Research investment strategies:
Study of Accessibility and Transfer of Information from Foundation-Funded Research

Scope:

The Foundation commissioned this evaluation to help determine how to facilitate improved access to data and findings from the public good research that it funds. It was one stream of advice for developing access policy.

The evaluation considered research findings that were public good, and some that were industry good where the greatest public and industry benefit came from dissemination to multiple users. The evaluation was based on 4 case studies (Land Environment New Zealand LENZ; Wheat Calculator; Petroleum and Mineral Exploration research; Flood research) and general interviews of research providers and users.

Summary:

Accessibility

The providers of Foundation-funded research are making their results generally accessible within funding constraints, government policy guidelines. Foundation-funded databases are generally as accessible as can be expected in a constrained funding environment and where CRIs are able to charge for their products and services and have to show a return on equity over time.

The majority of data and information requests are provided without concern being raised. More useful information is now accessible to users from CRIs than would have been the case if no revenue had been gained and invested in database maintenance and development. The data and information now available through web-based tools has released a greater value than Foundation-funded data in primary form. This is a positive consequence of the CRI operating environment.

Institutional drivers

The evaluation found that while the CRI operating environment drove CRI practices, the barriers to access arose because of other issues, such as under-funding, multiple funding and lack of awareness of funding sources by users. These are sufficiently significant access issues for a good number of public and industry good users of Foundation-funded data and information, to justify specific solutions being suggested in the national interest. Underlying the access issues is the lack of a clear and consistent policy framework for nationally significant databases and other data collected in the course of Foundation funded programmes.

Under the current policy settings and where funding is constrained, CRIs are under pressure to charge users for their investment in data and its management for access, which works well enough most of the time, but can lead to delays in release of data, time-consuming negotiations, affordability, and IP rights issues where third party data is involved. These issues are raised regularly and are sufficiently significant for a good number of public good users to warrant attention.

There are multiple funding sources for data and information generated by providers. The source of the funding and thus the ownership of the data and information, determines whether and how data and information is made available and thus whether timing or cost becomes a barrier for the user.

Practices are consistent with current government policy guidelines and Foundation contract provisions. There is some variation across and within CRIs in terms of what is free and what is charged for. However, the public and user understanding of access to publicly funded research results do not equate with the government policies governing access.

There is also a lack of awareness on the part of users about the significant share of non-Foundation resources invested in the maintenance of these databases and the development of web-based interface tools that enable data to be accessed in primary form or as derived information.

Foundation funding levels have not kept pace with technology developments for the transfer of research results, nor for either NSDBs or other databases. The means of access envisaged in the FRST? contracts are publications, workshops, seminars and conferences and while useful, are not the primary ways users want to access research results. Users either want direct access to data or in the majority of cases derived products that can be accessed via the web tools that CRIs have developed at their own cost.

Barriers to accessibility

The following access barriers were identified:

• institutional drivers generating delays, affordability, time-consuming negotiations and IP issues
• multiple-funding and ownership of data and information
• funding levels - flat funding of programmes, NSDBs and other databases
• lack of awareness by users of what data is available and who owns it
• overnment policy inconsistency between promotion of oil and gas exploration and the drivers resulting from multiple funding of data.
• some sector specific barriers, in particular petroleum exploration and flood risk management uses.

This evaluation raises two critical questions:

• whether multiple funding for NSDBs, and the ensuing IP and charging issues, compromises the Foundation investment by constraining use to less than what it would have been with 100% Foundation funding;
• what is the “right” level of Foundation provision of NSDBs and is there some data collected as part of Foundation-funded programmes that should also be NSDBs?

The Foundation will need to clearly communicate what users can expect for free and what they will have to pay for. The issue of access to Foundation-funded databases should be resolved in the wider context of Government’s ongoing objectives for NSDBs (including the level of Foundaiton funding in their financing) which are currently unclear.

Draft Principles

Application of the draft Principles in Foundation contracts by itself will not address the access barriers to research data and information in the current policy settings. However they would ensure consistency between Foundation contract provisions and the Ministerial Operating Framework for CRIs. This would reduce any confusion over the primary objective of maximising access.

There is a fundamental tension in the system which comes as a combination of under-funding of some research programmes which produce data, the partial funding of NSDBs and the non-funding of maintenance and dissemination of non-NSDBs.

The evaluation concluded that other actions will need to be taken to address the accessibility issues identified.