Though the specific assessment techniques may be changing, evaluation of projects being considered for funding has always been important and highly competitive in the U.S. research enterprise. However, Cozzens' study found a growing interest in ongoing monitoring of these projects once they receive funding. The new monitoring efforts rely on advances in information technology to regularly gather and analyze relatively simple indicators such as the level of student involvement, amount of funds invested and number of publications produced. But they are not going to provide much input on the more complicated priority-setting tasks because they do not capture information about quality or advances made. But whether that results in good decisions cannot really be determined because of yet another difficulty in assessing the scientific endeavor.
Scientific research is on the cutting edge.
It is not about producing standardized widgets on a production line. Researchers need autonomy to be creative and explore new directions. They do not like it when people put a lot of emphasis on outside influences. The reporting requirements involved in assessments can also prove a burden on researchers. Unless government agencies work to minimize that burden, the new accountability requirements could divert researchers from their true goals.