Cargando…

Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond

Public health research is complex, involves various disciplines, epistemological perspectives and methods, and is rarely conducted in a controlled setting. Often, the added value of a research project lies in its inter- or trans-disciplinary interaction, reflecting the complexity of the research que...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gerhardus, Ansgar, Becher, Heiko, Groenewegen, Peter, Mansmann, Ulrich, Meyer, Thorsten, Pfaff, Holger, Puhan, Milo, Razum, Oliver, Rehfuess, Eva, Sauerborn, Rainer, Strech, Daniel, Wissing, Frank, Zeeb, Hajo, Hummers-Pradier, Eva
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4907007/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27297230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0112-5
_version_ 1782437501802119168
author Gerhardus, Ansgar
Becher, Heiko
Groenewegen, Peter
Mansmann, Ulrich
Meyer, Thorsten
Pfaff, Holger
Puhan, Milo
Razum, Oliver
Rehfuess, Eva
Sauerborn, Rainer
Strech, Daniel
Wissing, Frank
Zeeb, Hajo
Hummers-Pradier, Eva
author_facet Gerhardus, Ansgar
Becher, Heiko
Groenewegen, Peter
Mansmann, Ulrich
Meyer, Thorsten
Pfaff, Holger
Puhan, Milo
Razum, Oliver
Rehfuess, Eva
Sauerborn, Rainer
Strech, Daniel
Wissing, Frank
Zeeb, Hajo
Hummers-Pradier, Eva
author_sort Gerhardus, Ansgar
collection PubMed
description Public health research is complex, involves various disciplines, epistemological perspectives and methods, and is rarely conducted in a controlled setting. Often, the added value of a research project lies in its inter- or trans-disciplinary interaction, reflecting the complexity of the research questions at hand. This creates specific challenges when writing and reviewing public health research grant applications. Therefore, the German Research Foundation (DFG), the largest independent research funding organization in Germany, organized a round table to discuss the process of writing, reviewing and funding public health research. The aim was to analyse the challenges of writing, reviewing and granting scientific public health projects and to improve the situation by offering guidance to applicants, reviewers and funding organizations. The DFG round table discussion brought together national and international public health researchers and representatives of funding organizations. Based on their presentations and discussions, a core group of the participants (the authors) wrote a first draft on the challenges of writing and reviewing public health research proposals and on possible solutions. Comments were discussed in the group of authors until consensus was reached. Public health research demands an epistemological openness and the integration of a broad range of specific skills and expertise. Applicants need to explicitly refer to theories as well as to methodological and ethical standards and elaborate on why certain combinations of theories and methods are required. Simultaneously, they must acknowledge and meet the practical and ethical challenges of conducting research in complex real life settings. Reviewers need to make the rationale for their judgments transparent, refer to the corresponding standards and be explicit about any limitations in their expertise towards the review boards. Grant review boards, funding organizations and research ethics committees need to be aware of the specific conditions of public health research, provide adequate guidance to applicants and reviewers, and ensure that processes and the expertise involved adequately reflect the topic under review.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4907007
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49070072016-06-15 Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond Gerhardus, Ansgar Becher, Heiko Groenewegen, Peter Mansmann, Ulrich Meyer, Thorsten Pfaff, Holger Puhan, Milo Razum, Oliver Rehfuess, Eva Sauerborn, Rainer Strech, Daniel Wissing, Frank Zeeb, Hajo Hummers-Pradier, Eva Health Res Policy Syst Review Public health research is complex, involves various disciplines, epistemological perspectives and methods, and is rarely conducted in a controlled setting. Often, the added value of a research project lies in its inter- or trans-disciplinary interaction, reflecting the complexity of the research questions at hand. This creates specific challenges when writing and reviewing public health research grant applications. Therefore, the German Research Foundation (DFG), the largest independent research funding organization in Germany, organized a round table to discuss the process of writing, reviewing and funding public health research. The aim was to analyse the challenges of writing, reviewing and granting scientific public health projects and to improve the situation by offering guidance to applicants, reviewers and funding organizations. The DFG round table discussion brought together national and international public health researchers and representatives of funding organizations. Based on their presentations and discussions, a core group of the participants (the authors) wrote a first draft on the challenges of writing and reviewing public health research proposals and on possible solutions. Comments were discussed in the group of authors until consensus was reached. Public health research demands an epistemological openness and the integration of a broad range of specific skills and expertise. Applicants need to explicitly refer to theories as well as to methodological and ethical standards and elaborate on why certain combinations of theories and methods are required. Simultaneously, they must acknowledge and meet the practical and ethical challenges of conducting research in complex real life settings. Reviewers need to make the rationale for their judgments transparent, refer to the corresponding standards and be explicit about any limitations in their expertise towards the review boards. Grant review boards, funding organizations and research ethics committees need to be aware of the specific conditions of public health research, provide adequate guidance to applicants and reviewers, and ensure that processes and the expertise involved adequately reflect the topic under review. BioMed Central 2016-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4907007/ /pubmed/27297230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0112-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Gerhardus, Ansgar
Becher, Heiko
Groenewegen, Peter
Mansmann, Ulrich
Meyer, Thorsten
Pfaff, Holger
Puhan, Milo
Razum, Oliver
Rehfuess, Eva
Sauerborn, Rainer
Strech, Daniel
Wissing, Frank
Zeeb, Hajo
Hummers-Pradier, Eva
Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond
title Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond
title_full Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond
title_fullStr Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond
title_full_unstemmed Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond
title_short Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond
title_sort applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in germany and beyond
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4907007/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27297230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0112-5
work_keys_str_mv AT gerhardusansgar applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT becherheiko applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT groenewegenpeter applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT mansmannulrich applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT meyerthorsten applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT pfaffholger applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT puhanmilo applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT razumoliver applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT rehfuesseva applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT sauerbornrainer applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT strechdaniel applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT wissingfrank applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT zeebhajo applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond
AT hummerspradiereva applyingforreviewingandfundingpublichealthresearchingermanyandbeyond