Cargando…

The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review

Introduction: Reporting is a mechanism for funding organisations to monitor and manage the progress, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the research they fund. Inconsistent approaches to reporting and post-award management, and a growing demand for research information, can lead to perception of unne...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Crane, Ksenia, Blatch-Jones, Amanda, Fackrell, Kathryn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10570692/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37842341
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133263.2
_version_ 1785119825788403712
author Crane, Ksenia
Blatch-Jones, Amanda
Fackrell, Kathryn
author_facet Crane, Ksenia
Blatch-Jones, Amanda
Fackrell, Kathryn
author_sort Crane, Ksenia
collection PubMed
description Introduction: Reporting is a mechanism for funding organisations to monitor and manage the progress, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the research they fund. Inconsistent approaches to reporting and post-award management, and a growing demand for research information, can lead to perception of unnecessary administrative effort that impacts on decision-making and research activity. Identifying this effort, and what stakeholders see as unmet need for improvement, is crucial if funders and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are to streamline their practices and provide better support with reporting activities. In this review, we summarise the processes in post-award management, compare current practices, and explore the purpose of collecting information on funded research. We also identify areas where unnecessary effort is perceived and improvement is needed, using previously reported 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10570692
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher F1000 Research Limited
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105706922023-10-14 The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review Crane, Ksenia Blatch-Jones, Amanda Fackrell, Kathryn F1000Res Systematic Review Introduction: Reporting is a mechanism for funding organisations to monitor and manage the progress, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the research they fund. Inconsistent approaches to reporting and post-award management, and a growing demand for research information, can lead to perception of unnecessary administrative effort that impacts on decision-making and research activity. Identifying this effort, and what stakeholders see as unmet need for improvement, is crucial if funders and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are to streamline their practices and provide better support with reporting activities. In this review, we summarise the processes in post-award management, compare current practices, and explore the purpose of collecting information on funded research. We also identify areas where unnecessary effort is perceived and improvement is needed, using previously reported 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. F1000 Research Limited 2023-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10570692/ /pubmed/37842341 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133263.2 Text en Copyright: © 2023 Crane K et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Crane, Ksenia
Blatch-Jones, Amanda
Fackrell, Kathryn
The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review
title The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review
title_full The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review
title_fullStr The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review
title_short The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review
title_sort post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10570692/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37842341
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133263.2
work_keys_str_mv AT craneksenia thepostawardeffortofmanagingandreportingonfundedresearchascopingreview
AT blatchjonesamanda thepostawardeffortofmanagingandreportingonfundedresearchascopingreview
AT fackrellkathryn thepostawardeffortofmanagingandreportingonfundedresearchascopingreview
AT craneksenia postawardeffortofmanagingandreportingonfundedresearchascopingreview
AT blatchjonesamanda postawardeffortofmanagingandreportingonfundedresearchascopingreview
AT fackrellkathryn postawardeffortofmanagingandreportingonfundedresearchascopingreview