Recently in Research finance Category

It would be pi-in-the-sky for a researcher to expect that they could spend research money as through it were their own. Regulation and accountability are necessary and there must be a full audit trail for all research expenditure. As research, in a sense, is about daring to make mistakes and learning from them, mistakes can and will be made with expenditure too. Research money can easily be spent too hastily or without sufficient consideration. This is why a researcher must be entrusted with spending decisions and must be fully answerable for all decisions made. The track record of a research leader should testify to their batting average in the use of precious research funds. Those who fund research do not seek perfection in expenditure decisions any more than in other aspects of research. Research funders are seeking value for their research investment.

Research finance procedures, like all procedures, are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. The finance procedures must not block the research: this is fundamental. There are many aspects to this, but here I would like to focus on just one: what does a researcher who already has funds to engage in research need in order to get-on with the financial aspects of the research?

Suppose a good university-based researcher has modest funds that have been earned through carrying out research for clients, who have paid an agreed price for what was delivered, and all costs and overheads have been met. These funds are now available to the researcher to engage in further research at the researcher's discretion. In this restricted case, where it is presumed and accepted that the researcher has full discretion as to how the available funds should be used to further the legitimate research objectives of the researcher, what does the researcher need as a minimum from the finance system of the university?