The practicalities of a partial lottery to allocate research funding

Abstract

Abstract This article explores the practical dimension of organizing a partial lottery as an alternative funding allocation mechanism in academic institutions. Following an assessment of the recent literature that presents criticism of traditional ranking-based system derived from academic peer assessment and the need for improved decision-making procedures in research funding, we highlight four key arguments for organizing a partial lottery: improved decision quality (more fair, transparent, and divers), an alternative to ranking-based selection, prevention of questionable research practices, and increased efficiency. Based on our observations from a lottery-based ‘seed money call’ at Tilburg University, we provide insights into the organization and implementation of a lottery procedure, including the criteria for proposal eligibility, the administrative process, and the weighting mechanism based on budget categories. We furthermore share six lessons we learned that might be useful for future implementation in other institutional contexts, emphasizing the need for transparency, external supervision, and pre-registration of the lottery procedure to ensure trust and minimize gaming. As such, we not only contribute to the ongoing conceptual discussion about improving funding allocation mechanisms in academia. Our article also offers an account of how partial lotteries could be put into practice.