STI Structures & Policies and Open Science

November 24th, 2021

Organized by: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

Panelists:

James Wilsdon – Digital Science Professor of Research Policy at the University of Sheffield and Director of the Research on Research Institute (RoRI)

Arian Steenbruggen – Director of the Domain Science, Dutch Research Council (NWO)

Shirley M. Tilghman – Professor of Molecular Biology and Public Affairs, Princeton University

Moderator: Danika Goosney – Vice-President, Research Grants and Scholarships Directorate at NSERC

Context: Internationally, research funders are experimenting with ways to leverage their limited resources more strategically, effectively, and equitably. Powering Discovery, the 2021 Council of Canadian Academies report sponsored by NSERC, describes many promising methods — from innovations in program design and delivery, to shaping research practices and norms. This report has also been instrumental for the development of NSERC’s next strategic plan, NSERC 2030. This interactive panel brings together international perspectives to examine these initiatives and to reflect on how research funders can apply experimentation to foster a diverse and resilient scientific workforce, to support research excellence in all its forms across disciplines and career stages, and to be responsive to changing social and scientific landscapes.

Takeaways:

• There is a growing hyper-competition for funding, which is putting enormous pressure on researchers and funding agencies alike. Funding agencies around the world are reflecting on how to best improve their funding practices, and many are experimenting with new approaches. These approaches include: reducing the administrative burden on researchers, research institutions and funding agencies (e.g., by pre-screening applications and restricting resubmissions); segmenting awards by career stage; utilizing double-blind applications, partial randomization, narrative CVs and ensuring diverse peer review panels (to reduce bias); and providing a diversity of funding modes to meet the diverse research community’s variety of needs.
• Evidence-informed decision-making in the design of research funding practices is important. However, there is often little evidence available on their effectiveness. Evaluations of funding practices are rarely disseminated, and their rigour can vary, which limits opportunities for meta-analysis. There is also no baseline to compare how new practices, like randomized grant allocation and other experimental approaches, have changed the way funds are allocated as opposed to more conventional ways of funding. Additionally, what works well for one funder might not work for another.
• There is often too much focus on a one-dimensional definition of excellence (e.g., focusing only on high impact papers). 
• It takes time, dedication, strong national support, and good international collaboration/coordination to build capacity for experimentation, to drive evidence-informed research funding policies and practices, and to make progress towards more responsible and responsive research assessment.
• Work is underway internationally to advance more responsible research assessment practices, through initiatives like the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Research on Research Institute, and the Global Research Council. Canada’s federal granting agencies are engaged in this work and have been signatories of DORA since 2019.

Actions:

• Explore how to best support researchers at all career stages as well as how to ensure equitable funding support to less competitive regions and institutions. 
• Cultivate EDI with equity charters, programs, and fellowships for disadvantaged applicants or diversity targets for grants. Support Indigenous research and researchers (e.g., through dedicated funding programs, Indigenous research review committees, funding for community research teams, etc.). Develop ways of allocating research grants to encourage women and/or other under-represented groups to choose STEM careers, and support them throughout their careers.
• Implement mechanisms to support interdisciplinary, high-risk, and responsive research (e.g., adaptations to review processes that can help reduce bias, longer-duration awards, mission-oriented calls, etc.).
• Experiment with methods to better support research professionals. Conventional funding systems promote the hiring and training of students, but they are being trained in numbers the academic system cannot absorb, and it can be difficult for researchers to allocate limited funding to permanent staff whose salaries are higher than student stipends. 
• Experiment with different timelines for grants. For example, open competitions without deadlines can remove a part of the pressure since researchers can submit proposals in their own time and as needed. There is some evidence that this can reduce the total number of proposals received by funding agencies.
• Develop effective methods of evaluating whether new experimental practices are successful, and ensure funding agencies have the expertise to do so. Both qualitative and quantitative data from these evaluations should be considered and, where possible, shared across funders to enable a greater understanding of what works in what context.
• As part of its strategic planning exercise, NSERC has published a series of discussion papers to solicit feedback from external stakeholders on strategic issues relevant to natural sciences and engineering research funding. Anyone interested in providing their input can consult these papers and share their feedback and ideas.

Proceedings prepared by Maïa Dakessian