Aligned Research Funding 2015/16

  • Cape Kidnappers
  • Zealandia from the air. Image - Rob Suisted

Each year the 17 Challenge Parties provide information on research within their organisation that they identify as aligned to the intent of the Biological Heritage NSC. The 2015/16 data is the first years’ worth, and it has now been collated and some preliminary analysis undertaken using the data visualisation skills of Chris McDowall.

The draft visualisations generated a lot of interest when they were shared at a recent Challenge Parties meeting, and we will be drilling deeper into the information (and in turn the 2016/17 data which is now in the process of being collected). The data provides a previously unseen insight into the broad array of work undertaken in the Biological Heritage sphere, and we hope that collectively we can use this information to further collaborations, identify synergies and research gaps and opportunities, to gain the ‘additionality’ that the National Science Challenges are mandated to deliver.

Aligned Funding 'Tree' 2015/16

Figure 1. Aligned Funding 'Tree' 2015/16 (click to enlarge)

Aligned Funding Flows 2015/16

Figure 2. Aligned Funding Flows 2015/16 (click to enlarge)

A note to organisations – the collated numbers above will not exactly reflect the $ figures each individual organisation returned. This is because some organisations operate on calendar years, whilst other works July-June, so some standardisation of figures has been applied. In addition, the combined cross party numbers include work that would be double counting e.g. subcontracts between organisations being reported by both, and research funded by the likes of MPI or DOC, being reported by both the funder and the organisations doing the research. To avoid double counting in this analysis we have applied a simple filter to only count the $ under the lead research, or funding organisation e.g. if Otago University reported some work funded by DOC, we excluded that from the UoO figures on the basis it should be included within the DOC return; if Scion reported a subcontract from Landcare, the Scion $ were excluded as they were expected to be captured under the Landcare return.

Thank you to the Challenge Parties for gathering this information, as we collate more data and undertake additional analysis we will share the results with you.

Why get involved with the Challenge?

Reasons for aligning with the challenge at an institutional and individual level including: collaboration, integration across disciplines, public…