Abstract
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.
Aim
The aim of this review was to understand the current position and landscape of post-award management; catalogue and summarise the different activities involved; and explore the purpose of information collection in research. An additional aim was to compare how funders currently approach post-award management, identify any unnecessary effort or any needs for improvement, and to use any evidence of previous solutions to inform recommendations for both funders and HEIs.
Intended Impact of the Study
Inform further NIHR-funded research into areas of administrative burden related to post-award management (e.g., funder burden, research impact assessment), inform feasibility studies and pilots using the recommendations arising from this work, mobilise knowledge for the research community and identify areas for training, upskilling, resourcing and implementations (e.g., of better data management approaches) relevant to funders and HEIs. Relevant stakeholder engagement, including NIHR and government stakeholders involved in health research funding and commissioning, is underway.
Project Lead
Project Collaborators
Amanda Blatch-Jones
Contact Project Author
Keywords
Research Area(s)
Other Areas: research funding practices - post-award management
Study Design(s)
Other Designs: Scoping review