Three issues are of special relevance in relation to this challenge: (a) inadequate core funding of the institute sector, (b) the relationship between short-term and long-term funding, and (3) the dominant role played by RCN in providing money for development research.
7.1.1 Inadequate core funding for the institute sector
While core funding is not an issue within university-based departments and centres, it is a concern for some, if not all, entities in the institute sector. It is a problem which, according to the opinion shared with the Committee, goes beyond single projects. More generous core funding is viewed as necessary for a congenial research environment in which quality can be combined with relevance in ways that enhance the contribution that the institutes can make to the field of development research. It would also be a step towards making the institutes more efficient in their operations. There were frequent complaints that too much time is spent on attracting short-term money to keep the institution operating. This pre- empts the opportunity to engage in more solid research that would help build capacity and improve quality.
7.1.2 Relationship between short-term and long-term funding
This issue is related to the first, but it cuts across the university and institute sectors. The opportunities for short-term funding seem to be many, especially through commissioned research, including evaluations, according to those interviewed. The complaint that was raised by some, however, implied that even money channelled through RCN was not sufficiently long-term in nature. Project funding is usually provided to support one or two doctoral candidates for a few years under the supervision of a more senior researcher, but there is not enough attention paid to promoting a research environment in which a critical mass of younger scholars can work in collaboration with senior mentors. Such a task would require a commitment to support a given institution for a period of 5-10 years.
7.1.3 The dominant role of RCN
Because RCN plays such a prominent role as the mechanism for channelling funds to the development research community, it is no surprise that many of the points raised with the Committee centred on its role. Several of these points will be revisited in other sub- sections. The main issue here concerns the views on the current arrangements for
allocating money through research competitions. No one disputes the value of competition, but there is a sense among several researchers that the current system does not work as it should. Some of this critique seems misplaced or misinformed, for instance, the view that an external reviewer is able to veto a particular project proposal. The programme board that decides on funding takes many more factors into consideration before approving particular projects. Such misperceptions notwithstanding, the complaint remains that the procedures for allocating money for research projects are not well understood.
7.1.4 The views of the Committee
Norwegian development research is quite generously funded in an international
perspective. The issue is rather whether the current arrangements cater well enough for its continued high quality capacity building. The planned, new performance-based funding arrangement for the institute sector may be a step in the right direction when it comes to establishing a better mix between short-term and long-term needs, but it is too early to make an assessment of its effects. Will it solidify the foundation for development research? Will it reward good performance? Will it affect institutional fragmentation? These are some of the key questions that the development research community and others concerned should try to find answers to in the next few years.
For several years now, RCN has channelled most of its funding for development research through multi-year programmes. These have been created in response to requests for priorities, partly by MFA and/or Norad and partly by the research community. They are sufficiently broad to cater to a broad constituency of development researchers. The issue is rather whether these programmes are too blunt as instruments for promoting the capacity for high quality development research. The Committee believes that there is merit in trying to differentiate the funding to provide opportunities to conduct research that does not necessarily fall within specific programmatic frameworks (including the existing FRIMUF programme) but may be innovative or excellent and thus worthy of funding. In short, more open calls for proposals would be preferable.
The Committee has no reason to support claims that RCN does not do its job fairly and properly when it comes to approving research grants. For instance, the rejection rate seems no higher than in other research competitions in Norway or elsewhere. It does, however, share the view expressed by the researchers that RCN could be more effective in sharing information about its procedures. At the same time, it rejects the idea that comments by
external reviewers should be shared with applicants before a decision about funding is taken. The integrity of the peer review process is too important to be tampered with.