Table 3 Responses to four questions concerning the random allocation of funding
From: The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants
Question number and text | Yes | Unsure | No | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Q1. Was the format and length of the Explorer Grant application adequate for you to communicate the novelty and transformative nature of the proposal? | 115 (91%) | 6 (5%) | 5 (4%) | |
Q2. Do you think the randomisation process is an acceptable method of allocating Explorer Grant funds? | 79 (63%) | 15 (12%) | 32 (25%) | |
Q3. Do you think a randomisation process would be an acceptable method for the allocation of funding for other grant types? | 50 (40%) | 30 (24%) | 46 (37%) | |
Q6. Did the knowledge that funding could be randomly allocated affect how you approached and/or wrote your Explorer Grant application? | 31 (25%) | 8 (6%) | 87 (69%) | |
Q7. The identities of applicants are anonymous to the assessors. Do you think this is an acceptable approach for Explorer Grant assessment? | 112 (89%) | 12 (10%) | 2 (2%) | |
| Â | Less time | No difference | More time | Unsure |
Q5. Did the knowledge that funding could be randomly allocated affect the amount of time you spent preparing your application? | 20 (16%) | 94 (75%) | 6 (5%) | 6 (5%) |