Grant Review (2)
----------------
Ronald E. LaPorte has raised several issues in his posting on the
"Global Review of Health Grants on the Net".
One is the area of electronic publishing. We at Bellanet (host site for
INFODEV-L) are looking at this area closely. The electronic venue will
undoubtedly emerge as a major place to put and to get peer reviewed/
validated literature. It has the potential of opening up south-to-south
and south-to-all diffusion of research results from the south, as well
as strengthening the south's access to northern research. This raises
issues about ownership, equity and the uses of knowledge. The promise
and the risks are too great not to put serious effort into exploring
the issues surrounding the diffusion of validated research results via
this electronic venue.
A second area, and one where the infoDev Program has shown leadership,
is in the posting of grant proposals, not just funded grants. Proposals
submitted to infoDev are posted at:
http://www.bellanet.org/partners/infodev/
when they are received and independent of whether they will be funded
by infoDev.
In Canada there has been discussion around doing the same for Medical
Research Council grants, but no moves in that direction.
The advantage, of course, is more transparency in terms of those at
risk of benefit or loss as a result of the project, as well as a better
definition of the project through collaborative networking and
peer/stakeholder input into the project.
Ron LaPorte, has gone further and suggested an online review process. I
understand this suggestion to be more than just the reviewers using
this venue for their work - already a common practice for some publica-
tions. If I understand it correctly the suggestion is for some sort of
public evaluation. This is an interesting if problematic idea.
I would suggest, for starters, that the Bellanet idea behind posting
project proposal and project pipeline information is a partial alterna-
tive to the public evaluation. Our idea is that stakeholders will en-
gage the policy and project formation process and help shape good proj-
ects, and warn against bad projects.
This doesn't deal with problems that can arise in the judging process
however. As one of those who have had project after project turned down
by peer review committees who had no expertise in dealing with this
ICT-enabled electronic venue, and no understanding of its role as a
work venue and social process arena, I share concerns about the ade-
quacy of the peer-review process. As a Canadian who has just watch what
looks to be pre-arranged block voting by judges in the pairs figure
skating at the Olympics I am doubly aware of the problems with judging
processes.
However, I personal opinion is that I would rather work at improving
the policy stage which produces the terms of reference in the requests
for proposal, improving the proposal development stage, and improving
the evaluation process. In the end I would rather have some group that
is both informed by and constrained by policy as the decision making
body, than to run the risks of decisions based on a wisp-of-the-moment
popularity contest. At least, in the former one has some ideas of what
to do when the process goes badly. In the later the only alternatives
seem to be either to migrate to another planet or be re-born in another
time. Unfortunately, even the virtual ends up having to do with what we
do in the here and now.
Sam Lanfranco
mailto:lanfran@bellanet.org
--
Send mail for the `AFRO-NETS' conference to `afro-nets@usa.healthnet.org'.
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: `owner-afro-nets@usa.healthnet.org'.