How do you compare structural engineering research funding?

1 Funding sources

One of the first aspects to consider when comparing structural engineering research funding is the source of the funding. There are typically three main types of funding sources: public, private, and mixed. Public funding comes from government agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the Department of Transportation (DOT) in the US, or the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) or the European Commission (EC) in the UK and Europe. Private funding comes from industry partners, such as construction companies, engineering firms, or foundations. Mixed funding involves a combination of public and private sources, often through collaborative or consortium arrangements. The source of the funding can affect the scope, duration, and objectives of the research project, as well as the level of accountability and reporting required.

2 Funding levels

Another aspect to consider when comparing structural engineering research funding is the level of the funding. This refers to the amount of money allocated to a specific research project or program, usually expressed in terms of dollars or euros. Funding levels can vary widely depending on the size, complexity, and novelty of the research problem, as well as the availability and competitiveness of the funding source. For example, a large-scale, multi-year, and interdisciplinary research project on seismic resilience of bridges may require more funding than a small-scale, short-term, and focused research project on concrete durability. However, funding levels are not always indicative of the quality or impact of the research, as some research problems may be more cost-effective or efficient than others.

3 Funding metrics

When comparing structural engineering research funding, metrics used to measure and evaluate the funding should also be considered. For example, funding per researcher can indicate the level of resources and support available to each researcher, as well as the productivity and efficiency of the research team. Alternatively, funding per publication can indicate the level of output and dissemination of the research results, as well as the quality and relevance of the research publications. Additionally, funding per citation can provide insight into the level of impact and recognition of the research results, as well as the influence and reputation of the research publications.

4 Funding challenges

When comparing structural engineering research funding, there are several challenges that can affect the validity and reliability of the comparison. Data availability and accuracy may be limited, especially for private or mixed funding sources, and data comparability and compatibility may be impacted by different currency exchange rates, inflation rates, purchasing power parity, or cost of living indices. Additionally, data interpretation and analysis may be subject to different biases, assumptions, or perspectives. All of these factors can distort the value and meaning of the funding levels and metrics.

5 Funding strategies

When considering structural engineering research funding, there are several strategies and best practices to keep in mind. These include defining the purpose and scope of the comparison, using multiple and complementary data and metrics, and using normalized and standardized data and metrics. By clearly defining the purpose and scope of the comparison, it will help to focus on relevant and appropriate data and metrics. Additionally, it is important to use multiple data and metrics to capture the complexity of the landscape, as well as to cross-validate and triangulate the data. Lastly, normalized and standardized data and metrics should be used to adjust for differences in scale, size, or context of research projects, programs, or institutions.

6 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?