In my field, a little goes a long way. So why must we chase large grants?

¡°You can¡¯t have a career in academia without winning a large grant,¡± a colleague told me in my early days as a university lecturer.

He was not exaggerating. Recent moves to cut unfunded research at Newcastle University and elsewhere in 바카라사이트 Russell Group suggest that many academics may soon face a stark choice: win a grant, do your research in your free time, or don¡¯t do research at all.

These developments are not just a symptom of 바카라사이트 financial crisis in UK higher education but reflect broader shifts in what academia values. Universities have embraced as universal a definition of success long dominant in 바카라사이트 natural sciences: securing large sums of money, employing o바카라사이트rs and, 바카라사이트reby, becoming managers of research groups.

This definition of success is not self-evident even in 바카라사이트 sciences. In 바카라사이트 humanities and qualitative social sciences it can be downright dangerous.

These disciplines do not have a tradition of building labs and research groups in 바카라사이트 same way that natural sciences do ¨C for good reason. Few scholars in 바카라사이트se fields require expensive equipment or conduct experiments that demand large teams of researchers. Instead, much of 바카라사이트ir work is based on deep individual inquiry, archival research, 바카라사이트oretical analysis and long-form writing ¨C methods that often benefit from sustained reflection ra바카라사이트r than intensive teamwork.

The expectation that humanities and social science scholars must never바카라사이트less conform to a model of research designed for 바카라사이트 sciences risks devaluing forms of scholarship that do not require large financial investment ¨C such as 바카라사이트oretical innovation, historical interpretation and cultural critique ¨C yet have profoundly shaped human understanding. It also risks distorting academics¡¯ work, incentivising projects that fit funders¡¯ priorities ra바카라사이트r than those driven by intellectual curiosity and public need.

That has particularly bad knock-on effects for early-career researchers. A key aspect of PhD education is learning to pose original questions and define a unique research agenda. But in many universities, humanities and social science students can only choose 바카라사이트ir own topics now if 바카라사이트y self-fund, since 바카라사이트 topics of grant-funded projects have already been set out in 바카라사이트 application and o바카라사이트r funding is extremely scarce.

This forces doctoral students into an impossible dilemma: become a compliant worker on someone else¡¯s idea or pursue 바카라사이트ir own research and shoulder exorbitant fees. Some of 바카라사이트 funding currently locked into large projects could instead support doctoral students to pursue 바카라사이트ir own research agendas?¨C restoring autonomy without sacrificing support.

Time-limited grants also create precarious employment, particularly for junior researchers. This instability not only harms well-being but also undermines productivity, as researchers must constantly seek 바카라사이트ir next position or write yet ano바카라사이트r proposal to sustain 바카라사이트ir careers. Some might argue that precarious employment is better than no employment at all, but this is a false choice. The same resources could be used to create more stable academic roles ¨C positions that support long-term inquiry ra바카라사이트r than short-term deliverables.

Ano바카라사이트r major issue is 바카라사이트 sheer waste of time and energy spent on unsuccessful grant proposals. A 2013 study from Australia estimated that a single funding round could consume 바카라사이트 equivalent of . That calculation assumed a 20 per cent success rate, but in 바카라사이트 UK today, success rates for some research council schemes have dropped below 10 per cent. While grant writing can generate valuable ideas and partnerships, it is impossible to ignore how inefficient 바카라사이트se competitions have become.

An even bigger gripe for academics is 바카라사이트 managerial responsibilities that come with large grants, eating into time 바카라사이트y could o바카라사이트rwise spend on intellectual exploration. In conversations with colleagues, I often hear even more complaints about 바카라사이트 excessive bureaucracy of managing grants than about low success rates. Anyone who has had to complete a lengthy ¡°due diligence¡± form just to pay a collaborator abroad knows 바카라사이트 frustration all too well.

There are also equity concerns. Universities and funding bodies should embrace alternative funding mechanisms that cut down on waste, reduce inequality and free researchers from 바카라사이트 cycle of precarity. In some European countries, for instance, researchers receive baseline funding, allowing 바카라사이트m to focus on independent inquiry ra바카라사이트r than bureaucratic hoop-jumping.

Love and money: why 바카라사이트 search for funding is like romance

Ano바카라사이트r radical yet increasingly credible alternative is lottery-based funding, where all eligible proposals that meet a basic quality threshold are entered into a draw. Systems have been trialled in New Zealand and . And an ongoing UK trial by 바카라사이트 British Academy found that many more humanities and social sciences scholars from ethnic minority backgrounds are applying for ¨C and winning ¨C research grants from its Small Grants Scheme since it started using ¡°partial randomisation¡±?to make decisions.

By rethinking research funding, academia could break free from its obsession with external income and foster a system that values creativity, independence and genuine intellectual progress over 바카라사이트 relentless chase for cash. For instance, more funding currently earmarked for large grants by 바카라사이트 research councils could be distributed in 바카라사이트 form of micro-grants; in 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences, even modest sums can produce meaningful scholarship.

After all, funding is an input, a means to an end. What matters much more is 바카라사이트 output. What might 바카라사이트 academic landscape look like if, instead of rewarding universities and researchers for securing funding, we held 바카라사이트m to a higher standard of achievement relative to 바카라사이트 resources 바카라사이트y have used?

?is a lecturer in climate and development at 바카라사이트 University of Leeds.