Read on Twitter
I've been noticing something on Twitter that my brain has been mulling over so here's a (personal view) long weekend thread on "funders".
Lots of tweets and discussions use the word "funders". Seems neutral in itself but in context: "funders should..." "funders need to...." "take note funders....". I detect both othering and generalisation.
As in.... funders are outside of research rather being part of research, and funders act in a single way, and as single entities, rather than being (like all organisations) a collection of real people!
I don't think this is unexpected (and expect that there is research on this) but it is probably worth noting because it might help reimagine the relationship with funders.
Why is this othering and generalisation important? Because it reduces the strength of the potential relationship. If funders are "over there machines" then it's more difficult to work together and enact change.
I see this play out when someone spots a problem or issue. A generalised statement is thrown out to or about funders on twitter: XYZ is bad/stupid/ridiculous. They shouldn't. They must. A criticism. And a public one.
Now before you panic that I want to ban criticisms. I do not. Exploring issues & problems is a great way of improving things. Feedback is great. However, blanket statements and generalised criticisms can shut down debate. Remember my earlier point about being real people.
If you've made a mistake or created unintentional consequences do you respond better to a question or an accusation? What opens up dialogue more? "Did you know the closing date is in half-term, can it be moved?" or "funders always make it so difficult for parents, this is awful"?
Ask questions, explain why you are asking questions. Give the context. Open up the debate. Be willing to challenge, but presume good intentions and remember you are talking to real people. Don't put people on the back foot, needing to defend.
Oh and don't escalate to the top as a first step.... it will get cascaded back down to the person who runs the scheme/policy (if you still have issues after that step then ask for it to be escalated or put in a complaint).
But please ask & raise issues. Personally, I want to know if something is unclear, if the policy/process creates difficulties/if we've diverged from best practise/that typo on pg76/that we could be doing something positive by changing X.
I might not be able to change everything but it is good to understand what the issue is (future reference) and I'll explain if something can't be / shouldn't be changed, or can't be changed yet, and why.
A 2nd issue with othering & generalisation is accidentally excluding useful voices from your important issues. If you've a group/network/meeting on discipline specific or cross cutting issues e.g. OA, EDI, interD... but it excludes funding-peeps then influence & input is lost.
So how do you involve "funders". Remember my earlier point about being real people. Ask individuals along. Not only the visible leadership teams - who oten receive requests - but other staff too. Find those with a professional interest in the topic. Ask.
People can't always say yes. Personally, in my role, I find it easier to say yes if it involves multiple HEIs or businesses (I can't individually visit every one) & if it aligns with my other interests (gender equality, diversity & inclusion, LGBTQ+, peer review best practise...)
Write about it, send links/blogs. Highlight stuff. If you think "funders should" but you aren't engaging with funders then the message won't be as loud or clear. Join funder's committees/events. Respond to consultations. Yes this is a vice-versa challenge to fellow-funding folk.
But if you take that opportunity bring others along with you. If you have the experience & confidence to talk to/work with/invite funders then bring others, especially those from under-represented groups, with you. Nominate colleagues for/ invite to discussions etc.. Please.
But this is just my view. Remember my earlier point about being real people!
Come say hello - oh and be about the postive feedback too. It can be hard being on the constant receiving end of grumbles.
Come say hello - oh and be about the postive feedback too. It can be hard being on the constant receiving end of grumbles.
Footnote: a similar situation is seen with research administrators which has added complications of "snobbery". In my short move from funding to uni research admin the equality of relationship between myself & researchers (esp. those who didn't know me previously) changed again.
Include research offices/facilitators/administrators too - engage this frequently undervalued expertise, insight and influence.
Have a lovely weekend.
~fin~
~fin~
