Abstract
Funding organisations rely on a number of strategies to make recommendations for the allocation of research funding fair and transparent. A panel of experts, also referred to as funding committees, are often considered integral to the decision-making process for allocating research funding. It is therefore important to understand the role of funding committees, in terms of the social interactions and dynamics and how a common understanding is reached by the committee members. However, there is limited research investigating the role of members and the social interactions and processes which cannot be explored through survey or interview methods alone.
As a result of COVID-19, the NIHR chose to conduct some funding committee meetings completely virtual. It is from this unprecedented global health situation that the proposed research was adapted to focus on the social dynamics within technological contexts to understand online communication and interactions. Originating from hospitality and tourism research, netnography is an established method for conducting social media research. It is therefore our intention to conduct a netnographic study on virtual funding committee practices to understand how members participate (e.g. social interactions), insight into using online forms of communication (e.g. cultural changes), and the benefits, challenges and barriers to using online platforms (e.g. to explore future considerations).
The aims of the study are to examine and explore NIHR’s virtual funding committee meetings in terms of the formal (processes, technology, and resources) and informal (social interactions, social dynamics, perceptions, attitudes and expectations), implicit and explicit decision-making practices. A range of methods and approaches will be used to gather data that will be in text (e.g. documents, transcripts, data spreadsheets) and non-text data (e.g. videos, audio). By following the principles of netnography, all three types of data operations will be included in the study:
- Investigative: online social media data (recordings of funding committee meetings)
- Interactive: interviews with funding committee members and secretariat, and an online survey with all funding committee members
- Immersive: to assist the netnographic study an immersive journal will be kept to reflect, analyse and guide research process and decision-making
As far as we know this is the first netnographic study to explore social systems of shared meaning and the cultural understandings of virtual funding committee practice.
Aim
The aims of the study are to examine and explore virtual funding committee meetings in terms of the formal (processes, technology, and resources) and informal (social interactions, social dynamics, perceptions, attitudes and expectations), implicit and explicit decision-making practices. As far as we know this is the first netnographic study to explore social systems of shared meaning and the cultural understandings of virtual funding committee practice.
To address this, we will explore how current practice (virtual funding committees) was informed and the influence of a pandemic on the practice of funding committees. We will do this by conducting a netnographic study, focusing on the virtual online funding committee recordings which will be further complemented by data through interviews and an online survey (qualitative and quantitative). We will take a technogenesis approach , in order to understand:
1. What the structural changes to funding committees are as a result of rapidly moving over to virtual funding committee meetings? (e.g. technology, staff resource and time, cost-effectiveness)
2. What are the resource implications to using online technology to make recommendations about the allocation of funding? (social interactions, social dynamics and transformation of new technology)
3. Do virtual meetings offer greater inclusivity to funding committee members? (e.g. how do they interact, and the diverse methods used to encourage participation and involvement)
4. How does running virtual funding committees impact members’ behaviour, attitude and expectations (e.g. impact on social identity, beliefs, norms and risks in the decision-making process)?
5. What are the key components/considerations of running and engaging in a virtual funding committee meeting? (e.g. benefits and disadvantages of the virtual platform to the committee members, the chair and NIHR secretariat, such as technology, timing, preparation, structure, format, software and proportionality)
Focusing on the above will provide in-depth accounts of funding committee member’s views and expectations of virtual funding committee meetings as well as any impact on decision-making (e.g. proportionate external peer review, pre-assessment of applications and feedback process). This is of particular interest to NIHR and other research funding organisations in light of COVID-19 and recognising the cultural and environmental changes for selecting appropriate (and proportionate) peer review.
Intended Impact of the Study
The results will directly inform and add value to the current evidence-base around decision-making practices of funded health-related research. This study will be the first to explore and investigate using a netnographic study, a diverse and deeper analysis of the social and interactional processes of funding committee practice. This type of methodology is appropriate for this type of study due to the rapidly changing research funding environment as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Adopting a telescopic (broad perspective) and microscopic (in-depth perspective) approach to observe and assess the NIHR funding committee practice, will therefore put us in a unique position to fully understand the critical role of funding committees and provide a ‘look through the window’ account of an alternative ‘virtual’ communicative world for a funding organisation such as NIHR. By following the guiding principles of netnography by Kozinets will further advance the cultural exploration of social media in a health-related field of research.
The findings from the study will have relevance to and for other research funding organisations and notably demonstrate the continued efforts of NIHR to evaluate, experiment and publish findings that will have significance within NIHR and beyond.
To inform the development of the dissemination and impact planning of the netnographic study we will closely follow the guiding five principles of effective impact produced by Reed et al. This will enable us to fully engage with the relevant key stakeholders throughout the duration of the netnographic study. To complement our impact planning we will also closely follow the fifth procedural movement of netnography, namely research presentation operations. With these combined approaches, we will be able to add value as the study progresses and ensure that the findings are transparent, relevant, of high quality, represent and reflect a true/detailed account of a rapidly changing cultural shift of funding committee practice.
We do not know what will happen as a result of these virtual funding committees when the coronavirus situation is under control and research funding organisations go back to normal. We propose to investigate and explore a follow-on study to the current netnographic study by conducting an ethnographic study on the future practice of funding committee meetings. There may be opportunities to include a synthesis of other evaluations from other UK and international funding organisations. This will also take account of the different scenarios and how we may reinforce a system or incite changes to a system that informs the decision-making in research fund allocation. This may also be inclusive of the NIHR Academy if there is interest from them to explore the funding committee practice of career development schemes. Understanding the social context around the funding process from a researcher’s perspective will be an important element to focus on once we have a clearer understanding from the perspective of the funder (the NIHR). Elements of the process such as feedback to applicants will be investigated to determine if there are any differences between face-to-face and virtual funding committees. Researcher perceptions and expectations of whether virtual committee meetings make a difference and/or influence recommendations for funding will be a key outcome for any follow-on study.
Project Lead
Project Collaborators
Contact Project Author
Keywords
URL
Research Area(s)
Study Design(s)
Other Designs: Netnography
Data Collection Method(s)
Participant(s)
Other Participants: Funding committee members, public health advisors, health economists, statisticians, methodologists, clinicians
Status
Stage
Study Funding/Support
Dissemination Activity/Activities
Other(s): Webinars, social media platforms, blogs