4 ms·

Author here; thanks for this interesting take! What makes you arrive at the conclusion that the research funding is garbage? I am seeing this more as a problem

Author here; thanks for this interesting take! What makes you arrive at the conclusion that the research funding is garbage? I am seeing this more as a problem in terms of providing hires with the wrong incentives. The replacements you mention fall exactly into that category: depending on where you are working, your teaching/outreach/educational aspects might actually count against you when it comes to advancing your career in academia. That is certainly a problem. The second point I don't entirely get---the grants I applied for all demand public research, for instance open-access publications, open source software etc. (European perspective, YMMV)

zomglings 5y ago
My biggest problems with university research and its funding (speaking as an academic failure): 1. The grant system overly rewards proposals that grant givers can understand to have a high chance of success. This creates an echo chamber of what kind of research gets funded. 2. The acceptance of mafias based on mutual back-scratching. The dynamics of funding into these mafias. 3. The cut of research funding claimed by universities as operational costs. (How much of your grant money goes to your university as overhead?) The French Academy of Sciences used to run a mathematical grand prix (in the 18th and 19th centuries... maybe not anymore?) where they would put out a call for essays about a particular problem (e.g. the three body problem) and award a substantial prize to the winning essay. I like that kind of setup more, and I think there could be room for a parallel funding system where private companies or groups of interested individuals offer funding for targeted research using this kind of grand prix methodology. I was not criticizing academic research for not happening in the public, was merely stating that that should also be a property of the new system. Also, the same institutions should not be responsible both for education and for research. The objectives are clearly not aligned.
- Topolomancer 5y ago
  Thanks for outlining these positions! > 1. The grant system overly rewards proposals that grant givers can understand to have a high chance of success. This creates an echo chamber of what kind of research gets funded. This is indeed something I am experiencing across the board. There are few 'blue-skies research programmes.' The Swiss National Science Foundation had one a few years back and I was over the moon to get a grant there...because I could not really guarantee success. I am still somewhat struggling when writing a proposal: on the one hand, I want to show that I considered all the angles that can be considered; on the other hand, it's research, so I probably did not foresee all the problems that might arise. Getting this balance 'just right' is a knack, it seems. > 2. The acceptance of mafias based on mutual back-scratching. The dynamics of funding into these mafias. I never experienced this so far, but I can definitely see that 'networks help.' When you are in the in-group, everything is a little bit easier. > 3. The cut of research funding claimed by universities as operational costs. (How much of your grant money goes to your university as overhead?) OK, that one hit close too home! I just had exactly this discussion with someone from our own admin team. They are doing an excellent job, but they are getting quite miffed by the overheads claimed from the grant admin people (a different division). The numbers are even bigger outside Europe, or so I am told... I am definitely with you in that the system needs improving. At this point, I am still somewhat optimistic that I can at least try to enact some changes by playing the game according to my own rules, but I am not sure whether reality is going to catch up with me at some point, overriding my 'idealistic naïveté generation field.'
  - zomglings 5y ago
    Haha, I am quite a bit more jaded than you and I think the current academic system is impossible to improve. I say this after having spent over a decade within it. I have also spent almost a decade in and around the US healthcare system and similarly think that it is impossible to improve. The thing is, there are enough people at the fringes of both those systems who genuinely believe in the ideals of those systems. I think those people, working together, can build better institutions that exist in parallel to the corrupt, diseased, broken systems that are a burden on our society today. For example, the T-shaped people who are undervalued by academia but still choose to focus their efforts there rather than in industry.
    - Topolomancer 5y ago
      > The thing is, there are enough people at the fringes of both those systems who genuinely believe in the ideals of those systems. I think those people, working together, can build better institutions that exist in parallel to the corrupt, diseased, broken systems that are a burden on our society today. I am seeing flickers of this at least in some parts of academia, for instance the move towards open-access publishing and improved reviewing...but in the end, I have to admit that there might be a 'brain drain' coming (or people might, over time, just be corrupted and play along with the status quo)

zomglings 5y ago

My biggest problems with university research and its funding (speaking as an academic failure): 1. The grant system overly rewards proposals that grant givers can understand to have a high chance of success. This creates an echo chamber of what kind of research gets funded. 2. The acceptance of mafias based on mutual back-scratching. The dynamics of funding into these mafias. 3. The cut of research funding claimed by universities as operational costs. (How much of your grant money goes to your university as overhead?) The French Academy of Sciences used to run a mathematical grand prix (in the 18th and 19th centuries... maybe not anymore?) where they would put out a call for essays about a particular problem (e.g. the three body problem) and award a substantial prize to the winning essay. I like that kind of setup more, and I think there could be room for a parallel funding system where private companies or groups of interested individuals offer funding for targeted research using this kind of grand prix methodology. I was not criticizing academic research for not happening in the public, was merely stating that that should also be a property of the new system. Also, the same institutions should not be responsible both for education and for research. The objectives are clearly not aligned.

Topolomancer 5y ago
Thanks for outlining these positions! > 1. The grant system overly rewards proposals that grant givers can understand to have a high chance of success. This creates an echo chamber of what kind of research gets funded. This is indeed something I am experiencing across the board. There are few 'blue-skies research programmes.' The Swiss National Science Foundation had one a few years back and I was over the moon to get a grant there...because I could not really guarantee success. I am still somewhat struggling when writing a proposal: on the one hand, I want to show that I considered all the angles that can be considered; on the other hand, it's research, so I probably did not foresee all the problems that might arise. Getting this balance 'just right' is a knack, it seems. > 2. The acceptance of mafias based on mutual back-scratching. The dynamics of funding into these mafias. I never experienced this so far, but I can definitely see that 'networks help.' When you are in the in-group, everything is a little bit easier. > 3. The cut of research funding claimed by universities as operational costs. (How much of your grant money goes to your university as overhead?) OK, that one hit close too home! I just had exactly this discussion with someone from our own admin team. They are doing an excellent job, but they are getting quite miffed by the overheads claimed from the grant admin people (a different division). The numbers are even bigger outside Europe, or so I am told... I am definitely with you in that the system needs improving. At this point, I am still somewhat optimistic that I can at least try to enact some changes by playing the game according to my own rules, but I am not sure whether reality is going to catch up with me at some point, overriding my 'idealistic naïveté generation field.'
- zomglings 5y ago
  Haha, I am quite a bit more jaded than you and I think the current academic system is impossible to improve. I say this after having spent over a decade within it. I have also spent almost a decade in and around the US healthcare system and similarly think that it is impossible to improve. The thing is, there are enough people at the fringes of both those systems who genuinely believe in the ideals of those systems. I think those people, working together, can build better institutions that exist in parallel to the corrupt, diseased, broken systems that are a burden on our society today. For example, the T-shaped people who are undervalued by academia but still choose to focus their efforts there rather than in industry.
  - Topolomancer 5y ago
    > The thing is, there are enough people at the fringes of both those systems who genuinely believe in the ideals of those systems. I think those people, working together, can build better institutions that exist in parallel to the corrupt, diseased, broken systems that are a burden on our society today. I am seeing flickers of this at least in some parts of academia, for instance the move towards open-access publishing and improved reviewing...but in the end, I have to admit that there might be a 'brain drain' coming (or people might, over time, just be corrupted and play along with the status quo)