Mr Carr,

The words “funded research grants” in your question caught my attention --- obviously a case of pleonasm, much like “free gift” or “actual fact” or “see with your eyes” and that prompted me to pay close attention. On reading further, I thought I should respond as some of what you say seemed to touch upon and resonated with something from my past experience; hence, this response. Your posting was real food for thought.

Research grants – do they “enhance or hinder research” is your question. I am not sure one can speak of funding as enhancing research, as that word “enhancing” ipso fact implies the notion of raising the quality of research. A good, dedicated researcher often obsessed with his/her work, is deliberate, always precise, and eschews short-cuts; and given the blessing of time he/she will do a great piece of work. So, funding may not be essential to good research. But, what it, funding can do, is to allow the researcher to think about creating a new experiment, to design new instruments, and have them constructed in the workshops closeby or far away. This could allow for more accurate, precise measurement and hence the results are more likely to be replicable elsewhere, or even afford him/her the opportunity to complete his/her research earlier. The researcher I have described is possibly someone working in the “hard sciences” or in the natural sciences or in technology and engineering. If we have in mind, people in the social sciences, funding could well help in getting access to larger samples and that fact could mean that the results may well reflect more closely the larger population from which the sample has been drawn, assuming that the larger sample truly or better said, more than adequately reflects the population being studied, and hence contribute to a better, more applicable result. But will the result be reliable, be replicable? I do not know.

Now, coming to yourself as a research fund seeker/winner, I think in that role you are the leader of a research programme, who makes it possible for others to do what they are, hopefully trained to do, and are capable of doing. So, instead of two hands and one mind preoccupied with a research problem, you have more pairs of hands, and several heads to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. You make it happen; you use others to advance our knowledge of some subject. Science needs good leaders, who sacrifice their own research for the greater good of the university, the community that funds it, and humanity in general.

When I worked in industry, and was involved in technology development, I sought R&D funding so that my ideas and those of others could find expression in processes, devices/hardware and software that could solve my employing company’s problems. I got funding for more than thirty R&D projects, over a three year period from the country’s economics ministry under a law designed to fund research and development work in the country so that jobs could be kept, or new jobs created so that there was a small but positive influence on the economy. I had to do lots of reporting on progress/setbacks, on expenditures, and to keep my bosses informed. This meant I had to give up on my own R&D work. But by my giving my own activities, I made it possible for the company to benefit more times than my contributions could arguably have made. After three years, which were barren years for me in so far as development work was concerned, I stopped with seeking funding and moved on to another function related to business processes. So, there was I in those three fallow years, doing minimal work for which I was trained and/or making it possible for others to do useful and necessary work. On my reflecting on that time, I think what I did in helping others to achieve their potential gave me greater satisfaction. I hope you too will find great satisfaction as research leader.

Having done national military service, I can try to use the metaphor of a general or a colonel, and soldiers – one general or colonel cannot do much on their own, but they need an army of soldiers to achieve much more. As a research funds seeker, and a successful one at that, you make it possible for others to hone their skills, increase their knowledge, and thus make a greater contribution, collectively. But, perhaps you rather want to do research and publish – the lure of publishing may be attractive, considering your great admiration for your friend who seemed to have become a prolific author of books. I am not sure that he/she has as many papers published because that would take a lot of time, and if so, it might not have been a solo exercise but with a number of collaborators and associates.

We have only 24 hours/day and if we want to do research and also to lead researchers, I think productivity and breakthroughs – I do not what your area of research interest is -- may be a forlorn, futile exercise in the particular area of your interest – it may be slow, it may move in small steps and even grind to a halt as you have to keep encouraging young minds to continue when things look bleak, and failures mount. Alternatively, you might want to recruit a research coordinator to attend to the mundane, administrative work and you do your own research work, and mentor others. I wonder what you and other think. I wish you success in your research endeavours. And my apologies for this long response – your long question raised many issues that required more words, for an adequate answer, than I would have wanted…

Dear Phil (I hope that you do not mind me addressing you on a first-name, collegial basis),

First, many thanks for your detailed, insightful and engaging response!!

Second, you have highlighted an important concern that I believe can also influence the question I posed: for what discipline? I can appreciate that in the natural sciences, it may be essential to acquire funding to run a lab, for example, to purchase equipment, and to engage in a range of experiments.

In my case, as a sociologist studying democracy, political literacy and transformative education, my needs are a little different. As alluded to in my preamble to the question, I co-founded an international research project with a colleague in Australia (I am in Canada) with no funding, and we cultivated the same research project in about a dozen countries with roughly 40-odd samples and some 5,000 participants. We were able to collect data through electronic, internet-based software, communicate via internet technologies, and publish a reasonable amount on the activities, the results and the implications, often in collaboration with the partners we had engaged with through international conferences. I don't want to get romantic about doing this without funding because there were many challenges, especially related to travel, but we did accomplish, I believe, something without funding.

My funded project, on the other hand, came with many advantages, and you have added the tangible benefit of overseeing, cultivating and shaping a field of research by obtaining and coordinating the funding, which is not an insignificant contribution, I think and I hope because it certainly requires a great deal of effort and time.

I guess my question centres around time, and the lack of time to think, and write and engage. Does the funded research give us more, or less, time? This point flowed into the example of my friend, who has been highly productive without funding. His contribution has been significant, and not everyone desires to do what he has done, I understand. I wonder if his contribution would have been as significant if he had been on the grant-funding roller-coaster? Of course, we would then have to define what is "significant" since there are many intangibles.

My other concern is the energy invested to get the grants when there is only a roughly 20% success-rate. I sat on a grant-evaluation committee last year, and it was draining to analyze all of them, which were, for the most part, all pretty good but it was necessary to hive off only the top 20% using methodologies that have, like everything else, a range of value-judgements and biases built in.

In talking with a colleague about this today, she made the point that it might be more effective to have smaller grants (say $20,000-$40,000 CAN) for a broader range of researchers than the larger ones ($200,000-$400,000 CAN) for a smaller number of researchers. I agree that much good research is unfunded, or/and sometimes not even started because of a lack of resources.

Thanks again, and best regards.

Paul

Thanks Paul for posing this question - I've thought about this very issue a fair bit.

I think it's worth mentioning that at least some of the big Canadian grants (SSHRC, for instance, and OERA) emphasize that training highly qualified personnel (HQP) is an important purpose or outcome - and so I've wondered if I should conceptualize the "grantsmanship culture" as more about teaching than research.

Academics in the UK reported “considerable personal cost in terms of overwork, stress and ‘sleeplessness’” in order to publish and bid for external funding (Leathwood & Read, 2013, p. 1167), The researchers described this as “‘playing the game’ rather than a wholehearted commitment to the demands and processes” (Leathwood & Read, 2013, p. 1168). For some, pleasure in their work was undermined by “the pressures and demands of audit and performativity” (Leathwood & Read, 2013, p. 1170). These implications speak to the individual and collective struggles of academic labour in the high-stakes world of academic capitalism. Yet, in spite of the many concerns voiced by research participants, Leathwood and Read (2013) reported little resistance to grantsmanship culture, which might be attributed to the high-stakes nature of the process. 

In my own (successful) bid for a SSHRC as a PI, I tracked 176 hours of direct work (reading, research, typing copy and filling out massive numbers of forms, calls, etc. - I kept track for curiosity) in the 8 weeks leading up to the submission - which does not include time thinking about it, and does not include the time required by CIs or support staff. That was only 1 of 4 grant proposals I worked on in a 12-month period - which detracted from time spent on actual research.

A final note - the issue of highly competitive financialization in grant competitions poses a particular struggle for women as academic labourers. Male-dominated and individualistic workplace cultures that dominate neoliberal environments tend to privilege men who adopt certain aspects of the dominant culture (Benozzo & Colley, 2012) - and also, as colleagues of mine have pointed out, non-humanities disciplines.  Competitive structures, like those in the high-stakes financialization of grantsmanship, are typically associated with patriarchal and masculinist approaches. Yet, those accultured to more cooperative approaches to work (not only women, but people from cultures who value cooperation and collectivism over individualism) have experienced profound alienation in hyper-competitive workplaces (Benozzo & Colley, 2012), leading to less preparation and/or desire to participate in the competitive processes. Grant processes need not adhere to standardized, hyper-competitive structures. Perhaps envisioning a more flexible approach to grant preparation and funds allocation might lead to more gender- and culturally- inclusive labour environments for all. One example might be, as your colleague stated, to allow smaller grants with less complicated submission procedures. 

REFS:

Benozzo, A. & Colley, H. (2012). Emotion and learning in the workplace: Critical perspectives. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(5), 304-316.

Leathwood, C., & Read, B. (2013). Research policy and academic performativity: compliance, contestation and complicity. Studies in Higher Education, 38(8), 1162-1174.

Dear Professor Carr, Paul, (if I may so address you),

I am a little embarrassed that I did not check up on your background; I have now done it and therefore the use of the proper honorific or title. Do feel free to call me by first name.  I am not in the habit of calling someone by their first names if I do not know them well enough; in fact in classes I often I use Mr or Miss when I address students. I suppose habits die hard. Now that could be a topic for social science research:  the influence if any of  lecturers being formal in addressing students…

I have read with great interest your experiences in trying to undertake what might be called cross-geography or cross-continental research, as in your particular case with researchers in the antipodies, far removed from Canadian shores. That is the way to do social science research since a fair amount of research already done is based on populations in North America and UK/Europe with a bit from elsewhere making up the fringes. I realized this when a colleague and myself took some twenty-five students from a Dutch university to India to study outsourcing of R&D; we were sponsored by Dutch companies who were also considering outsourcing of R&D, often the last thing to be outsourced as it is generally a core competence.

The then generally accepted idea was that if scientists/engineers or technologists had interesting or challenging work, they were unlikely to move to other jobs; this view emerged from research work done in N America and Europe.  Hence, skilled employee retention was more likely if jobs were interesting or “sexy”, as it was known in the US MNC I was working for,   here in Europe.  But, in India we discovered that job-hopping ( i.e.,  switching to other employers) was widespread, with skilled persons, both males and females ready to move on to another job, after as short a period as six months. Job-hopping by Indians could not be predicted from the previous theory. Our research showed that many Indians  considered job-hopping as the sure and rapid way to higher salaries, needed for the upkeep of their often extended families many of whom had made huge sacrifices to send their children to universities. Without going into all the other facts we uncovered, our study,  threw up findings that ran contrary to what studies in the advanced economies of N America and Europe might have suggested. I will admit our study may not be representative. That is why I believe studies involving researchers from many countries are the way to go. And there should be much more – I tend to be somewhat sceptical of results obtained from samples from one area or one country. It is here that the availability of substantial funding helps researchers like yourself to get more meaningful, and more universally applicable results with cross-geography studies. But such funding always come with a kind of bureaucratic mill-stone of filling  large numbers of forms, filing of  untold numbers of progress reports, and audit  reports of how funds are or were being spent. I too had auditors from Coopers & Lybrand (now PWC) who came round to perform auditor checks. And that meant preparing all manner of documents, which I had had enough of,  after three years of government-funded R&D project funding. So, I hopped to another job, but in the same company – I was an internal job-hopper, despite  managing many “sexy” R&D work projects. Irony? Yes.

I would tend to agree with  your female colleague about the usefulness of smaller grants, particularly if bureaucratic paper-work was minimal. But, then each researcher would still have to spend time writing up proposals.  That apart, each researcher may have his/her own interests and  may not want to sing from the same hymn book, resulting in  segmented, disparate research. Is that desirable? Perhaps. But when you have one person in overall charge as you are, the research could, although undertaken by different individuals, come under one umbrella,  and  constitute  a  common theme, a whole inter-related area.

If you also want to be actively engaged yourself in the research with adequate time, you certainly will need an administrative person  to do all the  boring work administrative work. Perhaps, this is where you can have a person versed in operations management to develop and implement a process. What I did at the time,  was to ask every R&D person to provide a fortnightly progress report that included achievements, problems encountered and planned work. You might want to think about that.

Finally, I notice that you are in education. I should like to ask you a few questions  related to education. Would you be prepared to entertain some such questions – I can send them directly to you if I have your email address. You can contact me by Researchgate’s own email facility. Thank you.

Hi Laura and Phil,

Thanks to you both for your insightful and thoughtful responses.

The time investment component is an important one: would one be more beneficial, productive, engaging, etc. without going through the grant-hopper, so to speak? And does the process itself hive off part of the inclination to be critically engaged? These are just questions because there are all kinds of contextual complexities along the way.

Laura raised the gender issue, which is an important one, and we might also consider the racial equation. My own experience is that "critical" scholarship is quite disadvantaged in the competitive grant funding process, which is another important concern.

Phil has raised the equally relevant concern of cross-cultural research, and the potential for hegemonic domination (my read and words), and I believe that the funding may enhance this type of scholarship but can also lead to power differentials that must problematised and considered thoroughly before commencing projects.

The point about having/hiring a coordinator is an excellent point, and I will certainly consider it for the projects I am involved in. Some of the stipulations for some of the grants prevent such roles but I believe that it could help remedy some of the issues we have outlined.

Phil, you asked if might be able to contact me, and it would not be a problem at all: [email protected]

Best regards to you both, and congrats, Laura, and your research!

Paul

And congrats to you too, Paul! Actually, I was very surprised and delighted that the project funded was not only critically oriented, but post-qualitative and arts-based research having to do with policy enactment. Maybe the tides are turning at SSHRC for IGs? However, that doesn't solve the problem of un-necessarily complicated/lengthy forms. I suppose we Canadian scholars should somehow be working on that.

In some cases involving research universities like the one I am attached to, funded research is included in the KPI. Hence the more funds received from a variety of funders the better.

However, using one's own funds for small scale research may also be an option.

Scholarly question. Nowadays, it is tough to conduct research without grants but it is not impossible. In Bangladesh, there is no opportunity of research grants for the academics unless any exception. It is my experience that research grants hinder research because funding agencies ask results to serve their own purposes. They mere encourage the true findings. However, my students are voluntarily helping me out to conduct research which may be an exemplary for young academics  of developing countries while government is unable to provide any research  grants. Yet, there may be some extraordinary ways for us!

Dear colleagues I think we should differentiate between different types of funding; if we are talking about grants from official funders, then these are generally thought of as 'wroth' more in prestige terms than other types of funding.  But in my case I am sure that the research which made the most difference in the world which I have undertaken --for the UK's Low Pay Commission, where we were able to greatly improve enforcement of the National Minimum Wage--came from a less prestigious source.  Research funded by many such organisations is at least research that somebody who can make a difference wants to read.  That is in turn very motivating for me and I imagine many other researchers. 

Great point!!

Hello Paul, Laura, Phil, Abdul, Richard and Juwel

In my view, research grants are important to research. Without them, some research currently carried out would not be undertaken. So in a quest for academic knowledge and dissemination, research funding is important. And yes, some research grants are more prestigious than others.  

The research funds provide an opportunity to employ people either those working on research project or to 'buy' out teaching components for tenured academics.  These opportunities provide much needed opportunities for casual academics trying to build a track record. If we want to sponsor future academics, then research grants are important. Today's casuals will be undertaking  future research.

Australia's most prestigious grant, the ARC grant, will usually take 3 months to prepare. Casual academics are often unpaid for the time contributed to grant writing (and in some cases the research as well). They cannot be a named CI on external grants (ARC grants for example).  Their time is voluntary.  They do this willingly in order to build a track record in publication and grants to increase their employability in what is becoming a cut throat industry. Once a PhD provided entry into academia, now it provides entry to a basic policy level position.

The university benefits from a casual academic's  good will through increased prestige and increased funding from government sources (paid upon publication in Australia). Again, not all universities relinquish these funds to the academics or responsible faculties. I raise these points about casual academics because in my view they amount to systemic institutional abuse based on unequal power status, all in the name of research.

But more importantly, funded research grants within our university will receive ethics approval (provided the ethical considerations have been adequately addressed). Unfunded research, even where the ethical considerations have been addressed will not receive approval. Thus all research proposals must be sponsored by a tenured academic (who will remain the named researcher or CI even though they provide little input into the project proposal or research project).  

So from my point of view, research grants are a very important part of research.

variety of comments given above by our colleagues are equally important. Besides these, the funding instrumentally serves the purpose of authentication tags required for various parts of a research process.

Big grants are mainly a professional service. Here's why: Big grants eat up the PI's time and energy. The grants are really not for the PI. They are for the people they hire to do the work, the students that get trained, and for international community who will consume the information (data, pubs, etc.) that the grant produces. The PI checks a CV box and can get more grants because of it (Matthew Effect), and they do a professional and public good. But the administration of big grants does not allow the PI herself to be more than a manager and a peripheral character to the intellectual work. For the PI, big grants are not a personal sacrifice, but rather a professional service to the community that is more joy than fun.

Note: The administrative paperwork could be reduced, but  not eliminated: the paperwork is important to maintain scholarly ethics and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used for the intended purpose (everywhere, but esp. in regions of the world where corruption has been a problem).

Thanks.

Bonjour Pierre-Louis,

Je suis d'accord avec vous. Je passe beaucoup de temps à chercher du financement pour les postdocs, ce qui aide beaucoup quand nous avons du succès dans le processus, mais cela peut être très contraignant aussi. Enfin, il y a plusieurs éléments à considérer en élaborant des projets de recherche, au-delà du financement, et je pense surtout de l'encadrement, la construction et la formation de l'équipe et la planification/gestion de projet, parmi d'autres.

Au plaisir

Paul