Search Results

Under Way

James Herbert

in Creating the AHRC: An Arts and Humanities Research Council for the United Kingdom in the Twenty-first Century

This chapter discusses the developments in terms of research grants and research funding of the newly established AHRB. By 2002 to 2003, during its fifth year, the AHRB's total budget had increased ... More

This chapter discusses the developments in terms of research grants and research funding of the newly established AHRB. By 2002 to 2003, during its fifth year, the AHRB's total budget had increased from £17.9 million to £64.8 million. During this period, non-programmed costs were capped at five per cent. Putting aside its administrative costs, the AHRB in its fifth year had programmatic expenditures of £61.7 million, a 20 per cent increase from the initially predicted expenditure. Of the £61.7 million, £9 million was allocated to the operation of museums and galleries of English institutions and the rest was equally divided between postgraduate awards and research awards throughout the UK. As funding rose, intellectual ambitions also increased. Several ambitious projects were initiated such as the editing of Francis Bacon's works, the creation of public policy concerning the film and television of Britain and Europe, the pursuing of the long-delayed multinational Romanian project, and several other projects. During this period, the AHRB garnered a distinct sense of direction and momentum. Over three years, the applications of research funding increased to 58 per cent. The applications for the postgraduate awards increased to 20 per cent in a year and the four year doctoral submission rate for arts and humanities students increased to 78 per cent.Less

Authority Relations as Condition for, and Outcome of, Shifts in Governance: The Limited Impact of the UK Research Assessment Exercise on the Biosciences

Norma Morris

in Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation

The UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is a periodic nationwide exercise that assesses the research performance of any university in the UK that opts to put itself forward, and a prime example of ... More

The UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is a periodic nationwide exercise that assesses the research performance of any university in the UK that opts to put itself forward, and a prime example of a fully institutionalized strong Research Evaluation System. Research infrastructure funds are awarded selectively to universities as a block grant on the basis of the scores achieved by their individual departments — or, more accurately ‘units of assessment’. Although the RAE has been around for nearly thirty years and many areas of its design, operation, and effects have been intensely explored, little attention has been given to its differential impact in different academic fields. This chapter focuses on interactions at the level of research performers (drawing on previously collected empirical data, published articles, and archival sources) to provide a practical illustration of how differences in pre-existing authority relations in different academic fields, particularly natural science and arts/social sciences fields, significantly shaped their intellectual organization and policy-adaptability, and hence how the RAE was perceived and its effects managed within universities.Less

Health Research Agendas and Funding

David E. Nelson

in Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions: Envisioning Health Care 2020

There is a large range of national public funding support for health research across countries. By contrast, allocations for overall funding for health literacy and related research areas are ... More

There is a large range of national public funding support for health research across countries. By contrast, allocations for overall funding for health literacy and related research areas are limited. Health research agendas and resource allocation are policy decisions that involve the use of power. There are strong incentives to maintain the status quo, especially in the face of level or declining funding. Many macro- and microlevel factors influence research agendas and funding support. These range from broader societal values and health care delivery systems, to the individuals themselves who make decisions. There is a great need for more research in areas such as implementation of simple interventions in “real-world” settings and the effects of communication technologies on receipt, processing, and seeking of health information by the public. There is some reason for optimism: awareness and support for more transdisciplinary and applied research relevant to health literacy is increasing, and some countries have adopted effective approaches to assess new health technology and treatment prior to introduction into clinical and public health practice.Less

A False Start

James Herbert

in Creating the AHRC: An Arts and Humanities Research Council for the United Kingdom in the Twenty-first Century

In general, modern governments invest only a small portion of the national income to the generation of new knowledge. In the United Kingdom, the Department of Science and Industrial Research carried ... More

In general, modern governments invest only a small portion of the national income to the generation of new knowledge. In the United Kingdom, the Department of Science and Industrial Research carried out this task until 1965. Then the Science and Technology Act changed responsibility for the curiosity-driven research to five Research Councils which are funded through the Department of Education and Science. In 1993, a White Paper, Realizing Our Potential called for the reorganization of the Research Councils. This chapter discusses the struggles of the establishment and recognition of the need for Council for Research in the Humanities. In 1961, the British Academy suggested for the creation of Council for Research in the Humanities, however it was not granted in the legislation made in 1965. Instead, a separate Research Council for social science was established, which opened up the possibility of creating a separate Research Council for Humanities. In 1990s, discussions on the reorganization of UK research funding reopened the question of how the government funds and supports research in humanities. It also opened talks for the establishment of a freestanding Humanities Research Council. Sometime in 1992, after deliberate considerations of the possible contributions of a separate research council on humanities, a recommendation for the establishment of Humanities Research Council was made. However, on the same year, the government decided not to set up an agency that would support humanities, and, in 1993, the government made a firm decision not to include humanities in any form to the circle of Research Councils — a decision which irked humanities scholars and academy members.Less

In Due Course: The Government Decides

James Herbert

in Creating the AHRC: An Arts and Humanities Research Council for the United Kingdom in the Twenty-first Century

This chapter discusses how the government agreed to the commitment of establishing an Arts and Humanities Research Council. Following the achievement, aspiration, and resistance in the early years of ... More

This chapter discusses how the government agreed to the commitment of establishing an Arts and Humanities Research Council. Following the achievement, aspiration, and resistance in the early years of the AHRB, Margaret Hodge, who was the Minister of Lifelong Learning and Higher Education in the UK Department of Education and Skills, formulated a Review of Arts and Humanities Research Funding. This review was carried out on behalf of the Ministers responsible for the higher education in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The review aimed to recommend how to enhance support for arts and humanities, including how to encourage government support on such relevant issues. Of the 117 responses from the formal consultations, 114 – 97 per cent – agreed to the need for an organisation dedicated to arts and humanities. The review was subjected to the deliberations and considerations of the Steering Group. The report made by the group was eventually given to the Education Ministers. The Report of the Steering Group lauded the AHRB which despite its provisional start and status made contributions to society and the sciences. Whilst the government made slow progress on the approval of the creation of the AHRB, in January 22, 2003 the government approved the establishment of an Arts and Humanities Research Council which according to the government should be a fully functioning and statutory research council by 2005.Less

At the Point of a Larger Conflict

James Herbert

in Creating the AHRC: An Arts and Humanities Research Council for the United Kingdom in the Twenty-first Century

This chapter discusses the existence of support for the AHRB during its struggle for recognition and acceptance. In January 22, 2003, the White Paper on the Future of Higher Education created uproar. ... More

This chapter discusses the existence of support for the AHRB during its struggle for recognition and acceptance. In January 22, 2003, the White Paper on the Future of Higher Education created uproar. This furore over the White Paper was due to concerns over the government's proposal to allow universities to raise fees and to provide deferred loans by which the students might meet those charges. The uproar was also heightened by the government's declared intention to concentrate on research funding. Amidst the din over the AHRB's establishment and the government's intention of giving research funds to research councils, the AHRB found immense support from various groups. Iain Gray, Scotland's Minister For Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, expressed support for the creation of the AHRB. The same warm response to the White Paper and to the prospect of the creation of the AHRB was also expressed by the RCUK Strategy Group which emphasized the importance of arts and humanities as equal to those of engineering, science, and technology. The same response was also accorded by the House of Commons. In addition to the positive responses to the proposal of creating a humanities research council, UK government and political officials were beginning to include the White Paper recommendations into their debates. By mid-summer, widespread support for the AHRB was garnered and on January 27 2004, a second reading of the Higher Education Bill approved the creation of the Arts and Humanities Research Council.Less

The Endless Frontier: Reaping What Bush Sowed?

Paula Stephan

in The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy

This chapter examines and documents how the Endless Frontier changed the research landscape at universities and how universities responded to the initiative. I show that the agencies it established ... More

This chapter examines and documents how the Endless Frontier changed the research landscape at universities and how universities responded to the initiative. I show that the agencies it established and funded initially recruited research proposals from faculty and applications from students for fellowships and scholarships. By the 1960s, universities began to push for more resources from the federal government for research, support for faculty salary and research assistants and higher indirect costs. The process transformed the relationship between universities and federal funders; it also transformed the relationship between universities and faculty. The university research system that has grown and evolved faces a number of challenges that threaten the health of universities and the research enterprise and have implications for discovery and innovation. Five are discussed in the closing section. They are (1) a proclivity on the part of faculty and funding agencies to be risk averse; (2) the tendency to produce more PhDs than the market for research positions demands; (3) a heavy concentration of research in the biomedical sciences; (4) a continued expansion on the part of universities that may place universities at increased financial risk and (5) a flat or declining amount of federal funds for research.Less

Launching the Century of the Patient

Gerd Gigerenzer and J. A. Muir Gray

in Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions: Envisioning Health Care 2020

Efficient health care requires informed doctors and patients. The health care system inherited from the 20th century falls short on both counts. Many doctors and most patients do not understand the ... More

Efficient health care requires informed doctors and patients. The health care system inherited from the 20th century falls short on both counts. Many doctors and most patients do not understand the available medical evidence. Seven “sins” are identified which have contributed to this lack of knowledge: biased funding; biased reporting in medical journals; biased patient pamphlets; biased reporting in the media; conflicts of interest; defensive medicine; and medical curricula that fail to teach doctors how to comprehend health statistics. These flaws have generated a partially inefficient system that wastes taxpayers’ money on unnecessary or even potentially harmful tests and treatments as well as on medical research that is of limited relevance to the patient. Raising taxes or rationing care is often seen as the only viable alternative to exploding health care costs. Yet there is a third option: by promoting health literacy, better care is possible for less money. The 21st century should become the century of the patient. Governments and health institutions need to change course and provide honest and transparent information to enable better doctors, better patients, and, ultimately, better health care.Less

Research Policy in Scotland and the Rest of the UK

Sheila Riddell

in Higher Education in Scotland and the UK: Diverging or Converging Systems?

Across the developed world, the UK is at the forefront of creating a competitive and marketised research system, driven by the belief that this will contribute to the overall effectiveness and ... More

Across the developed world, the UK is at the forefront of creating a competitive and marketised research system, driven by the belief that this will contribute to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of universities and the wider economy. Universities have embraced the entrepreneurial research agenda on the grounds that independently earned income provides a certain degree of freedom from ‘state dependence’. At the same time, it is evident that efforts by the state to control research activity have intensified to ensure that funded research produces practical social and economic benefits. The broad approach to university research in Scotland, and the extent to which this differs from UK research policy, is the central focus of this chapter. We discuss the way in which research featured in the referendum debate, noting areas of agreement and disagreement between the Scottish and UK Governments and the universities. In conclusion, we consider whether research policy in Scotland is consistent with the Scottish Government’s claim that higher education north of the border embodies a different set of social values from those which are found within the wider UK system.Less

The Structure, Financing, and Processes of Federally Mandated Comparative Effectiveness Research and Why They Matter

Carol M. Ashton and Nelda P. Wray

in Comparative Effectiveness Research: Evidence, Medicine, and Policy

Throughout the legislative odyssey of federal policy on comparative effectiveness research from 2002 to 2008, the specifics of the policy took many different forms. While opponents to ... More

Throughout the legislative odyssey of federal policy on comparative effectiveness research from 2002 to 2008, the specifics of the policy took many different forms. While opponents to federally-mandated comparative effectiveness research objected to the policy entirely, proponents of the policy were divided as to where the function should be housed (inside the federal government or outside); how it should be financed (congressional appropriations or fees levied on public and private health insurers and health plans), and how it should be governed (how much representation should each stakeholder have on a governing board). Every specification has its advantages and disadvantages. The two federal mandates currently in force for comparative effectiveness research—the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act—differ markedly in placement, financing, governance, research priority-setting methods, and processes, illustrating the fact that every alternative is a balance between advantages and disadvantages.Less

Government Funding of Research in the United States

in Law in the Laboratory: A Guide to the Ethics of Federally Funded Science Research

Federal funding has been the driving force behind most basic research in the United States for well over half a century. The results of that research have proven to be critical to scientific and ... More

Federal funding has been the driving force behind most basic research in the United States for well over half a century. The results of that research have proven to be critical to scientific and biomedical advances as well as to economic development. As funding agencies have matured and grown, so have their requirements. This chapter discusses the following: grants as a funding mechanism; available recourse if a grant is not awarded; the terms and conditions of a grant; administration of grant economics; challenging post-award decisions; procurement contracts; cooperative agreements; and the False Claims Act and other sanctions. Case studies are included at the end of the chapter.Less

American Democracy and the Origins of the Biomedical Revolution

Joan A. Steitz

in Democratic Vistas: Reflections on the Life of American Democracy

This chapter examines how American democracy might contribute to the country's status as the world leader in basic scientific research. It compares research in the United States and the Pacific and ... More

This chapter examines how American democracy might contribute to the country's status as the world leader in basic scientific research. It compares research in the United States and the Pacific and European countries, where national bureaucracies and autocratic laboratory directors set top-down research agendas. In the United States, by contrast, competitive research funding, allocated by multiple public and private sources according to highly meritocratic criteria, makes bottom-up initiative the core of the research process. The institutional advantages of the United States do not mean that the government stays out of research; instead, by fostering a competitive and merit-based system of funding, federal policy makes research less rather than more top-down. All this chimes with American cultural habits: self-confident dissent and the compulsion to distinguish oneself from the crowd.Less

Knowledge Mobilisation in Education in Canada and the Role of Universities

Jie Qi and Ben Levin

in The impact of research in education: An international perspective

This chapter is organised around different dimensions related to research mobilisation in Canada, focusing on the field of education and the role of universities. As background, major features of ... More

This chapter is organised around different dimensions related to research mobilisation in Canada, focusing on the field of education and the role of universities. As background, major features of Canada are described, then the role of government is introduced, including research funding agencies, quality indicators and capacity building. The chapter then looks at the strategies and mechanisms used by universities to share their research and concludes with a discussion about the key debates and considerations around education research mobilisation and identifies unresolved issues to guide future research.Less

Financial Conflicts of Interest: The Legacy of Shoeless Joe Jackson

in Law in the Laboratory: A Guide to the Ethics of Federally Funded Science Research

This chapter focuses on the three types of financial conflict of interest laws affecting the scientific research community. The first section examines personal financial conflicts pertaining to those ... More

This chapter focuses on the three types of financial conflict of interest laws affecting the scientific research community. The first section examines personal financial conflicts pertaining to those who are conducting federally funded or Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-regulated research, as well as the Public Health Service and FDA rules, the National Science Foundation policy, and the disclosures that prudence dictates ought to be included in an informed consent. The second section explores institutional financial conflicts likely to arise when a university or nonprofit research institute enters into a long-term agreement with a profit-making entity, under which the entity provides research funding in exchange for an option to license a significant portion of the inventions in a given field. The third section reviews the complex web of federal criminal statutes and regulations that govern the activities of federal employees, including those scientists who serve on advisory committees and study sections. Case studies are included at the end of the chapter.Less

Organizing Our Innovation Ecosystem

Steven C. Currall, Ed Frauenheim, Sara Jansen Perry, and Emily M. Hunter

in Organized Innovation: A Blueprint for Renewing America’s Prosperity

This chapter offers our prescriptions for how to put the Organized Innovation framework in place. The recommendations can be summed up as a bipartisan plan for government, a wise bet for businesses, ... More

This chapter offers our prescriptions for how to put the Organized Innovation framework in place. The recommendations can be summed up as a bipartisan plan for government, a wise bet for businesses, and a grand bargain for universities. Among the key points are that more of our federal research funding should be directed to projects that conform to Organized Innovation principles, that industry should invest more time and money in university-based research centers, and that universities should engage more actively with society. The chapter also urges academic researchers to increase their focus on the social impact of their research.Less

Knowledge Mobilisation in the Republic of Korea: Linkages with Economic, Political and Social Development

Lynn Ilon

in The impact of research in education: An international perspective

This chapter considers the role of knowledge mobilisation in Korea. It starts by describing the process of policy development in Korea, highlighting the contribution of the media and the general ... More

This chapter considers the role of knowledge mobilisation in Korea. It starts by describing the process of policy development in Korea, highlighting the contribution of the media and the general public, as well as educational researchers. It then goes on to look at the history of education policy since 1948, dividing it into four distinct phases. Next it follows three education policies from their ideas to inception to impact to show the close association of research and policy in the field of education. Then it looks at the funding of research by the government and concludes with a discussion of how to get research into schools.Less

The Interdisciplinary Project as Social Form

Regina F. Bendix, Kilian Bizer, and Dorothy Noyes

in Sustaining Interdisciplinary Collaboration: A Guide for the Academy

This chapter examines the rise and the challenges of the funded interdisciplinary project as a format for research. A range of internal and external causes account for this rise: the complexity of ... More

This chapter examines the rise and the challenges of the funded interdisciplinary project as a format for research. A range of internal and external causes account for this rise: the complexity of urgent social problems, disciplinary self-critiques, university resource constraints, the influence of neoliberal formats, and public pressure for accountability in research expenditures. Still, the very conditions that facilitate the inauguration of interdisciplinary ventures impede their success in practice. The chapter reviews the interpersonal, intellectual, professional, and institutional sources of team conflict and project dysfunction. It argues for a pragmatic approach of ongoing reflexive attention to social process within the research group, seeking not to overcome but to take account of the inevitable market logics, political agendas, and epistemological compromises.Less