Academic goals should not be forgotten when big money is on offer
Competition for external grants is the name of the game for funding research activity in Europe and beyond, both at the national level and via EU framework programmes for research and innovation. From the point of view of funding organisations and governments, this is done by design so that only the most innovative projects and the best-positioned research groups win.
But how to play the game from the point of view of research organisations? It takes two to tango and if the overall aim is to increase the quality of research, how can an ambitious research unit make the best decisions on what funding to target?
My answer is to go only for the money that will contribute to your unit’s academic and thematic goals. It is always tempting to go for the big money rather than the good money—but to contradict Frank Zappa, we’re not only in it for the money.
Focus on quality
To put this idea into practice, I suggest using a simple graph. On the x-axis we can measure how aligned a scheme is with a group’s true academic focus. The y-axis, meanwhile, specifies the level of economic return that success in the scheme will bring. In this way we can visualise where a project sits in the balance between your unit’s research strategy and whether the project will finance itself or require additional contributions from your own budget.
The best scenario is for a project to land somewhere in the top right of our graph—that is, it will add to the academic strategy and be well financed. The worst scenario is for it to fall in the bottom left and be underfunded and a bad academic fit.
The basic premise behind this model is that external competitive funding should be seen as a means to improve academic quality and focus, and there can be a trade-off between money and academic focus. If your research unit encourages its staff to apply for as much funding as possible, disregarding whether the projects add to research quality in the long run, you risk ending up less focused and ultimately less attractive to the best researchers and the most important funders.
Of course, for this model to work, you need to know what your academic focus is. Without a coherent research strategy—an ambition for where you want your research unit to go over the coming years—you will not be able to separate the potentially suitable opportunities from those that will lead you astray.
Strategic development
This way of thinking developed gradually during the 1990s, while I was managing a Research Council of Norway initiative that later became the Arena centre for European studies at the University of Oslo. The ambition was to build a world-class research centre on European integration studies, starting from scratch.
What part of the broad research field of European studies could we possibly contribute to in a serious way? By answering this question, my small group of professors and young researchers was able to put together the first Arena research profile. Once in place, this profile became our common roadmap in our quest for further funding and staff recruitment.
Balancing potential academic return with economic return, and making synergies with ongoing projects when developing new applications, has long been a part of Arena’s DNA. Almost 30 years later, after numerous EU and nationally funded projects, this small unit of 30 people from 11 countries continues to contribute significantly to the field.
Holistic approach
For the system to work, you need a research administration office that not only helps researchers scout for possible funding opportunities but also assesses the economic sustainability of potential projects. Remember: no money comes for free. Most externally funded projects require some kind of top-up money, and you need dedicated and professional research administrators to identify which projects will need additional internal funding.
While determining the economic return of a project is a job for research administrators, determining the academic return must fall to academic leaders. Academics and administrators must work together to organise a process for balancing these two priorities. You should end up with a portfolio of projects that add to the research strategy and to a balanced, sustainable budget.
In the end, you need to see all your resources combined as one portfolio, covering projects, funding, people and infrastructure. Too often, external funding can be seen as just that—external, an add-on. On the contrary, external funding, and the people and infrastructure funded by it, should be seen as a core means to meet your goals.
This is an extract from an article in Research Professional’s Funding Insight service. To subscribe contact sales@researchresearch.com