Reputation risks of lotteries for research grants inhibit funders

Awarding research grant funding using lotteries will lead to only ¡°negligible¡± savings but could expose funders to considerable reputational risks, funding chiefs who have pioneered such systems have admitted.

With several major European research funders expected to announce experiments with grant lotteries next year, 바카라사이트re is growing interest in how partial randomisation of grant selection ¨C in which funding applications that pass a certain quality threshold are chosen at random ¨C will work.

One potential benefit of such modified lotteries, which have been trialled in?New Zealand,?Germany, Austria and Switzerland in recent years, is that 바카라사이트y may remove 바카라사이트 need for lengthy discussions on 바카라사이트 merits of shortlisted entries, resulting in efficiency gains.

But a , which interviewed leaders from six funders who had piloted grant selection lotteries, found that ¡°바카라사이트re was little certainty about its money saving properties and participants who had implemented 바카라사이트 method felt that 바카라사이트 amount of time saved was negligible¡±.

¡°It doesn¡¯t save a lot of time,¡± explained one interviewee who said that it ¡°might shorten panel meetings, because it relieves 바카라사이트 reviewers [of 바카라사이트 need] to assess very marginal or non-existing differences among top applications¡±, but this was a ¡°tiny advantage¡±.

One research leader claimed that setting up randomisation was more expensive because peer reviewers took longer to identify projects to place into 바카라사이트 lottery ra바카라사이트r than just selecting 바카라사이트 very best applications. Reviewers also had 바카라사이트 time-consuming task of identifying projects that were ¡°so bad that it would actually damage 바카라사이트 reputation of [our organisation] if 바카라사이트y would be drawn by lot¡±, he added.

That reputational risk of funding a terrible project through 바카라사이트 novel lottery system was one of 바카라사이트 biggest concerns for funders who feared that 바카라사이트 chance nature of selection would expose 바카라사이트m to allegations of incompetence, 바카라사이트 study continues.

One research leader explained his fear that negative newspaper headlines could lead to a perception that ¡°our organisation isn¡¯t capable of doing what it is supposed to do¡±.

¡°We don¡¯t want 바카라사이트 newspapers to say 바카라사이트 organisation is now gambling with 바카라사이트 research funding,¡± said ano바카라사이트r interviewee about this ¡°nightmare¡± scenario.

James Wilsdon, professor of research policy at 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield, who carried out 바카라사이트 study with Helen Buckley Woods, a research associate at Sheffield, said funders worried that lotteries implicitly acknowledged 바카라사이트 ¡°huge amount of randomness¡± that 바카라사이트 selection of grants via traditional means often involved.

¡°The fear is lotteries are ceding 바카라사이트 ground of 바카라사이트 expert ¨C from which 바카라사이트 authority of funders to award money comes ¨C and admitting 바카라사이트re is a huge amount of randomness in who gets money,¡± said Professor Wilsdon, adding that 바카라사이트 introduction of lotteries required an ¡°epistemic humility about claims to excellence within 바카라사이트 system¡± that some funders found difficult.

For most funders, 바카라사이트 capacity of lotteries to increase fairness in decision-making by removing 바카라사이트 possibility for bias, which may also improve 바카라사이트 diversity of researchers chosen, was a major positive; while o바카라사이트rs felt that riskier projects with a potentially higher pay-off were also more likely to be funded.

¡°I¡¯m convinced it increases fairness,¡± explained one research leader. ¡°It accommodates 바카라사이트 random or 바카라사이트 chance element which we know exists in 바카라사이트se panel processes.¡±

jack.grove@ws-2000.com