This thesis considers the effects of research funding process design in the
Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical
Research Council (NHMRC). The program delivery mechanisms that the
ARC and NHMRC use differ in detail and each council claims to be using
the best selection model possible. Neither council provides evidence that
peer review is the best possible way of delivering government funding for
research and neither can produce empirical evidence that they use the
best possible peer review model to determine excellence.
Data used in this thesis were gathered over several years, forming a
comparative case study of the Australian Research Council and the
National Health and Medical Research Council, with illustrative data from
comparable international organizations in the UK and USA. The data
collection included: a survey of applicants, semi-structured interviews
with experienced panel members and former staff, observation of selection
meetings, and examination of publications by and about the research
councils.
Researchers firmly believe in peer review and their confidence enables the
system to function. However, the mechanisms of grant selection are not
well understood and not well supported by applicants, who criticize the
processes used to assess their work, while supporting the concept of peer
selection.
The notion of excellence is problematic; judgements of excellence are made
within frameworks set by the research councils and vary across
disciplines. Allocation of research funding depends on peer review
assessment to determine quality, but there is no single peer review
mechanism, rather, there exist a variety of processes.
Process constraints are examined from the perspectives of panel members,
peer reviewers, council staff and applicants. Views from outside and inside
the black box of selection reveal the impacts of process design on
judgements of excellence and decision-making capacity. Peer reviewers in
selection panels are found to use a range of differentiating strategies to
separate applications, with variance evident across disciplines and
research councils. One dominant criterion emerges in both the ARC and
NHMRC processes, track record of the applicants.
Program delivery mechanisms enable and constrain selection but every
peer panel member has to make selection decisions by defining discipline
standards and negotiating understandings within the panel. The extent to
which peers can do this depends on the number of applications assigned
to them, the size of the applicant field, and the processes they have to
follow. Fine details of process design, panel rules and interactions are the
tools that shape funding outcomes.
Research councils believe they are selecting the best, most meritorious
proposed research. However, I show in this thesis that the dominant
discriminator between applicants in Australian selection processes is
track record of the applicant. This effect is the result of several factors
operating singly or in concert. Researcher track record, largely determined
by quality and number of journal publications, is considered to be the
responsibility of universities but support for this capacity building has not
been systematically provided in Australian universities.
Reliance on track record to determine the outcomes of all but the very best
applications is very like awarding prizes for past work and is significantly
different from the models of grant selection that operate in comparable
international research councils.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/257138 |
| Date | January 2009 |
| Creators | Mow, Karen Estelle, n/a |
| Publisher | University of Canberra. Administrative Studies |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | ), Copyright Karen Estelle Mow |
Page generated in 0.1986 seconds