Abstract
Objectives Funding committees, comprising members with a range of knowledge, skills, and experience, are considered integral to the decision-making process of funding organisations for recommending or allocating research funding. However, there is limited research investigating the decision-making processes, the role of members and their social interactions during funding committee meetings conducted both virtually and face-to-face.
Methods Using a mixed-methods design and following netnography principles, the study observed nine National Institute for Health and Care Research programmes funding committee meetings conducted virtually during October 2020 to December 2021; complemented by interviews with committee chairs and members (18 interviews) and NIHR staff (12 interviews); an online survey (50 responses); and documentary analysis. Personal reflections through immersive journals also formed part of the analysis.
Results Three main themes were identified from the observations, interviews, and online survey: efficiency of virtual committee meetings (importance of preparation, and the role of formality, process, and structure); understanding the effect of virtual committee meetings on well-being (effects of fatigue and apprehension, and the importance of work life balance); and, understanding social interactions and engagement (levels of engagement, contribution and inclusivity, awareness of unconscious bias and the value of social networking).
Conclusions Examining the decision-making practices of one funding organisation across several research programmes, across multiple committee meetings over one year has generated new insights around funding committee practices that previous studies have not been able to explore or investigate. Overall, it was observed that fair and transparent funding recommendations and outcomes can be achieved through virtual funding committees. However, whilst virtual funding committees have many benefits and opportunities, such as the potential to increase membership diversity and inclusivity, and be more environmentally sustainable, more evidence is needed to evaluate their effectiveness, with particular focus on issues of fatigue, engagement, and committee cohesion, especially when new committee members join.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the University of Southampton, Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee (ID 57541).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
In line with our ethical approval, the interview, survey, and observational data cannot be shared publicly to maintain confidentiality of our participants. The interview, survey and observational guides are provided in the Supporting Information files. Additional quotes under each theme are available from the Insight team, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton (contact via insightteam{at}nihr.ac.uk or corresponding author: A.J.Blatch-Jones@southampton.ac.uk) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to the data.
Abbreviations
- AI
- Artificial Intelligence
- COI
- Conflict of Interest
- COVID-19
- Coronavirus Disease 2019
- DCM
- Designated Committee Member/s
- EME
- Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation
- ES
- Evidence Synthesis
- GHR
- Global Health Research
- HSCDS
- Health and Social Care Delivery Service
- HSDR
- Health Service and Delivery Research
- HTA
- Health Technology Assessment
- NIH
- National Institutes of Health
- NIHR
- National Institute for Health and Care Research
- NIHRCC
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Coordinating Centre
- P1
- Survey written quotations
- P2
- Interview verbal quotations
- P3
- Observation verbal quotations
- PGfAR
- Programme Grants for Applied Research
- PHR
- Public Health Research
- PIS
- Participant Information Sheet
- PPIE
- Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement
- RfPB
- Research for Patient Benefit