IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/vbdtp.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is the sandpit methodology a solution for disparities in research funding? Considerations regarding inclusion, diversity, equity, and access

Author

Listed:
  • Tibboel, Helen

    (Ghent University)

  • Pijpers, Kevin
  • de Bruin, Gwen
  • Denktas, Semiha

Abstract

The distribution of research funding in academia is not equitable. There is a disproportionate allocation of funding benefitting an academic elite, whereas researchers from different marginalized groups have fewer opportunities to obtain funding. This can be changed by exploring alternative ways to allocate research funding. One way in which funding agencies have tried to stimulate research based on more equitable principles is the sandpit model. A sandpit is an intensive, multi-day brainstorming event during which different consortia are formed. These consortia are subsequently required to compete to obtain research funding. Very little research is done on how and whether such models work. There is some evidence that, under the right circumstances, models such as the sandpit can stimulate multidisciplinary research with societal impact. However, no attention has been given to the question whether these models contribute to equity within the academic world, or whether they sustain the inequities that are prominent. Within this paper, we critically examine possible mechanisms of exclusion through an in-depth study of a sandpit event, and we discuss which groups are disadvantaged by these events. Furthermore, we suggest ways in which sandpits and other funding initiatives can be made more equitable.

Suggested Citation

  • Tibboel, Helen & Pijpers, Kevin & de Bruin, Gwen & Denktas, Semiha, 2024. "Is the sandpit methodology a solution for disparities in research funding? Considerations regarding inclusion, diversity, equity, and access," SocArXiv vbdtp, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:vbdtp
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/vbdtp
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/67166575d6ffd63a662ec610/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/vbdtp?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aimee Grant & Helen Kara, 2021. "Considering the Autistic advantage in qualitative research: the strengths of Autistic researchers," Contemporary Social Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(5), pages 589-603, December.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 226-238.
    3. Dounia Bourabain, 2021. "Everyday sexism and racism in the ivory tower: The experiences of early career researchers on the intersection of gender and ethnicity in the academic workplace," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 248-267, January.
    4. Qiang Zhi & Tianguang Meng, 2016. "Funding allocation, inequality, and scientific research output: an empirical study based on the life science sector of Natural Science Foundation of China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 603-628, February.
    5. Kate Maxwell & Paul Benneworth, 2018. "The construction of new scientific norms for solving Grand Challenges," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:4887-4890 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simisola Johnson, 2022. "Women deserve better: A discussion on COVID‐19 and the gendered organization in the new economy," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 639-649, March.
    2. Day, Theodore Eugene, 2015. "The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1266-1270.
    3. Krawczyk, Michał & Smyk, Magdalena, 2016. "Author׳s gender affects rating of academic articles: Evidence from an incentivized, deception-free laboratory experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 326-335.
    4. Michał Krawczyk & Magdalena Smyk, 2015. "Gender, beauty and support networks in academia: evidence from a field experiment," Working Papers 2015-43, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Marjolijn N. Wijnen & Jorg J. M. Massen & Mariska E. Kret, 2021. "Gender bias in the allocation of student grants," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5477-5488, July.
    6. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    7. Nakajima, Kazuki & Liu, Ruodan & Shudo, Kazuyuki & Masuda, Naoki, 2023. "Quantifying gender imbalance in East Asian academia: Research career and citation practice," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    8. Zhou Mo & Zhang Yujie & Lei Jiasu & Tan Xiaowen, 2022. "Early firm engagement, government research funding, and the privatization of public knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4797-4826, August.
    9. Tóth, Tamás & Demeter, Márton & Csuhai, Sándor & Major, Zsolt Balázs, 2024. "When career-boosting is on the line: Equity and inequality in grant evaluation, productivity, and the educational backgrounds of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions individual fellows in social sciences an," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    10. Harrison, Richard T., 2023. "W(h)ither entrepreneurship? Discipline, legitimacy and super-wicked problems on the road to nowhere," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    11. Chao Zhang & Jiancheng Guan, 2017. "How to identify metaknowledge trends and features in a certain research field? Evidences from innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1177-1197, November.
    12. Joonha Jeon & So Young Kim, 2018. "Is the gap widening among universities? On research output inequality and its measurement in the Korean higher education system," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 589-606, March.
    13. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    14. Magdalena Formanowicz & Marta Witkowska & Weronika Hryniszak & Zuzanna Jakubik & Aleksandra Cisłak, 2023. "Gender bias in special issues: evidence from a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2283-2299, April.
    15. Jordi Duch & Xiao Han T Zeng & Marta Sales-Pardo & Filippo Radicchi & Shayna Otis & Teresa K Woodruff & Luís A Nunes Amaral, 2012. "The Possible Role of Resource Requirements and Academic Career-Choice Risk on Gender Differences in Publication Rate and Impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Jianping Li & Yongjia Xie & Dengsheng Wu & Yuanping Chen, 2017. "Underestimating or overestimating the distribution inequality of research funding? The influence of funding sources and subdivision," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 55-74, July.
    17. Yin, Zhifeng & Liang, Zheng & Zhi, Qiang, 2018. "Does the concentration of scientific research funding in institutions promote knowledge output?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1146-1159.
    18. Kazuki Nakajima & Kazuyuki Shudo & Naoki Masuda, 2023. "Higher-order rich-club phenomenon in collaborative research grant networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2429-2446, April.
    19. Hüttel, Silke & Hess, Sebastian, 2023. "Lessons from the p-value debate and the replication crisis for "open Q science" – the editor's perspective or: will the revolution devour its children?," DARE Discussion Papers 2302, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    20. Hildrun Kretschmer & Theo Kretschmer, 2013. "Gender bias and explanation models for the phenomenon of women’s discriminations in research careers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(1), pages 25-36, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:vbdtp. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.