17
Jul 2024
17Jul 2024 Europe
The Australian government hands out hundreds of millions per year in grants to businesses. We find much of it is wasted

Australia hands out the best part of A$1 billion per year in grants to businesses. Many of these come with no strings attached, meaning there is no need to evaluate whether the grants boost employment, help the recipients become more efficient, or benefit the nation.

To test what good these grants do, my team at the Institute of Public Accountants-Deakin University Small and Medium Enterprise Research Centre tracked the performance of the 141,800 firms that received a total of $4.2 billion in Commonwealth government grants in the five years from 2018 to 2022.

Our task was made easier by a requirement that from 2018 all grants from Commonwealth entities be published on the government’s GrantConnect website.

GrantConnect gave us information about each firm that received a grant, which we used to examine its finances and compare them to the finances of other firms of similar sizes in similar locations and industries.

The largest number of grants were to firms that specialised in innovation and R&D (9,086), especially in the manufacturing and professional, scientific and technical industries. Another 2,150 were for “business development” and 2,084 were aimed at “small business”.

As far as we know, ours is the first such study in Australia.

Multiple recipients performed poorly

We find many of the grants generated no significant improvements in the performance of the firms that received them. In some cases they might have harmed them.

The firms that received repeated grants (almost two-thirds of the total) exhibited lower than normal efficiency and productivity. This suggests Australia’s system of grants might be propping up and sustaining an entire cohort of
underperforming “subsidy businesses”.

This finding lends weight to predictions of global studies that have found receiving grants can lead to a “grant mentality” or “grant culture” within individual businesses.

These generally low-performing multiple grant recipients got $1.3 billion of the $4.2 billion total.

How grants are awarded matters

The average picture looked good. On average, the firms that received the grants boosted their employment, their business performance and their efficiency.

But the way in which the recipient was selected mattered a lot.

The firms that were simply awarded grants on the basis of being eligible rather than having to compete for them did badly. They suffered average declines in their returns on assets of 4.9% and declines in their turnover of 6.6%.

The overwhelming majority of grants (eight in ten) were awarded this way. Applicants merely had to meet eligibility criteria, without any assessment of their merits relative to other applicants or their obligations to taxpayers.

Older businesses gained more from grants than younger businesses. Recipients aged ten years and older increased their returns on assets by an average of 3.5% compared to startups, which increased their returns by an average of 2.7%.

For employment, things were the other way around. Startups recorded high average workforce gains of 5.1% compared to older firms, which recorded only 1.3%.

Opaque by design

We found it hard to assess the outcomes of grants against criteria because the Commonwealth seldom provides criteria with which to assess grant outcomes.

Nor, typically, does it provide comprehensive information on the purposes of individual grants.

This suggests a worrying lack of rigour in the government’s grant selection processes. There’s little to stop public funds going to companies that fail to convert taxpayer support into positive results for themselves or for the nation.

The Australian National Audit Office has also found a broad and systemic lack of transparency throughout most Commonwealth government grants programs, as we did in an earlier report on the process by which grants are awarded in February.

Our report found that while competitive selection was rare for every category of business grants, it was especially rare for business development grants, small business grants and industry innovation grants.

Small business grants awarded via ministerial discretion had higher average values than grants awarded via formal processes.

Ministers handed out about half-a-billion dollars without formal processes between 2018 and 2022.

While small tweaks to the existing system might help, our report recommends a complete overhaul to make the processes merit-based with clear criteria and benchmarks for success as well as evaluations of success after the event.

Importantly, our recommendations would be relatively costless, both for grant administrators and applicants.

Our investigations are not complete. Later this year we will publish our findings about grants to non-business community organisations.

The Conversation

George A. Tanewski, as Director of he IPA-Deakin SME Research Centre, receives funding from the Institute of Public Accountants.

17
Jul 2024
17Jul 2024 Europe
The Australian government hands out hundreds of millions per year in grants to businesses. We find much of it is wasted

Australia hands out the best part of A$1 billion per year in grants to businesses. Many of these come with no strings attached, meaning there is no need to evaluate whether the grants boost employment, help the recipients become more efficient, or benefit the nation.

To test what good these grants do, my team at the Institute of Public Accountants-Deakin University Small and Medium Enterprise Research Centre tracked the performance of the 141,800 firms that received a total of $4.2 billion in Commonwealth government grants in the five years from 2018 to 2022.

Our task was made easier by a requirement that from 2018 all grants from Commonwealth entities be published on the government’s GrantConnect website.

GrantConnect gave us information about each firm that received a grant, which we used to examine its finances and compare them to the finances of other firms of similar sizes in similar locations and industries.

The largest number of grants were to firms that specialised in innovation and R&D (9,086), especially in the manufacturing and professional, scientific and technical industries. Another 2,150 were for “business development” and 2,084 were aimed at “small business”.

As far as we know, ours is the first such study in Australia.

Multiple recipients performed poorly

We find many of the grants generated no significant improvements in the performance of the firms that received them. In some cases they might have harmed them.

The firms that received repeated grants (almost two-thirds of the total) exhibited lower than normal efficiency and productivity. This suggests Australia’s system of grants might be propping up and sustaining an entire cohort of
underperforming “subsidy businesses”.

This finding lends weight to predictions of global studies that have found receiving grants can lead to a “grant mentality” or “grant culture” within individual businesses.

These generally low-performing multiple grant recipients got $1.3 billion of the $4.2 billion total.

How grants are awarded matters

The average picture looked good. On average, the firms that received the grants boosted their employment, their business performance and their efficiency.

But the way in which the recipient was selected mattered a lot.

The firms that were simply awarded grants on the basis of being eligible rather than having to compete for them did badly. They suffered average declines in their returns on assets of 4.9% and declines in their turnover of 6.6%.

The overwhelming majority of grants (eight in ten) were awarded this way. Applicants merely had to meet eligibility criteria, without any assessment of their merits relative to other applicants or their obligations to taxpayers.

Older businesses gained more from grants than younger businesses. Recipients aged ten years and older increased their returns on assets by an average of 3.5% compared to startups, which increased their returns by an average of 2.7%.

For employment, things were the other way around. Startups recorded high average workforce gains of 5.1% compared to older firms, which recorded only 1.3%.

Opaque by design

We found it hard to assess the outcomes of grants against criteria because the Commonwealth seldom provides criteria with which to assess grant outcomes.

Nor, typically, does it provide comprehensive information on the purposes of individual grants.

This suggests a worrying lack of rigour in the government’s grant selection processes. There’s little to stop public funds going to companies that fail to convert taxpayer support into positive results for themselves or for the nation.

The Australian National Audit Office has also found a broad and systemic lack of transparency throughout most Commonwealth government grants programs, as we did in an earlier report on the process by which grants are awarded in February.

Our report found that while competitive selection was rare for every category of business grants, it was especially rare for business development grants, small business grants and industry innovation grants.

Small business grants awarded via ministerial discretion had higher average values than grants awarded via formal processes.

Ministers handed out about half-a-billion dollars without formal processes between 2018 and 2022.

While small tweaks to the existing system might help, our report recommends a complete overhaul to make the processes merit-based with clear criteria and benchmarks for success as well as evaluations of success after the event.

Importantly, our recommendations would be relatively costless, both for grant administrators and applicants.

Our investigations are not complete. Later this year we will publish our findings about grants to non-business community organisations.

The Conversation

George A. Tanewski, as Director of he IPA-Deakin SME Research Centre, receives funding from the Institute of Public Accountants.

7
May 2024
7May 2024 Europe
What if companies rewarded employees for their failures?
Des entreprises ont mis en place des trophées pour les meilleures idées qui ont échoué Shutterstock

A growing number of companies are encouraging their employees to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams in-house – a trend known as intrapreneurship. Some managers do this by providing workers with the financial, human and material resources required for innovation. For example, Google has long encouraged employees to devote 20% of their working hours to side projects unrelated to their daily jobs. Others firms unleash workplace creativity by clearly stating the types of innovations they’re after.

Encouraging measured risks

Another less obvious and yet potentially game-changing method consists in tolerating, if not celebrating, failure. It’s common sense that rewards can act as “carrots” to encourage intrapreneurship – a concept we associate with success. But what if failure were just as important?

To create an organisational culture that boosts innovative intrapreneurial process, tolerating failure can be a first step. This can encourage employees to be more confident and to take measured risks – provided that this tolerance is made explicit to employees.

It’s also about encouraging the idea that learning can come from failure. Every stumble can be transformed into an opportunity because it helps us uncover new problems or different perspectives. An intrapreneur faced with an impasse acquires knowledge that she or he would not otherwise have been able to obtain. If someone else took over the project, they wouldn’t have been exposed to the same challenges, nor have the same learning as the original person.

Pitching a failure

It is possible to go even further. In a case study on the French energy company Engie, we looked at their decision to give “best failed ideas” awards to employees who dared – and failed – to realize their innovative ideas.

We analysed how Engie began to consider failed projects, not just to show a form of tolerance, but also to promote them within the company so that everyone can learn from them.

Despite being based on good ideas, some projects end up failing. They can be seen as quasi-successes, however, because sometimes it’s the company that decides to call them to an end. These are neither failures nor successes. Instead, they’re near-successes, also known as “nearlings”. These projects did not achieve the desired results for the firm, particularly in terms of profitability, but when carried out rigorously, they provided learning opportunities for the whole company.

The energy giant has even taken up the original idea of creating a category within its “innovation trophies” called “best failed idea”. The practice had already been popularised by Ratan Tata, head of a major Indian industrial group. It was an initiative by the company’s innovation manager to reward the best ideas that had “failed”, and the group experimented with the scheme from 2016 to 2020.

The selection procedure was not the same as for the other trophy categories, where project leaders apply spontaneously. Instead, the group’s innovation director canvassed candidates directly, acknowledging that presenting a failure was not easy.

The eventual winner of the “best failed idea” prize had a project whose development potential the company doubted and thus wasn’t financed. In a three-minute pitch, he was able to highlight what he had learned from the process, and the jury found his perseverance convincing. One of the members of the jury, a senior executive in the group, invited him to a private meeting – he had the intuition that while the idea had not been retained in its original context, it could be of use to his product line. Without this trophy category, the director would probably never have heard of the project.

“Best Nearling”

And what if this type of initiative were to become widespread? Initiatives rewarding failure, which go beyond simply celebrating mistakes, are on the rise within large companies such as Google, Australia’s MacQuarie Telecom, the US accounting firm Intuit, the chemical firm Huntsman and the textile giant WLGore. Perhaps the name could be changed to “Best Nearling” to reassure employees who are reluctant to tell top management that they have failed, even if for the right reasons.

The Conversation

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

7
May 2024
7May 2024 Europe
What if companies rewarded employees for their failures?
Des entreprises ont mis en place des trophées pour les meilleures idées qui ont échoué Shutterstock

A growing number of companies are encouraging their employees to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams in-house – a trend known as intrapreneurship. Some managers do this by providing workers with the financial, human and material resources required for innovation. For example, Google has long encouraged employees to devote 20% of their working hours to side projects unrelated to their daily jobs. Others firms unleash workplace creativity by clearly stating the types of innovations they’re after.

Encouraging measured risks

Another less obvious and yet potentially game-changing method consists in tolerating, if not celebrating, failure. It’s common sense that rewards can act as “carrots” to encourage intrapreneurship – a concept we associate with success. But what if failure were just as important?

To create an organisational culture that boosts innovative intrapreneurial process, tolerating failure can be a first step. This can encourage employees to be more confident and to take measured risks – provided that this tolerance is made explicit to employees.

It’s also about encouraging the idea that learning can come from failure. Every stumble can be transformed into an opportunity because it helps us uncover new problems or different perspectives. An intrapreneur faced with an impasse acquires knowledge that she or he would not otherwise have been able to obtain. If someone else took over the project, they wouldn’t have been exposed to the same challenges, nor have the same learning as the original person.

Pitching a failure

It is possible to go even further. In a case study on the French energy company Engie, we looked at their decision to give “best failed ideas” awards to employees who dared – and failed – to realize their innovative ideas.

We analysed how Engie began to consider failed projects, not just to show a form of tolerance, but also to promote them within the company so that everyone can learn from them.

Despite being based on good ideas, some projects end up failing. They can be seen as quasi-successes, however, because sometimes it’s the company that decides to call them to an end. These are neither failures nor successes. Instead, they’re near-successes, also known as “nearlings”. These projects did not achieve the desired results for the firm, particularly in terms of profitability, but when carried out rigorously, they provided learning opportunities for the whole company.

The energy giant has even taken up the original idea of creating a category within its “innovation trophies” called “best failed idea”. The practice had already been popularised by Ratan Tata, head of a major Indian industrial group. It was an initiative by the company’s innovation manager to reward the best ideas that had “failed”, and the group experimented with the scheme from 2016 to 2020.

The selection procedure was not the same as for the other trophy categories, where project leaders apply spontaneously. Instead, the group’s innovation director canvassed candidates directly, acknowledging that presenting a failure was not easy.

The eventual winner of the “best failed idea” prize had a project whose development potential the company doubted and thus wasn’t financed. In a three-minute pitch, he was able to highlight what he had learned from the process, and the jury found his perseverance convincing. One of the members of the jury, a senior executive in the group, invited him to a private meeting – he had the intuition that while the idea had not been retained in its original context, it could be of use to his product line. Without this trophy category, the director would probably never have heard of the project.

“Best Nearling”

And what if this type of initiative were to become widespread? Initiatives rewarding failure, which go beyond simply celebrating mistakes, are on the rise within large companies such as Google, Australia’s MacQuarie Telecom, the US accounting firm Intuit, the chemical firm Huntsman and the textile giant WLGore. Perhaps the name could be changed to “Best Nearling” to reassure employees who are reluctant to tell top management that they have failed, even if for the right reasons.

The Conversation

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

10
Apr 2024
10Apr 2024 Europe
Using research to solve societal problems starts with building connections and making space for young people
One or two or 10 studies won't solve our most complex societal challenges. Big problems require collaborations beyond academia.
 Orbon Alija/E+ via Getty Images

Often, when scientists do research around a specific societal challenge, they hope their work will help solve that larger problem. Yet translating findings into long-lasting, community-driven solutions is much harder than most expect.

It seems intuitive that scientists studying living organisms, microbes and ecosystems could apply their findings to tackle food shortages, help keep environments healthy and improve human and animal health. But it’s not always that easy. Issues like climate change, renewable energy, public health and migration are complex, making direct solutions challenging to develop and implement.

As a group of researchers invested in helping scientists create meaningful impact with their work, we understand problems like these will need experts from different fields and industries to work together.

This means we might need to reevaluate certain aspects of the inquiry process and embrace fresh perspectives if we, as members of the scientific community, want to improve our capacity for producing solutions-oriented research.

Defining use-inspired research

Science does not occur in a vacuum. Factors including funding availability, access to advanced technologies and political or social contexts can influence the kinds of studies that get done. A framework called use-inspired research and engagement, or UIRE, acknowledges this fact.

In use-inspired research, the potential applications of findings for society shape the directions of exploration.

In UIRE, researchers work with members of a community to figure out what questions they should look into. They form partnerships with other stakeholders, including governments, businesses of all scales and nonprofits, to form a collaborative foundation. This way, researchers can tailor investigations from the outset to be useful to and usable by decision-makers.

Translational research, or intentionally grounding scientific exploration in practical applications, isn’t new. Use-inspired research expands on translational research, prioritizing building connections between practitioners and communities.

Translational research and use-inspired research rely on collaborations between researchers and stakeholders outside academia.

In the U.S., the passage of the CHIPS and Science Act in 2022 further codified use-inspired research. The act directed US$280 billion over the next 10 years toward funding scientific inquiry to boost domestic competitiveness, innovation and national security.

This legislation also authorized the establishment of the National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships, called NSF TIP. TIP marks the agency’s first new directorate in over three decades, created with the aim of sparking the growth of diverse innovation and technology landscapes.

Producing science in partnership

In use-inspired research and engagement, collaboration is a big part of each project from the start, when the researchers are first deciding what to study. These cooperative partnerships continue throughout data collection and analysis. Together, these teams apply the results and develop products, implement behavior changes, or further inform community decision-making.

For example, a large hospital, an academic organization and several nonprofits may partner together to explore issues affecting health care accessibility in the region. Researchers collect data through surveys and interviews, and interpret the findings within the community’s specific circumstances. They can then coordinate data evaluation with the health care and nonprofit partners, which helps take socioeconomic status, cultural beliefs and built infrastructure like grocery stores and public transportation into account.

A small group of medical professionals gather around a table. They are each dressed professionally and have files scattered between them.
Academic researchers can collaborate with places like hospitals and nonprofits to study specific problems facing their community.
FatCamera/E+ via Getty Images

This approach brings together the broad perspectives of a large hospital network, academic expertise around survey creation and data analysis, and specialized knowledge held by nonprofits. These groups can then collaborate further to develop specific programs, such as educational initiatives and enhanced health care services. They can tailor these to the needs of the community they serve.

Use-inspired research matters because it looks at all the different issues facing a community holistically and keeps them in mind when investigating potential solutions. UIRE is not a substitute for basic, foundational research, which explores new questions to fundamentally understand a topic. Rather, it’s an approach centered around selecting questions and developing methods based on real-world importance.

UIRE creates a foundation for long-term, inclusive partnerships – and not just within academia. Government, community organizations, large companies and startups can all use the same principles of UIRE to share ideas and craft solutions to issues facing their communities. Individuals from all sorts of backgrounds are equally integral to the entire process, further amplifying the viewpoints present.

Use-inspired methods are not only relevant to improving research outcomes. A use-inspired approach drives innovation and technological advancements across sectors. When used in K-12 classrooms, UIRE leads to well-rounded students.

This approach can also improve learning in workforce development spaces, creating employees trained to build connections.

UIRE provides platforms for the general public to participate in conversations about issues impacting their lives that they may not have otherwise been a part of.

Harnessing early-career engagement

Use-inspired methods challenge not only how, but who contributes to and benefits from scientific inquiry. They also focus on making the findings accessible to those outside academia.

To craft necessary solutions for complex societal problems, institutions will need to continue backing traditional scholars who excel at pure basic research. At the same time, they can support training in use-inspired domains.

Early-career professionals across sectors will continue to play an important role in spreading and sustaining the cultural shifts necessary to embrace use-inspired research at a wider scale. These early-career professionals can bring fresh ideas to the table and craft innovative approaches to problems.

To support translational research long term, institutions and supervisors can support students in hands-on learning opportunities from the first year of undergraduate coursework to postgraduate fellowships. These opportunities can help students learn about UIRE and equip them with the skills needed to build cross-sector partnerships before entering the workforce.

By receiving mentorship from individuals outside academia, students and trainees can gain exposure to different career paths and find motivation to pursue opportunities outside traditional academic roles. This mentorship fosters creative problem-solving and adaptability.

UIRE provides a potential framework to addressing complex societal challenges. Creating opportunities for the ongoing involvement of young people will seed a vibrant future for use-inspired research and engagement.

The Conversation

Zoey England is currently completing a Use-Inspired Research Science Communications fellowship, funded through a grant from the National Science Foundation. She has also received funding from CTNext.

Jennifer Forbey receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

Michael Muszynski receives funding from the National Science Foundation. He is affiliated with the Maize Genetics Cooperation.

10
Apr 2024
10Apr 2024 Europe
Using research to solve societal problems starts with building connections and making space for young people
One or two or 10 studies won't solve our most complex societal challenges. Big problems require collaborations beyond academia.
 Orbon Alija/E+ via Getty Images

Often, when scientists do research around a specific societal challenge, they hope their work will help solve that larger problem. Yet translating findings into long-lasting, community-driven solutions is much harder than most expect.

It seems intuitive that scientists studying living organisms, microbes and ecosystems could apply their findings to tackle food shortages, help keep environments healthy and improve human and animal health. But it’s not always that easy. Issues like climate change, renewable energy, public health and migration are complex, making direct solutions challenging to develop and implement.

As a group of researchers invested in helping scientists create meaningful impact with their work, we understand problems like these will need experts from different fields and industries to work together.

This means we might need to reevaluate certain aspects of the inquiry process and embrace fresh perspectives if we, as members of the scientific community, want to improve our capacity for producing solutions-oriented research.

Defining use-inspired research

Science does not occur in a vacuum. Factors including funding availability, access to advanced technologies and political or social contexts can influence the kinds of studies that get done. A framework called use-inspired research and engagement, or UIRE, acknowledges this fact.

In use-inspired research, the potential applications of findings for society shape the directions of exploration.

In UIRE, researchers work with members of a community to figure out what questions they should look into. They form partnerships with other stakeholders, including governments, businesses of all scales and nonprofits, to form a collaborative foundation. This way, researchers can tailor investigations from the outset to be useful to and usable by decision-makers.

Translational research, or intentionally grounding scientific exploration in practical applications, isn’t new. Use-inspired research expands on translational research, prioritizing building connections between practitioners and communities.

Translational research and use-inspired research rely on collaborations between researchers and stakeholders outside academia.

In the U.S., the passage of the CHIPS and Science Act in 2022 further codified use-inspired research. The act directed US$280 billion over the next 10 years toward funding scientific inquiry to boost domestic competitiveness, innovation and national security.

This legislation also authorized the establishment of the National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships, called NSF TIP. TIP marks the agency’s first new directorate in over three decades, created with the aim of sparking the growth of diverse innovation and technology landscapes.

Producing science in partnership

In use-inspired research and engagement, collaboration is a big part of each project from the start, when the researchers are first deciding what to study. These cooperative partnerships continue throughout data collection and analysis. Together, these teams apply the results and develop products, implement behavior changes, or further inform community decision-making.

For example, a large hospital, an academic organization and several nonprofits may partner together to explore issues affecting health care accessibility in the region. Researchers collect data through surveys and interviews, and interpret the findings within the community’s specific circumstances. They can then coordinate data evaluation with the health care and nonprofit partners, which helps take socioeconomic status, cultural beliefs and built infrastructure like grocery stores and public transportation into account.

A small group of medical professionals gather around a table. They are each dressed professionally and have files scattered between them.
Academic researchers can collaborate with places like hospitals and nonprofits to study specific problems facing their community.
FatCamera/E+ via Getty Images

This approach brings together the broad perspectives of a large hospital network, academic expertise around survey creation and data analysis, and specialized knowledge held by nonprofits. These groups can then collaborate further to develop specific programs, such as educational initiatives and enhanced health care services. They can tailor these to the needs of the community they serve.

Use-inspired research matters because it looks at all the different issues facing a community holistically and keeps them in mind when investigating potential solutions. UIRE is not a substitute for basic, foundational research, which explores new questions to fundamentally understand a topic. Rather, it’s an approach centered around selecting questions and developing methods based on real-world importance.

UIRE creates a foundation for long-term, inclusive partnerships – and not just within academia. Government, community organizations, large companies and startups can all use the same principles of UIRE to share ideas and craft solutions to issues facing their communities. Individuals from all sorts of backgrounds are equally integral to the entire process, further amplifying the viewpoints present.

Use-inspired methods are not only relevant to improving research outcomes. A use-inspired approach drives innovation and technological advancements across sectors. When used in K-12 classrooms, UIRE leads to well-rounded students.

This approach can also improve learning in workforce development spaces, creating employees trained to build connections.

UIRE provides platforms for the general public to participate in conversations about issues impacting their lives that they may not have otherwise been a part of.

Harnessing early-career engagement

Use-inspired methods challenge not only how, but who contributes to and benefits from scientific inquiry. They also focus on making the findings accessible to those outside academia.

To craft necessary solutions for complex societal problems, institutions will need to continue backing traditional scholars who excel at pure basic research. At the same time, they can support training in use-inspired domains.

Early-career professionals across sectors will continue to play an important role in spreading and sustaining the cultural shifts necessary to embrace use-inspired research at a wider scale. These early-career professionals can bring fresh ideas to the table and craft innovative approaches to problems.

To support translational research long term, institutions and supervisors can support students in hands-on learning opportunities from the first year of undergraduate coursework to postgraduate fellowships. These opportunities can help students learn about UIRE and equip them with the skills needed to build cross-sector partnerships before entering the workforce.

By receiving mentorship from individuals outside academia, students and trainees can gain exposure to different career paths and find motivation to pursue opportunities outside traditional academic roles. This mentorship fosters creative problem-solving and adaptability.

UIRE provides a potential framework to addressing complex societal challenges. Creating opportunities for the ongoing involvement of young people will seed a vibrant future for use-inspired research and engagement.

The Conversation

Zoey England is currently completing a Use-Inspired Research Science Communications fellowship, funded through a grant from the National Science Foundation. She has also received funding from CTNext.

Jennifer Forbey receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

Michael Muszynski receives funding from the National Science Foundation. He is affiliated with the Maize Genetics Cooperation.