Rowe, Christie D.

English

University of New Brunswick: Centre for Digital Scholarship Journals

Research Matters 1.Funding for StructuralGeology and TectonicsResearch in Three NationsChristie RoweEarth and Planetary SciencesMcGill University3450 University St.Montréal, QC, Canada, H3A 0E8Email: christie.rowe@mcgill.caThe quest for funding: it is a constantconcern, often a source of  unease.This is a unique aspect of  academiclife - we have the opportunity, and theburden, of  funding our own researchprograms. In the US, some researchersraise all or part of  their own salaries, aswell as those of  their coworkers.  Thestress can be compounded by the feel-ing of  not knowing how reviewersmight perceive a proposal, or notknowing how to directly pitch thevalue of  one’s proposed research tothe goals of  a funding program or cur-rent trends.Raising funds to support mystudents and their (sometimes costly)fieldwork is a continuous responsibility.This obligation is balanced by thechance to pursue my own researchinterests and the opportunity to choosemy preferred field sites and investigatethe scientific questions that interestme.  But, when I’m worried about myability to come up with funds, or Ispend nights and weekends working ona proposal that is eventually rejected,the whole system can be very discour-aging.  I worry that I won’t be able tosupport the students who are countingon me, and provide the opportunitiesand research experiences I think theyshould have.  Everyone I know in thisbusiness – even those who are unam-biguously successful – has suffered dis-appointment and lean years when itcomes to research funding.In the last five years, I’ve beenapplicant, reviewer, and an occasionalmember of  evaluation panels for thenational funding agencies in threecountries where I’ve lived and workedas an academic structural geologist.South Africa, Canada, and the USAhave somewhat different approachestoward funding research in StructuralGeology and Tectonics. In addition,the funding landscape is evolving ineach country with changes to policyand budget. For me, starting out as anew faculty member (twice) brought aslew of  challenges.  One of  the mostdifficult was to try to make sense ofthe different funding programs andidentify opportunities. The subtletiesof  tone and pitch that make a proposal‘sound like a winner’ can vary for dif-ferent contexts, and it’s also importantto have a sense of  the overall prioritiesbuilt into the funding system policies. Through time, the perceptionsof  importance of  various aspects ofgrant proposals necessarily evolve –and different countries assign differentweight to these aspects.  The relativeweighting of  novelty, innovativeness,researcher track record, contributionsto community and return on invest-ment reflect the priorities of  fundingprograms. A well-pitched proposalmust appeal to the priorities of  review-ers and panel evaluators. A proposalthat might fair well in one contextcould fail in another.  One benefit of  knowing thisis a largely emotional one – I think itmakes it easier to face rejection when Ican reflect on the fact that rejectionrepresents a failure to satisfy to one setof  expectations, not necessarily a uni-versal critique – and that one set ofreviewers don’t hold a monopoly onjudging the value of  my ideas or pastaccomplishments. The flip side of  thatis that without changing my researchdirection to follow trends, it is still pos-sible to spin a proposal toward anemphasis that feels more cutting-edge,if  I understand what the trends arewithin the local research community.Learning how to pitch my researchprogram in field-based structural geol-ogy in terms of  the interests of  threedifferent nations (i.e., in terms ofregional tectonics, ore deposits, orearthquake mechanics) has helped mediversify my research portfolio andfind ways to continue to do what Ilove. The other potential value fromcomparing different countries’approaches to funding in my field isthat I might someday have the oppor-tunity to affect the direction that policyevolves.  The philosophies built intoGeoscience Canada, v. 40, http://dx.doi.org/10.12789/geocanj.2013.40.029      © 2013 GAC/AGC®SERIES366GEOSCIENCE CANADA Volume 40 2013 367funding policies have far reachingeffects – they may stimulate studenttraining, reward industry partnershipsor discourage them, support the for-mation of  large research groups underone PI (Primary Investigator) or allowthe distribution of  money across moresmall groups and individual PIs.  Theculture and structure of  academia isstrongly affected by the values imposedby funding policies.  So, I think it’simportant to consider what othercountries prioritize and how theydevelop policies to encourage orenforce certain approaches, and howthe domestic community responds. There are two factors I thinkreally set the three countries’ approach-es apart: 1. Track Record or Proposed Work?Funding programs necessarily incorpo-rate a weighting for the importance oftwo factors:• Track record of  the researcher – interms of  publication productivityand impact, and past success inmentoring. • Proposed work – originality anddegree of  potential impact of  thescience, innovativeness of  newideas and methods, and plans forstudent training and knowledgedissemination. These programsaward according to requestedbudgets.In South Africa and Canada,researchers’ track records are explicitlyprioritized (Fig. 1).  South Africanresearchers can apply for a Rating.  Ifsuccessful, the researcher will thenreceive a fixed amount of  money eachyear, depending on their Rating Group.Ratings are based on several metrics,some subjective, like reviewers’ estima-tion of  ‘impact in the field.’ The Cana-dian Discovery Grant program alsoawards a fixed sum each year, andplaces highest priority on past accom-plishments (assessment is based 1/3 onpast contributions to research, 1/3 onpast mentoring of  students and post-docs, and 1/3 on the research plan.) Prioritizing the track record ofthe researcher rewards past success,acknowledges that someone hasproven their ability to make discoveriesand pursue research ideas to comple-tion.  It also recognizes that it’s oftendifficult to project research develop-ments years into the future.  Therefore,funding which is not tethered to a par-ticular project helps with planning forstudents, while enabling changes offocus along the way. In the US, proposals thatdescribe and budget very specific proj-ects are submitted to the National Sci-ence Foundation (NSF).  These pro-posals are evaluated on IntellectualMerit and Broader Impacts (whereBroader Impacts include societalimpact of  the research, public out-reach, improvements to teaching, andtraining of  students and postdocs).There is no explicit instruction to takeinto account the past successes of  theresearchers, but these factors are inte-grated into the assessment of  theresearch viability and potential for suc-cess, and especially the BroaderImpacts and mentoring plans.  Early-career researchers with ashorter track record might be at a dis-advantage in a CV-focused fundingprogram. In Canada this inequity ispartially addressed by boosting theawards for superstar young applicants,but broadly, funding increases withseniority. In South Africa, separate potsof  money are set aside for applicationsfrom different Rating Groups so thatcompetition is only within group –effectively separating researchers ofdifferent backgrounds.  In both coun-tries, a researcher must make do withwhat they are awarded until they applyfor renewal (typically 5 year cycles).South Africa and Canada havecreated programs of  endowed prestigeResearch Chairs. The Research Chairpositions are allocated by researchadministration to universities wholobby for them. In both countries, theResearch Chairs programs are some-times viewed as taking funds and allo-cating them to candidates selected bypolitical processes instead of  by opencompetition and peer review (CAUT2013).One common complaint inproposal-based funding systems is thatwriting proposals takes up so muchtime which should be devoted toresearch.  Can it really make that muchdifference in the quality of  the fundingdecisions, to read long detailed plansfor work that will likely evolve andchange even before the money arrives?To compare the amount of  proposalwriting for value between the threecountries, I compiled a quasi-quantita-tive table (Table 1), using the cost ofone year of  support for a PhD studentas a normalizing factor. Numbers forthe US and Canada date from 2012.The most recent parallel numbersavailable online for South Africa datefrom 2007 (the South African NationalResearch Foundation is no longerreporting the size of  grants or the %funded in their annual report) and sodate from a previous funding system.I include them here just as an exampleof  a more rating-centric system forcomparisons with the other two coun-tries. Anecdotally, funding successrates, at least as understood by theearth sciences research community, arenow significantly lower than in 2007,and some of  the programs which werepreviously important sources of  sup-port for the earth sciences have beeneffectively eliminated without replace-ment. Holding a 5-year fixed grant asa researcher in Canada gives me a cer-tain amount of  stability, but I think aproposal-centric system really stimu-lates innovation more aggressively.The Canadian Discovery Program(mentioned above) currently fundsabout half  of  the applicants in theearth sciences (compare to NSF Tec-tonics at about 15%). I think an idealsystem would be a hybrid: a baselineProposal PI Track RecordUSA Canada South AfricaFigure 1. Qualitative relative value of  the three countries on the Proposal vs. Researcher Track Record spectrum.368funding program (perhaps with a mini-mum award equivalent to about thecost of  supporting one student, with avery high success rate), combined witha proposal-based call for collaborativeresearch (larger funds but lower suc-cess rates).  This might stimulate pri-mary productivity and student training,but also allow the high-poweredgroups to grow faster. Both Canadaand South Africa have made significantchanges to their research fundingstructures in the last few years, andhave moved in the direction of  hybridsystems, although they vary substantial-ly in detail.  2. Industry and International Collaborations Canada encouragescollaborations between industry andacademia by matching money fromindustry donations.  There is a pro-gram under which a researcher canapply for a few thousand dollars fortravel/meetings to try to set up indus-try partnerships, with no commitmentfrom the industry partner.  Thisemphasis reflects a desire to develop‘benefits to Canada’ through researchfunds, but has generated controversyrecently due to the perception thatthese programs take funds out of  aca-demic competition and funnel theminto industry R&D (cf. Colliander2012–2013). Neither South Africa nor theUS provides much federal fundingdirectly to stimulate industry collabora-tion.  In the US, the petroleum indus-try sometimes supports individualschools or programs, but there is littlewidespread opportunity for funding ofindividual researchers or students.  InSouth Africa, the mining and energyindustries fund direct grants to individ-ual researchers, and also award scholar-ships to students, tied to employmentcontracts.  While this enables manystudents to get science degrees whowouldn’t otherwise be able to attenduniversity, it also prevents them fromcontinuing to graduate studies untilthey have satisfied their employmentcontracts. These scholarships usuallytarget black students – and effectivelysiphon off  many promising future sci-entists who might otherwise have beenamong the still very small number ofaspiring black South African academicsin the earth sciences. South Africa has also beenvery proactive in establishing bilateralresearch agreements with other coun-tries.  In some cases this involves trans-fer of  funds from a partner to SouthAfrica, some involve matching fundsfrom cross-border teams, and some-times South African funds are spreadto researchers in the surroundingregion.  These programs bring SouthAfrican students in contact with theinternational research communities intheir fields. They also facilitate collabo-rative research around regional prob-lems.Bilateral and multilateralopportunities for Canadian or Ameri-can researchers also exist, and myadopted province of  Québec has sev-eral agreements of  its own. There is nospecific federal US–Canada jointresearch agreement open to the earthsciences, in spite of  an abundance ofactive collaborations across the border.The Discovery Grant funds are suffi-ciently unencumbered that I have usedthem for collaboration with colleaguesUSACanadaSouth Africa5-yr grantaverage(ballpark)$233k -$333k1$75k -$300k2$25k -$63k3Pages in complete application~45~25~20Cost of 1 yrPhD studentsupport~$35k4~$20k5~$8k4% ofapplicationsfunded15%54%250%3pages per student-yr(successful)6.756.676.4pages per student-yr(total)451212.8Table 1. Except where cited, the numbers in this table are estimates based on grant proposals I have written, supported, andreviewed in each country and are given in approximate Canadian dollars. 1 My guess at typical amount of  a typical NSF Tectonics grant request, not including institutional overhead at ~50% (so these numbers correspond tototal 5-year grants of  $350k-$500k.) Although many grants <5 years, the annual amount of  funding is similar).2 2012 Competition Statistics – Discovery Grants Program from NSERC 2012.3 SA-NRF success rate from Pouris 2007. 4 These numbers vary substantially by institution within each country and these numbers are representative only for the institutions where I have worked.Although the ranges in the cost of  living in Canada and the US are similar, the big difference in cost is derived from several differences in between thetwo countries, including: publicly funded health care, tax policy on student stipends, and differences in tuition and fees.5 NSERC scholarship for PhD student is $21,000/yr or for an MSc student is $17,300/yr in 2013.GEOSCIENCE CANADA Volume 40 2013 369in the US, which is helpful because myUS colleagues cannot list me as a co-applicant on proposals in most NSFprograms.  Given that so many Canadi-ans work closely with US colleagues, Iwish there was a formal way to pro-pose bilaterally funded researchbetween Canada and the US.To visualize some of  the dif-ferences between funding in the threecountries, I created a Venn diagram(Fig. 2) which describes some of  thefeatures of  the funding programs forstructural geology and tectonicsresearch.  These are broad generaliza-tions and there are probably other pro-grams I missed which might changethe details of  this figure.  I don’t like the feeling that stu-dents are obligated to industry, or canonly choose from the potential advi-sors with the most grant money, whenchoosing their direction in science. Ide-ally I would like to see all three coun-tries put a higher priority on freestand-ing graduate student and postdoctoralfellowships. This might allow the fund-ing agencies to directly create opportu-nities for increasing diversity and sup-porting low-income students into grad-uate studies – instead of  waiting forindustry to do it, or indirectly byencouraging PIs to consider reachingout to under-represented groups asone of  many potential ‘broaderimpacts.’ Is there an ideal fundingmodel (given context, time and cul-ture)?  Probably not.  Most researchersUnited StatesSouth AfricaCanadaReview procedure: several mail reviews, then a panel assessment.Funds for remote researchDirect scholarships awarded to grad studentsEarly-career and established research-ers compete in same funding pools.Funding by ranking based on past performance.Funding available for industry collaborationNo grant-linked over-headon federal $100% proposal-basedMost funding is project-based, amount related to project budget.Discovery grant funds general “program”instead of individual projects - budget not based on proposed workInstitutions charge overhead on EVERYTHINGNo funding to support industry collaborationsResearchers at different levels Bilateral funding for international collaboration is abundantFigure 2. Characteristics of  the funding systems for structural geology/tectonics research.will probably always wish they had abit more research money than theyhave. Transparency and consistency areprobably the most important attributesfrom funding programs.  After twoyears in Canada and four grant applica-tions, I appreciate that the Canadiansystem makes it easier to apply forfunding.  However, the quasi-quantita-tive system of  ranking DiscoveryGrant applications seems overly rigidand I’m not sure equally weightingHQP (Highly Qualified Personnel), CVand Proposal for every application isreally the best way to ensure that thebest science and the best student train-ing is supported by NSERC.  Somechanges in the structure of  NSERCover the past several years have raisedcommunity concern (e.g. CAUT 2013),and with good reason, these changesare not just cosmetic.  The philosophi-cal priorities around research fundingare shifting.  We should all be activevoices in the community discussionaround the long-term goals and bene-fits of  publically funded research.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSChristie Rowe is an assistant professorand Wares Faculty Scholar in Econom-ic Geology at McGill University inMontréal, Canada.  If  you want tolearn about my and my students’ pastand current research in the geologyand rheology of  faults, go tohttp://eps.mcgill.ca/~crowe. Thisessay benefited from conversationswith, and suggestions from, Rick All-mendinger, Steve Harlan, LaurentGodin, Chris Harris, Jodie Miller, JamieKirkpatrick, Heather Savage, and EricRowe, but all errors and opinions areentirely mine. This article was pub-lished in an earlier form as a guest blogfor the Geological Society of  America.REFFERENCESCAUT. Canadian Association of  UniversityTeachers, 2013, Editorial: CAUTlaunches campaign to overhaul federalscience policy: Canadian Associationof  University Teachers Bulletin, v. 60n. 5, May 5, 2013.Colliander, J., 2012–2013, On the issue ofNSERC funding for industry via aca-demic collaborations (blog posts):Department of  Mathematics, Univer-sity of  Toronto, Toronto, ON, viewedat http://blog.math.toronto.edu/col-liand/category/administration/nserc/.NSERC. Natural Sciences and EngineeringResearch Council of  Canada, 2012,2012 Competition Statistics DiscoveryGrants Program: Government ofCanada, 22 p. Accessed 10 June 2013.http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Funding-Financement/DGStat2012-SDStat2012_eng.pdf.Pouris, A., 2007, The NRF Evaluation andRating System in the World Context:prepared for the National ResearchFoundation, Business Enterprises atUniversity of  Pretoria (Pty) Ltd, Pre-toria, SA, 62 p.http://www.nrf.ac.za/files/file/Report%20-%20A%20compara-tive%20study%20of%20other%20national%20systems%20for%20the.pdf.Received  September 2013Accepted  November 2013370

Research Matters 1. Funding for Structural Geology and Tectonics Research in Three Nations

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/GC/article/download/21005/24437

Research Matters 1. Funding for Structural Geology and Tectonics Research in Three Nations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of New Brunswick: Centre for Digital Scholarship Journals