Collaborative Fiction Writing with Community Groups: A Practitioner Guide

This guide aims to provide some insight into the ways two projects have approached writing with community groups, and a starting-point for others who may want to engage in similar projects. One project, Life Chances, produced a co-written fictional novel, and the other project, Stories2Connect, produced 48 short stories. Both projects also produced a range of other outputs, but the focus here is on the co-production of fictional stories. These were seen as a means of conveying research findings to a wider audience than might normally be reached through more conventional academic outlets. In addition, both projects aimed to encompass and amplify voices that are usually talked over or distorted by those in more powerful positions. The use of fiction allowed freedom and creativity in the process, while also enhancing accessibility and longevity of the product. Both projects endeavour to address issues of inequality, inaccessibility, and lack of understanding around social issues. Both have used fiction to convey different perspectives, particularly the voices of marginalised groups and individuals, in an attempt to highlight the need for social change

The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Reporting on research is a standard requirement of post-award management, and is increasingly required for ‘compliance’ and to show the impact of funding decisions. The demand for information on research is growing, however, approaches in reporting and post-award management appear inconsistent. Altogether, this can lead to perception of unnecessary effort and ineffiency that impacts on research activity. Identifying this effort is crucial if organisations and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are to better streamline and support on their processes. Here, we review the ‘effort’ and processes in post-award management, explore current practices and the purposes of reporting on research. We also identify where effort is perceived as unnecessary or improvements are needed, using previous reports of solutions to inform recommendations for funders and HEIs. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the relevant research and grey literature. Electronic searches of databases, and manual searches of journals and funder websites, resulted in inclusion of 52 records and 11 websites. Information on HEI and funder post-award management processes was extracted, catalogued, and summarised to inform discussion. Results: Post-award management is a complex process that serves many purposes but requires considerable effort, particularly in the set up and reporting of research. Perceptions of unnecessary effort stem from inefficiencies in compliance, data management and reporting approaches, and there is evidence of needed improvement in mechanisms of administrative support, research impact assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. Solutions should focus on integrating digital systems to reduce duplication, streamlining reporting methods, and improving administrative resources in HEIs. Conclusions: Funders and HEIs should work together to support a more efficient post-award management process. The value of research information, and how it is collected and used, can be improved by aligning practices and addressing the specific issues highlighted in this review

Peer review and decision making in research funding allocation: what are the alternatives?

Background Peer review is integral to the decision-making process for the allocation of research funding based on quality, impact and value for money. The scientific community and funding organisations rely on peer review as a form of independent assessment to ensure public research funds are allocated in a fair and transparent way by those who are deemed experts (e.g. researchers, patients and the public, clinicians). Based on a recent systematic mapping review, the current evidence is lacking and peer review presents only a partial picture. It is after all only one aspect of a larger system where many factors are at play during the decision-making processes to allocate research funding. This makes it difficult to understand what approaches are likely to work and in what context for a more optimal decision-making system. Methods From a funder’s perspective, a series of studies are being conducted to understand whether, where, and in what circumstances alternative approaches to decision-making may work. Stage one of this research programme consists of: a survey with international funders to understand current funding practices, qualitative analysis of interview data to understand stakeholders’ expectations, a review of the feedback given to applicants to understand what makes a good application, a survey with applicants to understand the value of the feedback received, an observational study of funding committees and a realist synthesis to identify elements of the decision-making process. Results Preliminary findings and evidence from stage one will be used to undertake an eDelphi to explore and gain consensus from key stakeholders on the important elements to include in a model for decision-making in funding allocation and overall acceptance for a feasibility study (Stage 2 of research programme). Conclusion Peer review and decision-making in research funding is highly variable, so understanding how peer review influences decision-making may help to identify where enhancements can be made. It may well be that the current system is indeed the most adequate approach. However, until we start to acknowledge the uncertainties and test and validate alternative approaches, the burden on reviewers will increase, putting even greater pressure on an already pressured system. <br/

Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice

Innovations in decision-making practice for allocation of funds in health research are emerging; however, it is not clear to what extent these are used. This study aims to better understand current decision-making practices for the allocation of research funding from the perspective of UK and international health funders. An online survey (active March-April 2019) was distributed by email to UK and international health and health-related funding organisations (e.g., biomedical and social), and was publicised on social media. The survey collected information about decision-making approaches for research funding allocation, and covered assessment criteria, current and past practices, and considerations for improvements or future practice. A mixed methods analysis provided descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages of responses) and an inductive thematic framework of key experiences. Thirty-one responses were analysed, representing government-funded organisations and charities in the health sector from the UK, Europe and Australia. Four themes were extracted and provided a narrative framework. 1. The most reported decision-making approaches were external peer review, triage, and face-to-face committee meetings; 2. Key values underpinned decision-making processes. These included transparency and gaining perspectives from reviewers with different expertise (e.g., scientific, patient and public); 3. Cross-cutting challenges of the decision-making processes faced by funders included bias, burden and external limitations; 4. Evidence of variations and innovations from the most reported decision-making approaches, including proportionate peer review, number of decision-points, virtual committee meetings and sandpits (interactive workshop). Broadly similar decision-making processes were used by all funders in this survey. Findings indicated a preference for funders to adapt current decision-making processes rather than using more innovative approaches: however, there is a need for more flexibility in decision-making and support to applicants. Funders indicated the need for information and empirical evidence on innovations which would help to inform decision-making in research fund allocation

A realist synthesis of decision-making approaches to grant funding allocation

Introduction: For decades, allocation of research funds worldwide has relied on an assessment of research proposals by referees’ reports and funding committees, a process known as peer review. A seemingly lack of alternative approaches to making decisions to fund research leaves peer review as the de facto system to fund allocation. Peer review is at the heart of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) goal of increasing efficiency in research from application to contract to final dissemination. This study focuses on the potential to inject flexibility into the now traditional peer review process. It will identify the elements of peer review and/or alternative approaches to funding allocation which supports the decision-making process and the contexts or programmes relevant to the NIHR where alternative approaches might work. Methods: A realist synthesis will be used to provide an explanatory analysis of how and why peer-review or alternative approaches to funding allocation work in particular contexts and/or research programmes. This approach will enhance our understanding of the value of peer review and the contexts in which this approach to decision-making is most appropriate. In particular, the synthesis will allow us to move beyond summarisation of existing evidence and provide fresh thinking in the opportunities available to enhance current practices for funding decision-making. Timing of Potential Results: This is a study in progress. Preliminary findings will be available in September 2019. Potential Relevance &amp; Impact: Enhancing current understanding on what is already known about alternatives to peer review, as well as identifying contexts in which alternative approaches are effective. Using realist synthesis as a novel approach to aggregate evidence in the field. Findings from the realist synthesis will be used to directly inform the wider programme of research conducted by NIHR Research on Research and may be transferable to other funding organisations

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

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

Identification and comparison of key criteria of feedback of funding decisions: mixed-methods analysis of funder and applicant perspectives

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the content, quality and value of feedback given to applicants who applied to one of four research programmes in the UK funded (or jointly funded) by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).METHODS: A mixed-method phased approach was conducted using document analysis and an online survey. Phase 1 examined 114 NIHR applicant feedback documents comprised written feedback from funding committees and external peer-reviewers and a conceptual framework of the key components of feedback was developed using content analysis. Phase 2 was an online survey completed by 113 NIHR applicants. Frequencies of responses to closed questions were calculated. Perceptions of quality and value of feedback were identified using content analysis of open-text responses.RESULTS: In phase 1, a conceptual framework was developed with seven overarching categories: 'Study structure and quality'; 'Team and infrastructure'; 'Acceptability to patients and professionals'; 'Study justification and design'; 'Risks and contingencies'; 'Outputs'; 'Value for money'. A higher frequency of feedback was provided at stage 2 and for successful applications across the majority of components. In phase 2, frequency data showed that opinion on feedback was dependent on funding outcome. Content analysis revealed four main themes: 'Committee transparency'; 'Content validity and reliability'; 'Additional support'; Recognition of effort and constraints'.CONCLUSIONS: This study provides key insights and understanding into the quality, content and value of feedback provided to NIHR applicants. The study identified key areas for improvement that can arise in NIHR funding applications, as well as in the feedback given to applicants that are applicable to other funding organisations. These findings could be used to inform funding application guidance documents to help researchers strengthen their applications and used more widely by other funders to inform their feedback processes