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

Herbert, Danielle L.; Barnett, Adrian; Clarke, Philip; Graves, Nicholas

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800

Cited by 117 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Australia, researchers spend an estimated 550 working years writing biomedical grants for the NHMRC each year (Herbert et al, 2013). When the funding agency tried to streamline the application process to reduce the burden on researchers, the average time spent writing NHMRC grants increased by 67 years, to 614 working years per annum (Barnett et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inhabitants of the Postdocalypse are characterized by a family of shared traits: productivity, with respect to writing both grants and papers (Herbert et al, 2013;Barnett et al, 2015); innovative ideas and uses for existing technologies (Packalen and Bhattacharya, 2015); and, an increase in their personal workload to fund their research (Herbert et al, 2014). For most, the goal is still to land a permanent role in research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What do postdocs need to succeed? A survey of current standing and future directions for Australian researchers

Hardy

Carter

2016

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When discussing the postdoctoral period in a researcher's life, a lack of career progression often boils down to "is it you, or is it me?" Is it a reduction in the quality of candidates, or the fact that there are now too many candidates for a rapidly shrinking pool of jobs? Australia provides an ideal case study, as a large and decentralized country with a government mandate to build the STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine) workforce. The goal of the present study was 1) to provide a baseline for postdoctoral experiences and career aspirations in Australia, and 2) to identify gaps in postdoctoral training. When undertaking a capacity building programme it is important to know where efforts should be focused. To better understand the demographic and career progression of Australia's current cohort of postdoctoral researchers, a national survey was undertaken from 2014-2015. More than 280 postdoctoral researchers from government, industry and academic institutions responded. Our results indicate that although postdoctoral researchers work more than the legal maximum of a 38-hour a week (on average) and have a long-term plan to stay in research, there is significant concern over the long-term viability of research careers due to job insecurity and a shortage of funding.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do postdocs need to succeed? A survey of current standing and future directions for Australian researchers

Hardy

Carter

2016

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gordon and Poulin argued that, for science funding in Canada through the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC, the main STEM funding agency), it would have cost less at a whole system level simply to distribute the average award to all eligible applicants than to incur the costs associated with preparing, reviewing and selecting proposals (2009; although see Roorda, 2009 for a critique of their calculation). A rough calculation of the system costs of preparing failed grant applications would suggest that they are in the same order of magnitude as research grant funding itself (Herbert et al, 2013).…”

Section: What Is "Excellence"?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rhetoric of "excellence" is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organizations, from art history to zoology. But does "excellence" actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of "excellence" do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate "excellence" as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hyper-competition that arises from the performance of "excellence" is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that "excellence" is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

show abstract

“…preparation time) are not directly supported by NSERC -so although it might be cheaper for the system to provide baseline grants, it would not necessarily be cheaper for NSERC. Herbert et al (2013) suggest methods for reducing the burden on NHMRC applicants by simplifying the application process (which entails 80-120 page applications). Other examples of funding agencies reducing the length and complexity of applications include NIH's reforms in 2009, when they cut application length for R01s 23 from 25 pages to 12, although there were calls at the time make the application even shorter (Fang & Casadevall 2009).…”

Section: The Burden Falls Primarily On the Applicants Burden On Applimentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? An updated review of the literature and six case studies

Guthrie¹,

Ghiga²,

Wooding³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An updated review of the literature and six case studies RAND Europe is a not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RANDMake a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.rand.org/randeurope For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1822Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2018 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark.ii PrefaceIn 2009, RAND Europe conducted a literature review in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review for grant funding. This report presents an update to that review to reflect new literature on the topic, and adds case studies exploring peer review practice at six international funders.This report was produced with funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. It will be of interest to government officials dealing with research funding policy, research funders including governmental and charitable funders, research institutions, researchers, and research users. Although the case studies focus on biomedical and health research, the literature review takes a broader scope and it is likely the findings may be of relevance to wider research fields.For further information on this publication please contact: SummaryThough often viewed as the 'gold standard' process of quality assurance for research, grant peer review has also received significant criticism from both within and outside academia. Detractors highlight inefficiency and structural flaws that compromise its effectiveness in allocating funding. In 2009 we conducted a review of the literature to evaluate these criticisms. 1 This new report updates that literature review, and also provides case studies of current practice across six major international biomedical and health research funders. The work was commissioned by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) with the aim of supporting the ongoing review of their peer review system, particularly the forthcoming work of the Peer Review Expert Panel convened to review the design and adjudication processes of CIHR's investigator-initiated research programmes. What is grant peer review?In its most basic form, peer review involves academic reviewers in the process...

show abstract

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

Cited by 117 publications

References 11 publications

What do postdocs need to succeed? A survey of current standing and future directions for Australian researchers

What do postdocs need to succeed? A survey of current standing and future directions for Australian researchers

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? An updated review of the literature and six case studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About