The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: A qualitative study of Australian researchers

BMJ Open

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2014, Pages

  Herbert, Danielle L ^a   Coveney, John ^b   Clarke, Philip ^c   Graves, Nicholas ^a   Barnett, Adrian G ^a  

^a QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^b FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FAMILY LIFE; FAMILY RELATION; FRUSTRATION; FUNDING; GUILT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; JOB STRESS; LEISURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MENTAL HEALTH; PEER REVIEW; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL PROBLEM; SOCIAL STRESS; STRESS; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; WELLBEING; WORKLOAD; AUSTRALIA; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; MENTAL STRESS; PERSONNEL; PSYCHOLOGY; WORK;

AUSTRALIA; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; FAMILY RELATIONS; FINANCIAL SUPPORT; HUMANS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; STRESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; WORK; WORKLOAD;

EID: 84897479514     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004462     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bonetta L. Enhancing NIH grant peer review: a broader perspective. Cell 2008;135:201-4.
2. Van Noorden R, Brumfiel G. Fixing a grant system in crisis. Nature 2010;464:474-5.
3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Designing for the future: the new open suite of programs and peer review process. Ontario: CIHR, 2013. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/or-des-for-future-en.pdf
4. Guthrie S, Guerin B, Wu H, et al. Alternatives to peer review in research project funding. RAND Europe. 2013. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research-reports/ RR139.html
5. Australian Government. Strategic review of health and medical research in Australia: better health through research. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2013. http://www.mckeonreview.org.au
6. Herbert DL, Barnett AG, Clarke P, et al. On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002800.
7. Herbert DL, Barnett AG, Graves N. Funding: Australia's grant system wastes time. Nature 2013;495:314.
8. Alberts B. Overbuilding research capacity. Science 2010;329:1257.
9. National Health and Medical Research Council. Research funding facts book 2012. Canberra: NHMRC, 2013. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/-files-nhmrc/publications/ attachments/nh161-nhmrc-funding-facts-book-130809.pdf
10. National Health and Medical Research Council. Funding rate and funding by funding scheme. Canberra: NHMRC, 2013. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/outcomes- funding-rounds
11. Barnett AG, Herbert DL, Clarke P, et al. The research lottery: the pressures on the Australian grant system. Aust Q 2014;85:4-9.
12. European Science Foundation. European peer review guide: integrating policies and practices into coherent procedures. 2011. http://www.esf.org
13. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Funding guide. Arrangements and procedures for research grants and research fellowships. Swindon: EPSRC, 2013. http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/ FundingGuide.pdf
14. Medical Research Council. Handbook for applicants and grant holders. London: MRC, http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Fundingopportunities
15. National Institutes of Health. SF424 (R&R) application guide for NIH and other PHS agencies. USA: NIH, 2013. grants.nih.gov/Grants/funding/424/SF424- RR-Guide-General-Adobe-VerB.pdf
16. National Science Foundation. Grant proposal guide. USA: NSF, 2011:I-3. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpgprint.pdf
17. Wood F, Wessely S. Peer review of grant applications: a systematic review. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences. 2nd edn. London: British Medical Association Publications, 2003:14-44.
18. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australia remoteness area, Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC). Canberra: ABS, 2006. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS
19. Jacobson K. Six steps to fairer funding for female scientists. Conversation 2013. http://theconversation.com/six-steps-to-fairer-funding-for- female-scientists-16895
20. Shambrook JF. Comparison of stress-related factors in the 2007 and 2010 Research Administrator Stress Perception Surveys (RASPerS). J Res Adm 2012;43:107-18.
21. Mason MA, Wolfinger NH, Goulden M. Alone in the ivory tower. Do babies matter? Gender and family in the ivory tower. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2013. Ch. 4:59-82. http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/product/Do-Babies- Matter,4767.aspx
22. Winefield T, Boyd C, Saebel J, et al. Update on National University Stress Study. Aust Univ Rev 2008;50:20-9.
23. Langford PH. Benchmarking work practices and outcomes in Australian universities using an employee survey. J Higher Educ Policy Manage 2010;32:41-53.
24. Bentley PJ, Coates H, Dobson IR, et al. Factors associated with job satisfaction amongst Australian university academics and future workforce implications. In: Job satisfaction around the academic world. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012:29-54.
25. Pocock B, Skinner N, Williams P. Time bomb: work, rest and play in Australia today. Sydney: New South Publishing, 2012.
26. Decker RS, Wimsatt L, Trice AG, et al. A profile of federal-grant administrative burden among Federal Demonstration Partnership faculty. USA: Faculty Standing Committee of the Federal Demonstration Partnership, 2007. http://www.iscintelligence.com/archivos-subidos/usfacultyburden-5.pdf
27. Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C. Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2007;(2):MR000003.