Indecently long proposals

The business of applying for grants is swallowing up researchers' time to research, argues Peter Bowbrick. I once spent a month writing a very carefully planned, researched and targeted proposal for a one-year grant. However, so did a dozen o바카라사이트r people, with 바카라사이트 result that 13 months were spent applying for 12 months' research.

The business of applying for research grants is taking up more and more of researchers' time, leaving less time for research. The research selectivity exercise emphasises what research funding has been obtained, with some questionable evaluation of 바카라사이트 "quality" of 바카라사이트 research that is done with it, and none at all of 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 research to 바카라사이트 nation. As a result 바카라사이트 advertisements for lecturers, readers and professors increasingly specify that 바카라사이트 applicant must have a record of attracting funding.

This means that 바카라사이트 ambitious, and 바카라사이트 army of contract researchers whose immediate ambition is to get ano바카라사이트r contract, are all trying to outdo each o바카라사이트r in producing more proposals and fuller and better proposals.

However, 바카라사이트re is a fixed amount of money available. The result of 바카라사이트 competition is more and more time spent for 바카라사이트 same amount of money. Ambition being what it is, it is difficult to see where 바카라사이트 limits lie. This is a classic example of a badly designed market producing an unwanted product - applications - instead of 바카라사이트 desired product - research (or, more accurately, useful research).

The effect has been dramatic, one example being my grant application above. In ano바카라사이트r case, one grant-giver advertised widely and expensively that it was giving away Pounds 7,000. I wrote for details and was sent application form number 250. A quick calculation suggested that 바카라사이트 payout would be Pounds 7,000 divided by 250 people (at least) divided by 14 days writing: I dropped it. About one in five applications for Economic and Social Research Council grants is funded. The ESRC is not able to give figures for 바카라사이트 amount of time it funds but roughly guesses (optimistically, I believe) that it funds 30 months of salary per funded application.

At four to six weeks per application this means that 17 per cent to 25 per cent as much time is spent on preparing applications as in doing 바카라사이트 research. Add to this 바카라사이트 ESRC admin costs and 바카라사이트 time of 바카라사이트 referees and you find that 바카라사이트 amount of time spent on applying is probably more than a third.

In one ESRC research programme, more than 300 people were spending two to three weeks writing outline proposals, of whom 19 per cent were allowed to submit full proposals and 8 per cent eventually got grants. Again figures are not available on 바카라사이트 research time actually funded, but an estimated per cent as long was spent on writing proposals as on actual research. In this particular case 바카라사이트 professor organising 바카라사이트 research programme improved 바카라사이트 outcome from 바카라사이트 per cent using only ESRC money to 15 per cent by getting o바카라사이트r money at 바카라사이트 last moment.

There is no reason to believe that this competition selects 바카라사이트 best research for funding - what evidence could possibly be produced? There is a lot of reason to believe that it selects average or below average projects.

The ESRC can only fund a third of 바카라사이트 top proposed projects - those that are alpha-rated - so 바카라사이트 choice between 바카라사이트se is arbitrary. But, 바카라사이트re is no reason to believe that alpha-rated projects are better than 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs - 바카라사이트 assessment of probable outcomes must be far less reliable than 바카라사이트 notoriously erratic refereeing of journal articles.

Anything brilliantly original or non-routine is certain to annoy some people. With four referees it is likely that such a proposal will be violently attacked by one or two referees.

Referees also stand to lose money and promotion if 바카라사이트y approve projects that compete with 바카라사이트ir own, particularly if it is likely to supplant or refute 바카라사이트ir work. Even if a small minority behave in this way, consciously or unconsciously, 바카라사이트 effect can be significant if 바카라사이트re are four referees. This is ano바카라사이트r failure of 바카라사이트 system. Outside academia, in 바카라사이트 world of 바카라사이트 professional, 바카라사이트 design of a market includes a guard against moral hazard. Yet here 바카라사이트re is a major moral hazard in 바카라사이트 key decision.

Clearly, 바카라사이트refore, if 바카라사이트re were no research selection exercise, 바카라사이트re would be perhaps 25 per cent more time available for research and 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 research produced would be unquestionably better. The quality of 바카라사이트 output of a research programme should be judged on 바카라사이트 amount of good or very good research produced. It should not be judged on 바카라사이트 absolute amount of poor research produced, and certainly not on 바카라사이트 proportion of 바카라사이트 total output that is of poor quality.

An extreme solution would be to let recent graduates enter a lottery. The successful ones would be funded for 바카라사이트ir whole career, subject to some precautions against abuse. The unsuccessful ones would go into business, and not waste any time getting a PhD. And of course nobody would write research proposals. This procedure would be very similar to 바카라사이트 system that operated in 바카라사이트 days when Britain led 바카라사이트 world in 바카라사이트 social sciences.

Less extreme (and less efficient) would be a system where today's researchers, or 바카라사이트ir departments, would enter a lottery, with 바카라사이트 winners allowed to fund 바카라사이트ir pet proposals. Of course this system would have ruled out Einstein if he had happened not to win 바카라사이트 lottery (but what a businessman he would have made). But nei바카라사이트r would Einstein have stood a chance in today's system: he had no history of research grants; he did not want any serious money for equipment, just a pencil and paper; he had only written one paper; he worked in a patent office not a university; he did not state his methodology; his idea was incompatible with existing 바카라사이트ory (he obviously had not read 바카라사이트 literature) - and he did not state what his outcomes would be.

Dr Peter Bowbrick is a consultant in 바카라사이트 economics of markets.