Canopy Arts
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Clients
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Contact

Arts Blog

A Peer Funding Model For The Arts?

3/18/2014

0 Comments

 
The Conversation, posted 14 January 2014
A recent paper by five mathematical computer scientists at Indiana University (published in EMBO Reports, a forum for short papers in molecular biology) proposes a clever new model for science funding that makes use of collective allocation (peer-funding) rather than expert-panel-and-peer-review funding mechanisms. I want to consider whether this might also work for arts and cultural funding.
   Public science and research funding in Australia, as in most of the world, is based on a process that has remained largely unchanged for 60 years. This begins with calls for submissions of reasonably detailed project proposals. These then pass through expert panels (e.g. the Australian Research Council) and then on to the peer review process in which carefully selected “peers” evaluate the proposals and write detailed reports, before passing these back to the panels for final judgement. The high-level of process and accountability makes this the gold standard for taxpayer-sourced public funding of research (philanthropic trust funding often mirrors this architecture).
   But it is expensive to run, and onerous to all involved. Perhaps one in ten projects proposed will be funded. The amounts of time and effort invested by all those seeking funding will tend toward the expected value of the grants, meaning that once overhead costs to panels and reviewers are added in, these function to a considerable degree as a redistribution mechanism. Rob Brooks wrote about this on The Conversation last year.
   The new model the computer scientists propose bypasses this expert-panel-and-peer-review system altogether by simply taking the whole public lump of funding, and allocating it unconditionally (yes, unconditionally) to all “eligible” scientific researchers. It would thus function like a kind of “basic income”.
   They calculate that if the National Science Foundation budget in the US were divided among all who applied for funding, it would deliver about US$100,000 per scientist. The problem with this, apart from an expected blowout in the number of people who claim to be scientists, is that we’ve just lost oversight, accountability and peer review.
   So here’s what the computer scientists propose: everyone who receives funding gives some fraction (say 50% of their previous year’s funding) to other scientists whose work they like or think particularly interesting and valuable. That fraction can be distributed among one or many. The idea is that this works as a collective-allocation mechanism that basically crowd-sources peer review, and with the added advantage that it funds people, not projects. It also gets the incentives right for scientists to concentrate on clear communication of their findings and the value of research.
READ MORE   
Jason Potts, Professor of Economics at RMIT University
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Welcome to
    Canopy Arts Desk
    Picture
    Tammy Hampel (Isaacson)
    News and information about Arts and Culture, Arts Administration, Communications, Development and Non-profit Management

    Archives

    January 2019
    February 2018
    January 2017
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    June 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013

    Categories

    All
    Advocacy
    Art Galleries
    Artists
    Arts Education
    Arts Summit
    Audiences
    Boards
    Charities
    Contests
    Cultural Industries
    Cultural Tourism
    Digital
    Distribution
    Festivals
    Funding
    Fundraising
    Heritage
    Jobs
    Management
    Museums
    Music
    Nonprofits
    Pauline Johnson
    Photography
    Poetry
    Poll
    Public Art
    Publicity
    Research
    Social Media
    Summit
    Sustainability
    Theatre
    Venues
    Workshops

    RSS Feed

    View my profile on LinkedIn
cc Canopy Arts 2015
Website Design and Maintenance by Tammy Hampel (Isaacson)
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Clients
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Contact