IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0291663.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An in-depth exploration of researcher experiences of time and effort involved in health and social care research funding in the UK: The need for changes

Author

Listed:
  • Katie Meadmore
  • Hazel Church
  • Ksenia Crane
  • Amanda Blatch-Jones
  • Alejandra Recio Saucedo
  • Kathryn Fackrell

Abstract

The need to reform the way in which research is undertaken is clear, with reducing research bureaucracy and waste at the forefront of this issue for the UK government, funding organisations, higher education institutions and wider research community. The aim of this study was to describe researchers’ experiences of the time, effort and burden involved in funding processes–namely applying for research funding and fulfilling reporting requirements. This was an in-depth qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with researchers who had experience applying for funding and/or completing reporting requirements for a UK health and social care research funder between January 2018 and June 2021. Following thematic analysis, five key themes were identified describing researcher experiences of key issues around time, efforts and burden associated with funding processes. These themes encompassed (1) issues with the current funding model for health and social care research, (2) time and effort involved in funding processes, (3) the need for a streamlined end-to-end process, (4) implications for work-life balance, and (5) addressing the need for better support and communication. The findings from this study describe researcher experiences of tasks in the research pathway that currently take considerable time and effort. It was clear that whilst some of this time and effort is considered necessary, some is exacerbated by inefficient and ineffective processes, such as perceived under-funding of research or lack of clarity with regards to funder expectations. This in turn contributes to unnecessary researcher burden, research waste and negative research culture. Better investment in health and social care research and in the researchers themselves who design and deliver the research, alongside improvements in transparency, streamlining and research support could ensure a more positive research culture, and improve the quality of funded research.

Suggested Citation

  • Katie Meadmore & Hazel Church & Ksenia Crane & Amanda Blatch-Jones & Alejandra Recio Saucedo & Kathryn Fackrell, 2023. "An in-depth exploration of researcher experiences of time and effort involved in health and social care research funding in the UK: The need for changes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(9), pages 1-18, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0291663
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291663
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0291663
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0291663&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0291663?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:plo:pone00:0239757 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Michael John Bartlett & Feyza Nur Arslan & Adriana Bankston & Sarvenaz Sarabipour, 2021. "Ten simple rules to improve academic work–life balance," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(7), pages 1-12, July.
    3. Ted von Hippel & Courtney von Hippel, 2015. "To Apply or Not to Apply: A Survey Analysis of Grant Writing Costs and Benefits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-8, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    2. repec:plo:pone00:0231305 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Nuria Cadete & Shaun Ruggunan, 2024. "Self-Perceptions and Benefits of Psychological Resilience Among Women Academics in the Context of Working in South African Higher Education Institutions (SA-HEIs): A Mixed-Method Approach," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(2), pages 21582440241, May.
    4. Marco Ottaviani, 2020. "Grantmaking," Working Papers 672, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    5. Christoph Carnehl & Marco Ottaviani & Justus Preusser, 2024. "Designing Scientific Grants," Papers 2410.12356, arXiv.org.
    6. Kevin W. Boyack & Caleb Smith & Richard Klavans, 2018. "Toward predicting research proposal success," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 449-461, February.
    7. Gemma Elizabeth Derrick & Alessandra Zimmermann & Helen Greaves & Jonathan Best & Richard Klavans, 2024. "Targeted, actionable and fair: Reviewer reports as feedback and its effect on ECR career choices," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 648-657.
    8. Christoph Carnehl & Marco Ottaviani & Justus Preusser, 2024. "Designing Scientific Grants," NBER Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, volume 4, pages 139-178, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Miguel Navascués & Costantino Budroni, 2019. "Theoretical research without projects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-35, March.
    10. Fong, Eric A. & Wilhite, Allen W., 2021. "The Impact of False Investigators on Grant Funding," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    11. Gerald Schweiger & Adrian Barnett & Peter van den Besselaar & Lutz Bornmann & Andreas De Block & John P. A. Ioannidis & Ulf Sandstrom & Stijn Conix, 2024. "The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds," Papers 2403.16934, arXiv.org.
    12. Jung-Kyu Jung & Jae Young Choi, 2022. "Choice and allocation characteristics of faculty time in Korea: effects of tenure, research performance, and external shock," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2847-2869, May.
    13. AJ Alvero & Courtney Peña & Amber R. Moore & Leslie Luqueño & Cisco B. Barron & Latishya Steele & Stevie Eberle & Crystal M. Botham, 2024. "Time to Degree, Identity, and Grant Writing: Lessons Learned From a Mixed-Methods Longitudinal Case Study of Biosciences PhD Students," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(2), pages 21582440241, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0291663. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.