Humanities research is underfunded, and the institutional sources and intellectual effects of this underfunding are insufficiently appreciated. The paper gives an example of the negative effects of a humanities discipline’s lack of research infrastructure on scholarly work. Section 2 describes the main categories through which research funds arrive on U.S. campuses. Section 3 describes the disproportions between Science & Engineering (S&E or “STEM”) funding and funding for social and cultural disciplines. Section 4 discussions the “institutional funds” that universities use to cover research costs from their own pockets. Section 5 shows that universities do not use their institutional funds to compensate for inequities in humanities funding but to perpetuate them. Section 6 claims that the current state of humanities funding abridges academic freedom and calls on humanities administrative personnel to lead a national campaign to rectify the current situation. Misconceptions about humanities research and its funding must be openly acknowledged and addressed so that it can come to have public effects that reflect its actual intellectual achievements.

This article highlights the importance of European scientists, particularly in the social sciences and humanities, in shaping global research policies through active advocacy in science policy. The European Union (EU) is a significant transnational research funder, largely through its multiannual Framework Programmes, such as Horizon Europe (2020–2027), which support collaboration between researchers worldwide. This funding drives innovation and societal benefit, influencing global standards on topics like sustainability, cultural heritage, and data protection. The EU’s openness to consultation makes it unique compared to countries like the United States and China, where funding decisions are decided top-down by governments and policymakers. Thus, European humanities and social science researchers have a unique opportunity to shape the political research agenda. To strengthen this advocacy, three practical steps await researchers: (1) understand national research narratives, (2) ensure research impacts policymaking, and (3) support international research organisations.

Usage data on research outputs such as books and journals is well established in the scholarly community. Yet, as research impact is derived from a broader set of scholarly outputs, such as data, code, and multimedia, more holistic usage and impact metrics could inform national innovation and research policy. While usage data reporting standards, such as Project COUNTER, provide the basis for shared statistics reporting practice, mandated access to publicly funded research has increased the demand for impact metrics and analytics. In this context, stakeholders are exploring how to scaffold and strengthen shared infrastructure to better support the trusted, multistakeholder exchange of usage data across a variety of outputs. In April 2023, a workshop on Exploring National Infrastructure for Public Access and Impact Reporting supported by the United States (US) National Science Foundation (NSF) explored these issues. This paper contextualizes the resources shared and recommendations generated in the workshop.

The “la Caixa” Foundation has been experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted decision-making geared toward alleviating the administrative burden associated with the evaluation pipeline of its flagship funding program, piloting an algorithm to detect immature project proposals before they reach the peer review stage, and suggest their removal from the selection process to a human overseer. In this article, we explore existing uses of AI by publishers and research funding organizations to automate their selection pipelines, in addition to analyzing the conditions under which the focal case corresponds to a responsible use of AI and the extent to which these conditions are met by the current implementation, highlighting challenges and areas of improvement.

Since 1997 ageing research in the United Kingdom (UK) has been promoted through a series of research council special programmes with an emphasis on multi-disciplinary, collaborative, user-focused research. There has been notable progress and substantial setbacks, especially a major lull in activity, and strong disciplinary biases in later programmes. Skills, expertise and influence on policy and practice, developed through early programmes, have been lost. Two philosophies of programme management have emerged: a top-down approach to the development of priorities and activities, largely reflecting a linear model of research, development and diffusion; and, a bottom-up approach strongly influenced by the priorities of users including older people, which has emphasised the role of problem-solving and social interaction between researchers and users. A comparison of these two philosophies highlights factors which contribute to successful programme implementation and valuable outcomes for society at large. These emphasise: involvement of all potential users; encouragement of champions; supporting researchers at all stages in their careers; transparency in communicating intent, progress and achievements; varied and robust knowledge transfer; and, above all else, understanding the challenges faced by individuals as they grow older. Future programmes would be assured of making significant contributions to supporting older people and an ageing society if those commissioning the programmes recognised the importance of these factors and accepted the consequent challenges for the organisation of the programmes.

The assessments of research in social gerontology in Quebec are already numerous. The need to continue to reflect on one's work is a sign of the uncertainty amongst Quebec researchers in social gerontology. Although research activities have been multiple in the past years and research in social gerontology has a few of the characteristics of an institutionalized scientific activity, the experience of research centres in gerontology has not always been a happy one; researchers have no definite place of work and scientific publications hardly get out of Quebec. Nevertheless, numerous works should be entitled to a Canadian and international circulation, and this exposure to the international trends of research in social gerontology would in turn profit Quebec researchers. Moreover, research in social gerontology is too exclusively concentrated in the field of social psychology, while the almost ideological rejection of quantitative methods appears largely unjustified. It is imperative that social research in gerontology in Quebec be diversified, but it is also important that researchers group together around research themes and that these groups be given adequate financial assistance by the funding agencies.

In the United States (US), Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs) are in rapid evolution. As in the United Kingdom (UK), within the last decade there has been widespread recognition that primary care is the ‘undiscovered country’ of health care, and that research in primary care is important and worthy of support.

Multidisciplinary approaches are being attempted by agricultural research units along with their traditional single discipline approaches. Although single discipline research will still be needed, multidisciplinary approaches present special advantages.

The potential value of multidisciplinary approaches to sustainable agriculture research will be viewed differently by researchers with different perspectives. The participants in this symposium, all of whom were experienced sustainable agriculture researchers, identified five areas as keys for success. First, to capitalize fully on the opportunities it provides, there must be a justification for using a multidisciplinary approach for the specific research topic; while some projects work best with a multidisciplinary approach, others are best done within a single discipline. Second, everyone involved, including administrators, must invest time and money to establish communication between the disciplines. Third, careful attention must be given to forming and operating multidisciplinary teams effectively so that they generate shared benefits. Fourth, new sources of research funds will become available as agencies adopt multidisciplinary approaches, and revised systems will be required to administer those funds at the university or research unit level. Finally, major adjustments in the present systems for promotion, tenure and publication are necessary to properly measure and distribute credit.

General aspects of research funding in the biomedical sciences are briefly discussed and some specific issues of policy considered, as they relate particularly to the Health Research Board's Unit strategy. The origins, objectives and workings of the Board's Schizophrenia Research Unit are elaborated, in relation to contemporary perspectives of this illness as a neuro-developmental disorder, and the extent of progress made over it's first year of operation is outlined. It is argued that the ‘neurodevelopmental hypothesis’ now has substantial foundations; it provides an important conceptual focus, both for the field in general and for the Health Research Board's Schizophrenia Research Unit in particular.