The life course of Australian researchers : experiences of applying for research funding

The life course of Australian researchers includes regular funding applications, which incur large personal and time costs. We previously estimated that Australian researchers spent 550 years preparing 3,727 proposals for the 2012 NHMRC Project Grant funding round, at an estimated annual salary cost of AU$66 million. Despite the worldwide importance of funding rounds, there is little evidence on what researchers think of the application process. We conducted a web-based survey of Australian researchers (May–July 2013) asking about their experience with NHMRC Project Grants. Almost all researchers (n=224 at 31 May) supported changes to the application (96%) and peer-review (88%) processes; 73% supported the introduction of shorter initial Expressions of Interest; and half (50%) provided extensive comments on the NHMRC processes. Researchers agreed preparing their proposals always took top priority over other work (97%) and personal (87%) commitments. More than half (57%) provided extensive comments on the ongoing personal impact of concurrent grant-writing and holiday seasons on family, children and other relationships. Researchers with experience on Grant Review Panels (34%) or as External Reviewers (78%) reported many sections of the proposals were rarely or never read, which suggests these sections could be cut with no impact on the quality of peer review. Our findings provide evidence on the experience of Australian researchers as applicants. The process of preparing, submitting and reviewing proposals could be streamlined to minimise the burden on applicants and peer reviewers, giving Australian researchers more time to work on actual research and be with their families.

Multimedia : a necessary step in the evolution of research funding applications

Multimedia communication capabilities are rapidly expanding, and visual information is easily shared electronically, yet funding bodies still rely on paper grant proposal submissions. Incorporating modern technologies will streamline the granting process by increasing the fidelity of grant communication, improving the efficiency of review, and reducing the cost of the process.

Streamlined research funding using short proposals and accelerated peer review : an observational study

Background Despite the widely recognised importance of sustainable health care systems, health services research remains generally underfunded in Australia. The Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI) is funding health services research in the state of Queensland. AusHSI has developed a streamlined protocol for applying and awarding funding using a short proposal and accelerated peer review. Method An observational study of proposals for four health services research funding rounds from May 2012 to November 2013. A short proposal of less than 1,200 words was submitted using a secure web-based portal. The primary outcome measures are: time spent preparing proposals; a simplified scoring of grant proposals (reject, revise or accept for interview) by a scientific review committee; and progressing from submission to funding outcomes within eight weeks. Proposals outside of health services research were deemed ineligible. Results There were 228 eligible proposals across 4 funding rounds: from 29% to 79% were shortlisted and 9% to 32% were accepted for interview. Success rates increased from 6% (in 2012) to 16% (in 2013) of eligible proposals. Applicants were notified of the outcomes within two weeks from the interview; which was a maximum of eight weeks after the submission deadline. Applicants spent 7 days on average preparing their proposal. Applicants with a ranking of reject or revise received written feedback and suggested improvements for their proposals, and resubmissions composed one third of the 2013 rounds. Conclusions The AusHSI funding scheme is a streamlined application process that has simplified the process of allocating health services research funding for both applicants and peer reviewers. The AusHSI process has minimised the time from submission to notification of funding outcomes.

What is the impact of research funding on research productivity?

A research protocol for our prospective study of research funding. How much research funding improves research productivity is a question that has relevance for all funding agencies and governments around the world. Previous studies have used observational data that compares productivity between winners of different amounts of funding, but researchers who win lots of funding are usually very different from those who win little or no funding. This difference creates potentially serious confounding which biases any estimate of the effect of funding based on observational data that simply compares research output for those who did and did not win funding. This means we do not currently know the return on investment for our research dollars, of which billions are invested around the world every year. By using a study design that incorporates randomisation this will be the world’s first unbiased study of the impact of researcher funding.

The Research Funding Service: a model for expanded library services

Traditionally, libraries have provided a modest amount of information about grants and funding opportunities to researchers in need of research funding. Ten years ago, the University of Washington (UW) Health Sciences Libraries and Information Center joined in a cooperative effort with the School of Medicine to develop a complete, library-based grant and funding service for health sciences researchers called the Research Funding Service. The library provided space, access to the library collection, equipment, and electronic resources, and the School of Medicine funded staff and operations. The range of services now includes individual consultation appointments, an extensive Web site, classes on funding database searching and writing grant applications, a discussion series that frequently hosts guest speakers, a monthly newsletter with funding opportunities of interest to the six health sciences schools, extensive files on funding sources, and referral services.

Research funding as an investment--can we measure the returns?

Mode of access: Internet.

Investigating Stakeholders’ Preferences for Coral Reef Research Funding in Florida

Abstract: Heavily used and highly valuable, the Florida Reef is one of the world's most threatened ecosystems. Stakeholders from a densely urbanized coastal region in proximity to the reef system recognize its degradation, but their comprehension of climate change and commitment to pay for sustainable management and research funding have been opaque. With an emphasis on recreational anglers, residential stakeholders were surveyed online about their marine activities, perceptions of resources and threats, and willingness to pay (WTP) for dedicated coral reef research funding in Florida. The majority of stakeholders are wealthy, well educated, and politically independent. Supermajorities favored the two scenarios of taxation for a Florida Coral Reef Research Fund, and the scenario with matching federal funds earned higher support. In regression analyses, several factors emerged as significant contributors to stakeholders’ preferences, and the four recurring factors in extended models were prioritizing the environment over the economy, donating to environmental causes, concern about coral reefs, and concern about climate change, with the latter indicating a recent shift of opinion. Status in terms of income and education were found insignificant, and surprisingly income was negatively correlated with WTP. Perceptions through lenses of environmental and emotional attachments appear to overwhelm conventional status-based factors. Applied statewide, the first scenario's extrapolated WTP (based on a sales tax rate of 2.9%) would generate $675 million annually, and the extrapolated WTP under the second scenario, with matching federal funds (based on a sales tax rate of 3.0%) would generate $1.4 billion. Keywords: willingness to pay, coral reef research, taxation, climate change, stakeholder, perceptions, Florida Reef, recreational fishing, anglers

Genomics research: world survey of public funding.

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, genomics has evolved as a scientific research discipline. Genomics research was fueled initially by government and nonprofit funding sources, later augmented by private research and development (R&D) funding. Citizens and taxpayers of many countries have funded much of the research, and have expectations about access to the resulting information and knowledge. While access to knowledge gained from all publicly funded research is desired, access is especially important for fields that have broad social impact and stimulate public dialogue. Genomics is one such field, where public concerns are raised for reasons such as health care and insurance implications, as well as personal and ancestral identification. Thus, genomics has grown rapidly as a field, and attracts considerable interest. RESULTS: One way to study the growth of a field of research is to examine its funding. This study focuses on public funding of genomics research, identifying and collecting data from major government and nonprofit organizations around the world, and updating previous estimates of world genomics research funding, including information about geographical origins. We initially identified 89 publicly funded organizations; we requested information about each organization's funding of genomics research. Of these organizations, 48 responded and 34 reported genomics research expenditures (of those that responded but did not supply information, some did not fund such research, others could not quantify it). The figures reported here include all the largest funders and we estimate that we have accounted for most of the genomics research funding from government and nonprofit sources. CONCLUSION: Aggregate spending on genomics research from 34 funding sources averaged around $2.9 billion in 2003-2006. The United States spent more than any other country on genomics research, corresponding to 35% of the overall worldwide public funding (compared to 49% US share of public health research funding for all purposes). When adjusted to genomics funding intensity, however, the United States dropped below Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as measured both by genomics research expenditure per capita and per Gross Domestic Product.

Comparative communication research : Australian and New Zealand communication research in an international context

This paper raises the question of whether comparative national models of communications research can be developed, along the lines of Hallin and Mancini’s (2004) analysis of comparative media policy, or the work of Perraton and Clift (2004) on comparative national capitalisms. Taking consideration of communications research in Australia and New Zealand as its starting point, the paper will consider what are relevant variables in shaping an “intellectual milieu” for communications research in these countries, as compared to those of Europe, North America and Asia. Some possibly relevant variables include: • Type of media system (e.g. how significant is public service media?); • Political culture (e.g. are there significant left-of-centre political parties?); • Dominant intellectual traditions; • Level and types of research funding; • Overall structure of higher education system, and where communications sits within it. In considering whether such an exercise can or should be undertaken, we can also evaluate, as Hallin and Mancini do, the significance of potentially homogenizing forces. These would include globalization, new media technologies, and the rise of a global “audit culture”. The paper will raise these issues as questions that emerge as we consider, as Curran and Park (2000) and Thussu (2009) have proposed, what a “de-Westernized” media and communications research paradigm may look like.