TU/e researchers Sajedeh Rasti and Daniël Lakens experimented with a new way of applying for research funding. Together with researchers from twelve Dutch universities, they moved away from individual competition and opted for collective grant applications. They developed their proposals together, provided feedback on each other's work, and submitted two applications to the Dutch Research Council (NWO), both of which were funded.
For PhD candidate Sajedeh Rasti and Professor Daniël Lakens of the Human-Technology Interaction group within the Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, it was about more than just testing a new funding model. It was an opportunity to explore whether science itself could be organized differently, with less competition and more collaboration.
Rasti studies coordination in science: how researchers collectively decide which research directions deserve priority and who takes responsibility for which tasks.
"What if researchers didn't compete for funding but instead worked together to determine which ideas matter most?" When an Open Science NL funding call from NWO was announced, Rasti and Lakens saw it as the perfect opportunity to put her research into practice.
"We were asking researchers to do something genuinely new, and that was quite exciting."
PhD candidate Sajedeh Rasti
They reached out to the Dutch metascience community and invited researchers to join the initiative. "We were asking people to do something genuinely new, and that was quite exciting," says Rasti. "It also helped that Daniël was involved, because many people know and trust him."
Twenty researchers from twelve Dutch universities joined forces to form the Netherlands Metascience Coalition. Rasti: "The participants were united by a shared question: how can science be improved? Not only in terms of research itself, but also in how it is organized."
Turning the process upside down
Their approach flipped the traditional grant application process on its head. Instead of researchers developing individual proposals around their own ideas, the group began by discussing which research questions were most urgent.
"We first agreed on a shared overarching goal," says Rasti. "We then combined everyone's expertise and research approaches to strengthen the proposal and take it to the next level."
Two proposals
The next decision shaped the entire process. Rather than having one team write a single proposal, the coalition split into two groups, each pursuing a different perspective.
One team focused on a bottom-up approach to Open Science adoption, exploring interventions and tools to improve Open Science culture. The other adopted a top-down perspective, investigating how universities and research institutes could improve the uptake of Open Science practices through institutional policies.
According to Lakens, the two approaches complement each other. "If one proposal hadn't been funded, you would still have had part of the bigger picture," he says. "Together, though, they tell a much more complete story."
Feedback from the competition
The writing process also included an unusual feature for academia: the two teams reviewed and critiqued each other's proposals. "You're technically competing for the same pool of funding, but we still helped each other write stronger proposals," says Lakens.
He describes this as "organized scepticism," a built-in moment for critical reflection. "Normally, that only happens when someone happens to have the time. We deliberately made it part of the process."
"One participant told us: 'This is what I hoped science would be like.'"
PhD candidate Sajedeh Rasti
Rasti says participants found the process both energizing and enjoyable. "One participant told us, 'This is what I hoped science would be like.'"
The invisible role of coordination
Rasti played a central role throughout the project. She organized meetings, monitored timelines, and ensured that all the different pieces ultimately came together into a coherent whole.
Despite her crucial contribution, she is not listed as an applicant on either funded grant. "You need someone to coordinate the process," says Lakens. "But that role is barely recognized in the way success is measured in the current system. It deserves greater appreciation."
Time, pressure, and collaboration in practice
The project required extensive coordination and significant time commitments. The group started working together nine months before the deadline, yet even that proved challenging.
Researchers had to align schedules, set priorities, and make room in already busy agendas. "You have to give everyone enough time at every stage," says Lakens.
The summer holiday period made things even more difficult. "You're less flexible. You can't just sit on the beach with your laptop and keep working on the proposal by yourself."
According to Lakens, it is still rare for researchers to collaborate rather than compete. "In some fields, collaboration is essential for setting research agendas," he says. "Take CERN, for example. Everyone works together on a single enormous, extremely expensive machine. There's no alternative. You have to collaborate and jointly decide what to investigate."
In most scientific disciplines, however, there is no such necessity, making competition the norm rather than collaboration.
More than a grant application
Still, both researchers believe the experiment demonstrates something important. "It shows that there are other ways of doing things, even if it's not the only way," says Lakens.
He is referring not only to grant applications, but to the broader organization of science itself. "We wanted to do something that benefits science as a whole," Rasti adds.
A double success
Both coordinated applications were awarded funding by NWO. "That's pretty cool for a completely new way of working," Lakens says with satisfaction.
The funding will support two postdoctoral researchers, and the projects will officially kick off in September.
"The real question is whether our proposals were actually better than the others," says Lakens. "Yes, we received the funding, but will we ultimately produce better results? Time will tell, but people are enthusiastic."
"If everyone only looks out for themselves, nothing will ever change in science."
Sajedeh Rasti
For a young researcher, Rasti's decision to focus primarily on coordination and community-building, without being an applicant herself, is a bold one in a system that heavily rewards individual achievement. "Of course, you think about your own career," she says. "But if everyone only looks out for themselves, nothing will ever change in science."
What motivates her is the broader goal of creating a better research system, one built on collaboration rather than competition. "Hopefully, ten years from now, we'll be working in a better system," she says. "If this contributes to that, then it's worth it."
