Do recurring evaluations by research funders genuinely enhance research quality and societal impact, or do they merely create unnecessary administrative burdens?
Many research funders require periodic evaluations of projects to ensure accountability, monitor progress, and assess impact. While such evaluations can drive improvements in research design, transparency, and relevance, they can also consume significant time and resources. This raises the question of whether the benefits—such as higher-quality outputs and stronger societal contributions—outweigh the potential drawbacks, including administrative overload and reduced time for actual research.
4 Answers
(1 hidden)
rawad affan
Periodic assessments by research sponsors can improve the quality of research as well as its impact on society, as long as they are well thought out, reasonable, and revolve around metrics that matter rather than mindless reporting. Continuous feedback helps researchers improve their methodologies, align their projects with societal changes, and maintain accountability to their stakeholders. On the contrary, if the requirements become too rigid, too much red tape, or too frequent, they will start to pull researchers away from critical scientific work, fostering an environment that stagnates innovation and progress. In the end, the net positive depends on finding the equilibrium, assessments ought to be relevant, efficient, and devoid of restrictions, adding to the refinement process instead of acting as bureaucratic roadblocks.
Omid
It depends! To me, it is even beneficial for researchers to have a self-evaluations of the research. If funders ask for only few periodic evaluations with a resonable amount of required data, not only funder have full control on its objectives and vison but also researcher have a better understanding of its progress. Of course, vigorous recurring evaluations hinder time and effort of both researchers and funders.
Paul