Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Mar 28;4(3):e004462.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004462.

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers

Danielle L Herbert  1 , John Coveney, Philip Clarke, Nicholas Graves, Adrian G Barnett
Affiliations

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers

Danielle L Herbert et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: To examine the impact of applying for funding on personal workloads, stress and family relationships.

Design: Qualitative study of researchers preparing grant proposals.

Setting: Web-based survey on applying for the annual National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant scheme.

Participants: Australian researchers (n=215).

Results: Almost all agreed that preparing their proposals always took top priority over other work (97%) and personal (87%) commitments. Almost all researchers agreed that they became stressed by the workload (93%) and restricted their holidays during the grant writing season (88%). Most researchers agreed that they submitted proposals because chance is involved in being successful (75%), due to performance requirements at their institution (60%) and pressure from their colleagues to submit proposals (53%). Almost all researchers supported changes to the current processes to submit proposals (95%) and peer review (90%). Most researchers (59%) provided extensive comments on the impact of writing proposals on their work life and home life. Six major work life themes were: (1) top priority; (2) career development; (3) stress at work; (4) benefits at work; (5) time spent at work and (6) pressure from colleagues. Six major home life themes were: (1) restricting family holidays; (2) time spent on work at home; (3) impact on children; (4) stress at home; (5) impact on family and friends and (6) impact on partner. Additional impacts on the mental health and well-being of researchers were identified.

Conclusions: The process of preparing grant proposals for a single annual deadline is stressful, time consuming and conflicts with family responsibilities. The timing of the funding cycle could be shifted to minimise applicant burden, give Australian researchers more time to work on actual research and to be with their families.

Keywords: Medical Education & Training; Mental Health; Public Health; Qualitative Research.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Bonetta L. Enhancing NIH grant peer review: a broader perspective. Cell 2008;135:201–4 - PubMed
    1. Van Noorden R, Brumfiel G. Fixing a grant system in crisis. Nature 2010;464:474–5 - PubMed
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Designing for the future: the new open suite of programs and peer review process. Ontario: CIHR, 2013. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/or_des_for_future-en.pdf
    1. Guthrie S, Guerin B, Wu H, et al. Alternatives to peer review in research project funding. RAND Europe. 2013. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR139.html
    1. Australian Government Strategic review of health and medical research in Australia: better health through research. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2013. http://www.mckeonreview.org.au

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources