On the Social Shaping of Quantum Technologies: An Analysis of Emerging Expectations Through Grant Proposals from 2002–2020

The term ‘quantum technology’ was first popularised by an Australian physicist in the mid-1990s. These technologies make use of the properties of quantum physics and are being developed and invested across the world, yet this emerging technology is understudied in science and technology studies. This article investigates the emergence of the notion of ‘quantum technologies’ and examines the expectations shaping this field through an analysis of research grants funded by a national research funder, the Australian Research Council between 2002 and 2020. I examine how ‘quantum technology’ and ‘quantum computing’ have come to dominate claims and expectations surrounding research in quantum science. These expectations do more than inform the scientific goals of the field. They also provide an overarching, uniting rhetoric for individual projects and people and shape the uses imagined for quantum technologies. This analysis shows how claims for this emerging technology draw on ‘breakthrough’ metaphors to engage researchers and marshal investment and concludes by highlighting the need for increased clarity regarding expectations for quantum technologies.

COVID-19 gender policy changes support female scientists and improve research quality

With more time being spent on caregiving responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, female scientists’ productivity dropped. When female scientists conduct research, identity factors are better incorporated in research content. In order to mitigate damage to the research enterprise, funding agencies can play a role by putting in place gender equity policies that support all applicants and ensure research quality. A national health research funder implemented gender policy changes that included extending deadlines and factoring sex and gender into COVID-19 grant requirements. Following these changes, the funder received more applications from female scientists, awarded a greater proportion of grants to female compared to male scientists, and received and funded more grant applications that considered sex and gender in the content of COVID-19 research. Further work is urgently required to address inequities associated with identity characteristics beyond gender.

Mathematics, risk, and messy survey data

Research funder mandates, such as those from the U.S. National Science Foundation (2011), the Canadian Tri-Agency (draft, 2018), and the UK Economic and Social Research Council (2018) now often include requirements for data curation, including where possible data sharing in an approved archive. Data curators need to be prepared for the potential that researchers who have not previously shared data will need assistance with cleaning and depositing datasets so that they can meet these requirements and maintain funding. Data de-identification or anonymization is a major ethical concern in cases where survey data is to be shared, and one which data professionals may find themselves ill-equipped to deal with. This article is intended to provide an accessible and practical introduction to the theory and concepts behind data anonymization and risk assessment, will describe a couple of case studies that demonstrate how these methods were carried out on actual datasets requiring anonymization, and discuss some of the difficulties encountered. Much of the literature dealing with statistical risk assessment of anonymized data is abstract and aimed at computer scientists and mathematicians, while material aimed at practitioners often does not consider more recent developments in the theory of data anonymization. We hope that this article will help bridge this gap.

Impact on whom? Contrasting research impact with public engagement

This chapter considers how the concept of ‘research impact’ has been developed and articulated with respect to two, potentially very different audiences: policymakers and the broader public. This chapter includes an analysis of recent REF (Research Excellence Framework) and research funder guidance, statements and opportunities relating to these two groups. This chapter also draws on interview data with a range of research funders

Research is born free and everywhere is in chains

The open access movement has come a long way since its origins at the end of the 1990s but we still haven’t achieved the tipping point to make the open access approach, the normal approach. Why are initiatives such as Plan S needed and why did the World Health Organization feel it necessary to join? This talk will draw on experiences at Wellcome Trust and WHO, implementing the first open access policy for a European Research funder, creating Europe PubMed Central and developing a policy that works for a United Nations agency. Robert will outline why achieving open access requires addressing barriers across political, technical and cultural barriers – with perhaps the culture of research assessment and reward needing the biggest change if we are to truly democratise science so that the people who pay for the research, the taxpayers, can access, read and use the research.

Lessons learned from a health authority research capacity-building initiative

Health systems worldwide are under pressure to deliver better care to more people with increasingly complex needs within constrained budgets. Research capacity building has been shown to help alleviate these challenges and is underway at hospitals and health authorities across the country; however, approaches vary widely and little exists in the Canadian literature to share experience and best practices. This article describes how a health authority in British Columbia, Canada, implemented and evaluated a 5-year research capacity-building program in partnership with a provincial health research funder. We offer lessons learned for those leading similar innovation-focused change management initiatives, including vision and buy in, complexity thinking, infrastructure, leadership, and coalition development. We suggest that collective learning and building a more robust research capacity-building literature can help health organizations and their partners take significant steps toward integrating research and care for a more effective, efficient, and patient-centred health system.