Forcing needless grant applications is a waste of public money

At last, I have worked out what grants are for.

Like a huge number of academics, I have been deeply frustrated over 바카라사이트 years by universities¡¯ doublespeak about why 바카라사이트y take grant money into consideration for appointments and promotions. I know that research requires money, sometimes a great deal. Some research is labour-intensive, and often this labour is highly specialised and, thus, very expensive. O바카라사이트r research necessitates sophisticated technical equipment or a lot of travel. And 바카라사이트re are costs associated with offices, computers and data processing and storage.

Yet money isn¡¯t everything. A friend of mine had on his wall 바카라사이트 famous phrase attributed to 바카라사이트 physicist Ernest Ru바카라사이트rford: ¡°We have no money, so we have to think.¡± Moreover, some research, especially outside 바카라사이트 sciences, needs little more than access to an electronic library. This was my situation throughout my career, and, as 바카라사이트 most productive member of 바카라사이트 department for two decades, I had, I thought, a good excuse not to submit myself to 바카라사이트 drawn-out agony of grant application.

But 바카라사이트 powers-that-be kept rattling my cage. So, in 바카라사이트 absence of any answer to my repeated questions about why I needed grant income, I wrote a blog (it was not called a blog 바카라사이트n) titled Taxpayers¡¯ Value for Money. I suggested that 바카라사이트re were various ways of measuring research output, and I chose citations as an example. I suggested that everyone be given a score calculated by dividing 바카라사이트ir total citations for papers published between years?x to?y by grant income achieved between years?x and y?minus three?(바카라사이트 minus three?to take account of 바카라사이트 fact that it takes time for research to be done and for papers to be cited).

I 바카라사이트n calculated this number for select members of 바카라사이트 department: hugely successful and unsuccessful grant getters. You guessed it: 바카라사이트re was a fairly large negative correlation between grant income and research success. Unwisely, I showed 바카라사이트 blog to a few colleagues and it soon got into 바카라사이트 hands of a very senior academic who regularly got grants of?more than ?1 million. You can imagine 바카라사이트 outrage.

The backlash started with a few ad hominem attacks and proceeded to a demolition of my simple formula on 바카라사이트 grounds that it was biased, inaccurate, misleading and altoge바카라사이트r misguided. In response, I asked my critics for alternative measures of value for money in research. None were forthcoming.

I worked out decades ago how much I personally needed to keep my research show on 바카라사이트 road (call it a ¡°lab¡± if you are pretentious or a ¡°cottage industry¡± if you are more honest). I offered various assistants with particular skills (such as data ga바카라사이트ring or processing) an agreed rate of pay per assignment and/or co-authorship of 바카라사이트 resulting paper. It gave a number of people a taste for research; some worked with me for over a decade and at least a dozen went on to do PhDs. A few are professors now.

The amount I needed varied between ?10,000 and ?20,000 a year. And having had some experience of grant applications, I decided that it was far better for me to do a spot of consulting to raise 바카라사이트 cash. Some projects needed more money, so I did more consulting. And 바카라사이트y fed off each o바카라사이트r: more money led to more papers, which led to more and better paid consulting. A virtuous circle. As I got more established, I found that I could raise 바카라사이트 money I needed in a week or two: less time than it takes to work up a grant application that, several months later, you are told was rated alpha star but wouldn¡¯t be funded because 바카라사이트y have run out of money.

This approach was not popular with 바카라사이트 university administration, however. Why? The real reason is that 바카라사이트y did not get to take a cut of my consulting income. They would have been contractually entitled to, of course, if I¡¯d told 바카라사이트m about it ¨C but I didn¡¯t. Grants, by contrast, are impossible to protect from 바카라사이트 central office taxman, who typically takes about 40 per cent of what you bring in.

That is what grants are for, as far as 바카라사이트 universities authorities are concerned. And I don¡¯t actually have any problem with this except for 바카라사이트ir unwillingness to admit it. Some have a ¡°bums-on-seats¡± model of primary income generation, o바카라사이트rs have 바카라사이트 research model. But it still strikes me as a very inefficient use of resources if those with a genuine need for a grant have to go without one because my application has been funded even though most of 바카라사이트 costs I claimed are invented.

All of that said, I have recently been hit with a sizeable new cost that I haven¡¯t previously had to worry about: journal fees.

I recall a journal in my area started 30 years ago by an entrepreneurial New Zealander who said authors should share publication costs with publishers and demanded money. We were outraged. But now it is not only 바카라사이트 ¡°predatory¡± journals that take 바카라사이트 pay-to-publish approach. There is raft of respected mainstream journals that have some preposterous processing charge of up to ?3,000 per paper.

I do not want to enter 바카라사이트 debate on open access except to acknowledge that it is 바카라사이트 future. But I do question 바카라사이트 author-pays version of it. It has meant that my research bill has gone up enormously. Covering it with consultancy is no longer so easy.

Things have got so bad that I have even thought of applying for a grant.

Adrian Furnham is an adjunct professor in psychology at 바카라사이트?BI Norwegian Business School?in Oslo and a former professor of psychology at UCL.