Researchers’ Feedback: Toward the Improvement of the Targeted Research Grant Process at the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University

Abstract

This study employed an action research approach to examine the targeted research grant review process of the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University. Prior to data collection, the researcher obtained approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee. A review of documents and secondary data covering the previous 3–5 years was then conducted, focusing on regulations, official announcements, and guidelines related to research funding. These data were systematically analyzed to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the existing process. The findings from the document review were used to develop an open-ended questionnaire comprising three sections: (1) the research grant review process, (2) researchers’ experiences and perspectives, and (3) expectations regarding the future grant review process. The questionnaire was reviewed by experts for quality assurance, and the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) was calculated to ensure alignment with the research objectives. Items meeting the established criteria were subsequently tested for reliability. Once a valid and reliable research instrument was obtained, the questionnaire was distributed to informants who had direct experience in applying for targeted research grants, and the collected data were systematically analyzed and synthesized. The study had two main objectives: (1) to investigate the problems and obstacles in the targeted research grant review process, and (2) to examine expectations regarding this process at the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University. The results indicated that challenges in the grant review process could be classified into three primary areas. First, the funding approval stage was constrained by lengthy review periods and complex procedures, resulting in multiple rounds of proposal revisions. Second, the process of obtaining human research ethics approval remained complex and time-consuming. Third, although contract preparation was generally efficient, a significant bottleneck was identified at the fund disbursement stage, which was regarded as a critical obstacle directly affecting the continuity and effectiveness of research project implementation. Regarding expectations and recommendations for improvement, researchers expressed a desire for enhancements across several dimensions of research funding management. In terms of process design, they emphasized the need for a more flexible, transparent, and equitable review system. Review committees were expected to possess a deep understanding of contextual factors, resource constraints, and disciplinary characteristics to ensure fair and balanced evaluations. Researchers also proposed improving time efficiency by setting a maximum duration of three months from proposal submission to funding approval, thereby facilitating timely project implementation. In addition, they suggested allowing applications for subsequent funding prior to the completion of the initial project in order to maintain research continuity. With respect to funding policy, researchers recommended that greater emphasis be placed on projects with potential policy impact and on innovative research that contributes new knowledge addressing societal needs. Nevertheless, they strongly underscored the continued importance of basic research as a fundamental foundation for long-term knowledge development, which should not be overlooked. Furthermore, they advocated for a more open approach to research themes, suggesting that funding support should not be limited solely to policy-aligned topics but should also include proposals with clear academic rationale and demonstrated scholarly value. Overall, the findings reflect researchers’ demands for a research funding management system that is transparent, flexible, and fair, and that genuinely supports researchers’ potential. These empirical insights provide valuable evidence for the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, to further develop and enhance the effectiveness of its research grant management processes in ways that better respond to researchers’ needs in the future.