|
Working Paper 4
Problems and Issues Related to the Funding of Research
Author: Terry D. Pike, Department for International Development (DFID) (retired)
Contents:
Introduction
In its consultations, the Working Group identified the funding of research as a particular constraint. There was a consensus of opinion that the role of research is not properly understood, and that the amounts spent on applied research are not consistent with the large investments which are being made in the Water Supply and Sanitation sector in the developing world. It was pointed out that the needs and problems of developing countries are often very different from those of the developed world, and thus existing solutions and technologies may not be appropriate for use elsewhere.
Further, the potential savings which might result from more and better research are considerable. Relatively modest improvements in the value for money obtained for investments in the infrastructure and its operation would generate financial savings far in excess of the funds spent on the research. Those responsible for investment in the sector should therefore review their attitude and commitment to applied research. The Working Group considered a number of issues related to this problem.
Return to Contents
Why is research under-valued?
2.1. Several factors were identified as contributing to this difficulty:
|
~..
|
much research is too academic, with inadequate concern for the intended end-users;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
research must be viewed as a tool, not an end in itself;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
the assessment of W.S.&S. projects does not give sufficient weight to the optimal use of facilities as a measure of success. Provision of infrastructure is of little benefit in itself, unless it is properly utilised. This aspect of project definition and evaluation deserves more attention;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
the potential savings which can result from improved implementation are considerable, but this is not well appreciated or understood by many of those responsible for making investment decisions;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
the results of research are not always applied well. This is often due to a lack of dialogue between researchers, implementers, and end-users;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
the phasing of research and implementation needs to be improved. At the present time, they tend to operate in parallel, rather than in series; and
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
research is a cross-cutting issue which relates to a wide range of topics within the sector. There is therefore a need for a focus which can both provide a forum for debate, and also champion the cause of research.
|
2.2. To overcome these difficulties, a number of actions are proposed
Both the potential and the results of research should be better publicised. There should be more dialogue between researchers, implementers, and end users. Implementation projects should themselves incorporate a research component wherever possible. Funding sources should critically examine the amount which they spend on research, as compared to the sums which they invest in capital projects.
Return to Contents
How can funding for research and dissemination of results be increased?
The group concluded that there is a general belief amongst funding sources that sufficient research has already been carried out, mainly in the developed world, and that this provides adequate knowledge to tackle W.S.&S. problems in the developing world. This is of course not the case, but the true nature of the problems facing us is not well understood. A number of actions are therefore proposed to remedy this situation:
|
~..
|
more work is required to determine the impact of W.S.&S. projects and to identify the real indicators for this. This is a difficult task, but crucially important to proper understanding of the effectiveness of both implementation and research;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
researchers should themselves become more active in the dissemination and application of their work;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
research projects should therefore incorporate a dissemination component as standard practice. This will vary in form and extent, depending upon the nature of the research itself, but may include seminars, workshops, monitoring, and the evaluation of application effectiveness;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
there should be two stages of dissemination. The first comprises the production of reports, manuals, etc. from the immediate research project work. The second relates to the longer term, when the cost-effectiveness of the work should be demonstrated by its impact upon e.g. project design, implementation, or end-use;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
greater emphasis should be placed upon the private sector, particularly the industrial sector, as a source of finance for research. Although such investment will largely be driven by commercial considerations, opportunities do exist, especially in the form of joint initiatives between collaborators in the developed and developing worlds; and
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
joint financing of work should be encouraged. This spreads both the financial load and the risk to the funding sources. It encourages participation, and improves dissemination because 'ownership' of results is more widespread. Such joint-funding may also take place between research funders and implementation funders.
|
Return to Contents
What are the priorities of funding sources?
It is acknowledged that such priorities vary both from time to time, and from source to source. The donor agencies, in particular, are often driven by various political and commercial considerations, which may distort their view of specific work. National governments and line departments are similarly subjected to a range of influences which colour their perception of needs.
In order to produce a better and more uniform perspective, it is necessary to promote improved dialogue between the various interested groups. The Consultative Council is of course an important contributor to this process, and the justification for applied research should flow from the objectives of the Council. Thus the overall objective must be the improvement of access to adequate water supply and sanitation for all, in order to improve both health and the quality of life.
Clearly it will be impossible to achieve this goal immediately, and therefore it will be necessary to make choices and to investigate alternative strategies. Such choices and alternatives should be made on the basis of adequate information, which the scientific/technical community has a duty to provide. To this end, the community must both inform itself of the problems and needs which exist, and equip itself with the necessary knowledge to provide solutions. Research activities should therefore focus on the provision of appropriate knowledge, and can only be justified in such terms.
To respond to priorities, research must:
|
~..
|
be based upon full and continuous exchange of information and views between all the parties involved in the process i.e. researchers, implementers, funders, and end users, in order to ensure its relevance;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
be aimed at problems and topics which are identified by that process;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
have clear objectives and time-bound targets, to assist monitoring and evaluation of the work; and
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
demonstrate a potential to improve both the quality and the cost-effectiveness of implementation work in the sector.
|
Return to Contents
How can the sustainability and research programmes and institutions in developing countries be improved?
There is consensus within the group on the need to improve both the quality and quantity of research work in the developing world. A number of factors have contributed to the present unsatisfactory situation.
In the first place, research and research institutions have a low status in most developing countries. The value of research is not generally understood, and competing pressures for scarce resources push research well down the list of priorities. Much research activity centres on academic institutions, which themselves do not enjoy high status and adequate financial support. Morale is therefore low in the research community.
There is no easy or quick fix for this, but a number of actions can help to address the problem:
|
~..
|
the most fundamental need is to raise the status and profile of research and researchers. This is of course true of developed and developing countries alike, and has already been touched upon in relation to the need to publicise and disseminate. Only by engaging the interest of decision-makers will the research community be able to mobilise adequate resources;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
co-operation between institutions is a powerful tool. It helps to ensure the relevance and quality of the work, and it lends mutual support in mobilising resources. It also builds in a degree of flexibility and resilience which helps to overcome constraints as they arise;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
dialogue to ensure the relevance of programmes has already been mentioned, and should be made as wide as possible. It is not sufficient for researchers to exchange ideas. Government departments, other professionals, user communities, and funding agencies should all be included;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
a clear statement of strategy and objectives should be evolved by means of such consultation, with the aim of encouraging a feeling of ownership on the part of the various groups mentioned above;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
joint funding of programmes and projects is to be encouraged, for the same reason;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
research institutions need to develop, and funding sources have an important role to play in facilitating this proces; and
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
although some competition is healthy, there is too much duplication of effort. Again, funding agencies have a role to play here, in collaborating to eliminate or reduce such wastage.
|
Return to Contents
How can the prestige of developing country research institutions be raised?
The previous section of this chapter has already dealt with some aspects of this problem. In particular, co-operation has been identified as extremely important, since other benefits flow from such an arrangement. Adequate funding, proper status, and access to the international scientific community are all enhanced by this means.
Such co-operation may be achieved:
|
~..
|
by joint research between a developing country centre and an acknowledged centre of excellence in the developed world. This may take the form of a link or a 'twinning' arrangement, as well as joint project work;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
by becoming a collaborating centre in one of the international groupings (of WHO or IDRC for example); and
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
through networking arrangements such as those operated by GARNET.
|
In addition, joint funding arrangements between a number of funding agencies can sometimes provide the necessary incentive to improve the performance of an institution, and hence its prestige.
Return to Contents
How much should be invested in research within a programme or project budget?
This is a very difficult question to answer in quantified terms with respect to a specific programme. Much depends upon the nature of that programme. Some will have greater unknowns which need to be addressed through research, and some will by their nature also lend themselves to research activities.
Instead, perhaps the aspect which should be addressed is rather the overall level of research work which is relevant to an activity such as the W.S.&S. sector. Various figures have been suggested as the desirable amount for a nation or a company to devote to research. As a percentage of GNP or turnover, the figure of 5% seems to be the average. Funding services could usefully take this as indicative, and hence compare their own performance either overall or within the W.S.&S. sector. This comparison should not be restricted only to donor governments. Private companies involved in the sector, national governments, line ministries and sector authorities should all assess their current performance.
However, such figures are of limited use in themselves and need also to be related to the effectiveness of the total expenditure, as well as the research.
To assist in this:
|
~..
|
funding Sources should collect and publicise research statistics, including details of the spending arrangements, in order to assist assessment of the effectiveness of the research; and
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
work should be carried out to determine whether research findings are being utilised, and how they might be made more effective.
|
What should be the key funding mechanisms?
Clearly, those who are investing most heavily in the W.S.&S. sector have most to gain from good applied research. However, this does not mean that donor agencies should be seen as the sole source of such finance.
As indicated in the previous section, national governments, line ministries, water authorities and the water industry itself should all regard themselves as beneficiaries of research, and should therefore contribute to it. For example, the tariff policies of an authority should allow for an appropriate contribution to be made to a research programme. Only in this way can genuine sustainability be ensured.
The process of investment of such funds could be enhanced by several means. For example, the Collaborative Council itself, via its contacts in the developing world and the external support agencies, might act as a broker to arrange joint-funding. Again, the project implementation process itself could provide funds for research - such an approach has already been mentioned in paragraph 2.2, but is also relevant here.
Return to Contents
Summary
There are clearly a large number of factors which dictate the funding of research activities. A number of actions can influence this, and the most important may be the need to:
|
~..
|
explain the role and potential of research;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
ensure that research is relevant to users;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
enhance the status of research, particularly in the developing world;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
disseminate results more widely; and
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
strengthen the linkage between research and implementation.
|
Return to Contents
Maintained by f.o.odhiambo@lboro.ac.uk and j.fisher1@lboro.ac.uk
|