Author’s Note
This literature review aims to present insights for research on the avenues available for the LV Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) to fund its fellowship program. The current arrangement pursued by the institution results in costs of 1 million Rube or 15,000 dollars per trainee who is completing its fellowship program.
The institution needs to improve its efficiency and find alternative sources of funding to increase its outcomes. The review considers the methodology of research and presents the strengths, weaknesses, and notable value of the studies selected. It also addresses general circumstances that affect funding for research and scholarships for institutions of higher learning (Shardlow & Brown, 2015).
Literature Review
The challenge for most nursing and health sciences units is to enhance research and scholarship agenda and focus on clinical and teaching needs, which expose them to increased costs of operations. A case study by Chaudhry and Prelock (2012) on funding scholarship at the College of Nursing and Health Sciences at the University of Vermont shows the methods used to increase funding for the institution to enable it offer more scholarships to students.
It highlights the fact that the college has to offer research incentives and grants so that can achieve its goal of increasing productivity and overall research activity. The study was done in collaboration with the college dean’s office to explore avenues of increasing extramural funding to meet the direct costs of a funded research project. The strengths of the report are in its claim and focus on the display of research.
This offers the stakeholder community an opportunity to witness the value of money given to fund research. The study also shows the publications of the faculty on research productivity and a dedicated page on the Internet about research and scholarship at the college.
Nevertheless, the study’s shortcoming is in its failure to offer a detailed inference for use in other colleges. It also fails to provide the fixed sum received as increased funding during the exercise. The most valuable point is that the case study shows investment in the research enterprise with objective outputs is a way of sustaining the college’s research agenda.
The study by Callender (2010) reviews funding policies for bursaries in England. The study analyzes the intention of setting up bursaries and the preferred methodologies for funding them as conceived in the Higher Education Bill that took place in 2004. It then compares bursaries and scholarships in the last two decades using conveniently sampled studies and reports. It shows that bursaries have often been used as a mechanism for influencing student behavior and choices.
On the other hand, it shows the role of institutions in ensuring that there are positive reports on bursaries, such as retention rates and completion rates, as this subsequently affects the qualification for bursaries. The strength of the study is that it shows a notable way of universities coping with funding limitations is to increase the annual value of the scholarship according to student progression to ensure that there are higher completion rates and better efficiency of funds used.
The study, however, fails by not presenting perspectives of students in utilizing the changed bursary formats. Overall, it shows that putting the interests of the funding authority first can assist institutions in gaining sufficient funds for their programs.
An option for enhancing the effectiveness of bursaries and fellowship programs is to allow students to pay back. The research report by Emmerson, Frayne, McNally, and Silvax (2005) confirms through a postal survey carried out among young adults applying for an Opportunity Bursary that increasing completion rates of higher education help to justify bursary allocations. Bursaries help as alternative sources of funding for students and limiting their debt burden.
On the other hand, the survey results of the cross-sectional study show that many beneficiaries are also students who are capable of seeking financial assistance from other avenues, only that they need affordable rates of credit. Consequently, such a method could be employed by an institution to combine pure bursaries and financial assistance in subsidized forms to reduce the overall burden of repayment to students and reduce the overall cost of the fellowship.
Reliance on primary data is a major strength of the study. Its use of a broad cross-section of 1,585 young adults is also a major strength. However, the study’s weakness is that it focuses more on the student’s perspective than the institutions’ perspective. Overall, the research shows that varying financing options, from pure support to varied assistance frameworks, can help institutions cope with funding demands.
According to Suresh (2012), in a literature review of global funding for research, funding constraints include national and local policies or priorities. Therefore, an efficient way of dealing with the hurdles is by ensuring that scientific data retains a high-quality standard and integrity. It should also be disseminated universally through bypassing the national and regional policy barriers. As a result, the cost of the overall study can also reduce and allow institutions to cope with reduced funding.
The article by Suresh (2012) gains its strengths by directly focusing on the issue of barriers to adequate commitment, coordination, and improvement of peer-review in research, which increases the overall cost of the fellowship. The contributing value of the research is that with shared resources among scholars and institution, there can be a positive global impact on scientific experimentation.
Overall, many studies touching on the issue of funding fellowships do not directly address the matter, but touch on it as an externality of their research. For example, the study by Freedenthal, Potter, and Grinstein-Weiss (2008) shows how institutions provide funding assistance in various ways. As a national survey of social work programs, the study did not directly aim to offer alternative options for funding.
Nevertheless, its strength is that it provides these options according to survey results, which are reliable. For example, the study shows that the provision of mentorship and offering research start-up funding are ways that institutions use to help. The value of the study is that it shows these alternatives can be adopted to increase the investment in fellowship and still cope with limited funding issues. One limitation of the study is the focus on faculty only and not on the students (Freedenthal et al., 2008).
Conclusion
There are several ways to reduce the Fellowship cost at LVPEI, but their application varies according to the willingness of the institution to adjust current program parameters. Valid options include embracing the fellowship program from an entrepreneurial perspective. The program can also offer partial assistance with payback options for its beneficiaries. Another way would be to provide assistance in kind, such that it limits its direct monetary costs for the program.
References
Callender, C. (2010). Bursaries and institutional aid in higher education in England: do they safeguard and promote fair access? Oxford Review of Education, 36(1), 45-62.
Chaudhry, M. A., & Prelock, P. A. (2012). Enhancing the research and scholarship enterprise. Nurse Educator, 37(2), 54-55.
Emmerson, C., Frayne, C., McNally, S., & Silvax, O. (2005). Economic evaluation of opportunity bursaries. Centre of Economic Performance, Institute of Fiscal Studies. London, UK: London School of Economics. Web.
Freedenthal, S., Potter, C., & Grinstein-Weiss, M. (2008). Institutional support for faculty scholarship: A national survey of social work programs. Social Work Research, 32(4), 220-230.
Shardlow, M., & Brown, A. (2015). Scholarship funding through strategic reporting: the case of Koro Island. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector, 20(1), 71-83.
Suresh, S. (2012). Research Funding: Global challenges need global solutions. Nature, 490, 337-338.