on many assumptions about academic writing and university culture. Variations in staff and student expectations relating to the teaching and learning experience is captured in a range of national and institutional data (AUSSE, CEQ, LEX). Nationally, AUSSE data (2009) indicates that communication, writing, speaking and analytic skills, staff expectations are quite a bit higher than students. The research team noted a recognisable shift in the changing cohort of students and their understanding and engagement with feedback and CRAs, as well as variations in teaching staff and student expectations. The current reality of tutor and student roles is that: - Students self select when/how they access lectures and tutorials. - Shorter tutorial times result in reduced opportunity to develop rapport with students. - CRAs are not always used consistently by staff (different marking styles and levels of feedback). - Marking is not always undertaken by the student’s tutor/lecturer. - Student support services might be recommended to students once a poor grade has been given. Students can perceive this as remedial and a further sense of failure. - CRA sheet has a mark /grade attached to it. Stigma attached to low mark. Hard to focus on the CRA feedback with a poor mark etched next to it. - Limited opportunities for sessionals to access professional development to assist with engaging students and feedback. - FYE resources exist, however academic time is a factor in exploring and embedding these resources. Feedback is another area with differing expectations and understandings. Sadler (2009) contends that students are not equipped to decode the statements properly. For students to be able to apply feedback, they need to understand the meaning of the feedback statement. They also need to identify, the particular aspects of their work that need attention. The proposed Checklist/guide would be one page and submitted with each assessment piece thereby providing an interface to engage students and tutors in managing first year understandings and expectations around CRAs, feedback, and academic practice.