兰德-A-review-of-the-Hong-Kong-Research-Grants-Council_185页_3mb

Summary of the Hong Kong Research Grants Council Review

Core Content

This report, conducted by RAND Europe on behalf of the University Grants Committee (UGC) of Hong Kong, provides an in-depth review of the Research Grants Council (RGC) to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement in its research funding processes and strategic direction. The review is part of a two-phase initiative aimed at streamlining operations and enhancing efficiency.

Main Findings

1. RGC as a Key Research Funder

• The RGC is Hong Kong’s primary research grant funder and has built a positive reputation.
• It has been instrumental in supporting the growth of research in Hong Kong over the past 25 years.
• Five of the eight UGC-funded universities are in the top-200 of the QS University Rankings, with two in the top-50.

2. Funding Structure and Allocation

• The RGC manages a variety of funding schemes, including the General Research Fund (GRF), Collaborative Research Fund (CRF), and Faculty Development Scheme (FDS).
• The majority of government research funding (more than half) is distributed by the RGC, with 80% being response mode funding, offering researchers full autonomy.
• The RGC also funds self-financing institutions, expanding its reach beyond the public sector.

3. Funding Metrics and Performance

• Grant metrics are now used as a measure of success, influencing the reward system for researchers and universities.
• The Research Endowment Fund (REF), established in 2009, provides a stable funding stream, but the amount is tied to interest earned, which can limit flexibility.

4. Strategic Decision-Making

• The RGC’s decision-making is devolved to panels, but the overall strategic aims of the organization are not well understood by the sector.
• Stakeholders identified several areas for future strategic consideration, such as enhancing social and economic impact and aligning with international best practices.

5. Grant Review and Allocation Processes

• The current processes are perceived as overly burdensome and could be streamlined.
• Transparency of the grant application and review process is a major concern for researchers, while panel members generally view it more positively.
• There is a need for greater engagement to improve the perceived transparency of the system.

6. Comparison with International Funding Bodies

• The RGC’s structure and processes were compared with those of eight international jurisdictions, including the UK, the US, China, South Korea, Singapore, New Zealand, Israel, and Denmark.
• These comparisons highlight opportunities for learning and improvement, particularly in terms of transparency, efficiency, and strategic alignment.

Key Themes

1. Achievements of RGC Grant Giving

• The RGC has played a crucial role in supporting academic research and has been well-regarded by the sector.
• It has contributed to the growth and international recognition of Hong Kong’s research community.

2. Processes of Grant Allocation and Review

• Stakeholders expressed concerns about the complexity and time-consuming nature of the current processes.
• There is a lack of consensus on the adequacy of the current funding levels and award durations.
• Transparency in the system is a significant issue, especially for researchers.

3. Role of RGC in Strategic Research Directions

• The RGC lacks a published strategy, which may lead to confusion about its strategic goals.
• Stakeholders suggested that the RGC should focus more on strategic research directions and social/economic impact.

4. Areas for Improvement

• The review process could be made more efficient and transparent.
• Greater stakeholder engagement is needed to improve the understanding and perception of the system.
• The RGC should consider adopting more transparent and competitive funding practices, similar to those in the UK and other countries.

Key Messages

1. The RGC is the main research funder in Hong Kong and has a positive reputation.
2. Funding levels and durations are a point of contention among stakeholders.
3. Transparency and efficiency of the grant review process are critical areas for improvement.
4. The RGC needs to better communicate its strategic aims and improve stakeholder understanding.

Conclusion

The RGC has been successful in fostering research in Hong Kong but faces challenges in terms of transparency, efficiency, and strategic alignment. The findings suggest that the RGC should streamline its processes, enhance communication with stakeholders, and consider adopting more transparent and competitive practices to better serve the research community and align with international standards.