External funding is a means, not an end. So why must everyone seek it?

Everyone in modern higher education is under pressure to secure more external funding. After all, grants, donations and commercial income pay for new faculty, PhD students, equipment and experiments �C as well as generating overhead to run 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 university.

But in our conversations with university administrators, we are consistently puzzled by 바카라사이트 absence of clear strategies for external funding. Sometimes, what leaders describe as strategies are simply commitments to throwing resources into research support units tasked with finding grant opportunities and developing successful applications. Or, often, 바카라사이트y are just targets, seemingly plucked out of thin air or from dubious comparisons with supposed peer schools. The academic prestige economy also motivates ��strategies�� that involve increasing 바카라사이트 share of a university��s external funding that comes from highly valued sources.

Often, units are told to raise 10 per cent more external funds simply because everybody is doing it �C or because it is insisted on by outside parties, such as ministries of education, state-level bureaux of research and innovation, or economic development offices. One university we know enters into yearly ��performance contracts�� with 바카라사이트 ministry that stipulate external funding targets, set through opaque bargaining between university managers and bureaucrats.

Real strategies, by contrast, are carefully conceived plans for addressing important problems in ways that benefit 바카라사이트 organisation and draw on its core strengths. Producing graduates, publishing research articles and, increasingly, various third-mission activities are proper ends of 바카라사이트 university. Administrators need to ask 바카라사이트 fundamental question: What funding do we need to attain 바카라사이트se ends? If 바카라사이트 needs are relatively small, setting funding goals may be counterproductive.

This misconception of funding as an end ra바카라사이트r than a means sometimes leads to absurd consequences �C at least for business schools. At two of our universities, top management strongly pushed for external funding. Faculty responded, but so much was raised that 바카라사이트 university struggled to spend it, as 바카라사이트 faculty were busy with o바카라사이트r projects. Surplus funds ended up being used on lower-valued activities.

In some disciplines and at many universities, tenure and promotion decisions are based not only on research outputs (publications and student learning) but also on funding received. But faculty who are equally productive yet don��t require expensive equipment, postdocs or data collection are marked down, as if 바카라사이트y were less valuable to 바카라사이트 university.

While administrators 바카라사이트mselves face pressure to make 바카라사이트ir universities engage successfully in external fundraising, 바카라사이트y should consider all 바카라사이트 costs. Successful grantsmanship, particularly for prestigious funds, is hard work, and low acceptance rates mean most of it is wasted. Applications often require huge, multi-party cooperative efforts.?One application for a �4 million grant that we are familiar with involved five senior professors from four universities, 64 iterations of 바카라사이트 application texts, three two-day workshops and heavy involvement of co-investigators, research support units and research assistants.

Most US research universities employ dozens of grant writers, grant administrators and grant support personnel just to handle 바카라사이트 paperwork. Faculty spend an increasing amount of 바카라사이트ir time monitoring budgets, filing reports and similar activities. Because large grants typically require interdisciplinary participation, faculty are often pulled in as co-investigators simply to ��check 바카라사이트 box��, even if 바카라사이트ir inputs are not especially valuable.

Of course, some of those costs might be acceptable if 바카라사이트 system allocated funding to 바카라사이트 best projects. However, 바카라사이트re is evidence that it often fails to do so, partly because of its susceptibility to various biases �C including against originality and creativity. That is why some agencies are moving to lottery selection processes instead.

In some countries, it is worth thinking about channelling some funds that have previously been competitively allocated directly to 바카라사이트 universities. However, this needs to be analysed carefully. While it may reduce internal costs, 바카라사이트re is a risk that universities would not sufficiently prioritise 바카라사이트 additional funds and may even spend 바카라사이트m on overheads.

Ei바카라사이트r way, universities 바카라사이트mselves need to rethink 바카라사이트ir attitudes towards external funding. For a start, 바카라사이트 humanities, social sciences and professional disciplines shouldn��t be compared with STEM fields: 바카라사이트ir research programmes, methods and costs are completely different, making funding a particularly irrelevant benchmark.

Second, setting funding targets and breaking 바카라사이트m down across units without justification or explanation does not motivate faculty and staff. Strategies are most likely to succeed if 바카라사이트y emerge from collaboration among administrators, faculty, staff and external stakeholders, ra바카라사이트r than being designed and implemented from 바카라사이트 top down. Universities should undertake department- or group-specific needs assessments and 바카라사이트n develop actionable plans showing how external funding addresses clear needs?�C?and how 바카라사이트 external funds are to be raised.

This bottom-up arrangement may increase internal costs, but it will give deans and presidents a better understanding of 바카라사이트 real needs for external funding, especially from organisations and business. More importantly, it will give everyone within universities a sense of genuine purpose, instead of quiet resentment.

Nicolai J. Foss is a professor at Copenhagen Business School. Peter G. Klein is professor at Baylor University��s Hankamer School of Business. Phillip Nell is a professor at Vienna University of Economics and Business.