Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 109–134 | Cite as

The Impact of Changing Funding and Authority Relationships on Scientific Innovations

  • Richard Whitley
  • Jochen Gläser
  • Grit Laudel
Article

Abstract

The past three decades have witnessed a sharp reduction in the rate of growth of public research funding, and sometimes an actual decline in its level. In many countries, this decline has been accompanied by substantial changes in the ways that such funding has been allocated and monitored. In addition, the institutions governing how research is directed and conducted underwent significant reforms. In this paper we examine how these changes have affected scientists’ research goals and practices by comparing the development of three scientific innovations (one each in physics, biology, and educational research) in four European countries, namely Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden. We find that the increased number of actors exercising authority over research goals does not necessarily lead to a greater diversity of interests funding research. A narrowing of goals and frameworks is especially probable when the increasing importance of external project funding is combined with reductions in state financing of universities and public research institutes. Finally, the growing standardisation of project cycle times and resource packages across funding agencies and scientific communities make it more difficult for researchers to pursue projects that deviate from these norms, especially, if they challenge mainstream beliefs and assessment criteria.

Keywords

Science policy Split funding mode Higher education governance Scientific innovations Authority relations 

References

  1. Aljets, Enno. 2015. Der Aufstieg der Empirischen Bildungsforschung. Ein Beitrag zur institutionalistischen Wissenschaftssoziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  2. Aljets, Enno, and Eric Lettkemann. 2011. Hochschulleitung und Forscher: Von wechselseitiger Nichtbeachtung zu wechselseitiger Abhängigkeit. In Hochschule als Organisation, eds. Uwe Wilkesmann and Christian Schmid, 131–153. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Research Council (ARC). 2016. ARC research funding trend data. Retrieved 20 May 2016, from http://www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/filedepot/Public/ARC/NCGP_dataset/ARC_NCGP_Trends_web_update_Feb2015.xlsx.
  4. Baldini, Nicola. 2008. Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence. Scientometrics 75(2): 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2012. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braun, Dietmar. 1993. Who governs intermediary agencies? Principal-agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy 13(2): 135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, Dietmar. 1998. The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy 27(8): 807–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunet, Philippe, and Michel Dubois. 2012. Stem cells and technoscience: Sociology of the emergence and regulation of a field of biomedical research in France. Revue Française de Sociologie 53(3): 251–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cozzens, Susan E., Peter Healey, Arie Rip, and John Ziman (eds.). 1990. The research system in transition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Crouch, Colin. 2005. Capitalist diversity and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cruz-Castro, Laura, and Luis Sanz-Menéndez. 2016. The effects of the economic crisis on public research: Spanish budgetary policies and research organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 113: 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Boer, Harry, Jürgen Enders, and Liudvika Leišytė. 2007. Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration 85(1): 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drori, Gili S., John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and Evan Schofer. 2003. Science in the modern world polity: Institutionalization and globalization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fallani, Leonardo, and Anders Kastberg. 2015. Cold atoms: A field enabled by light. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 110(5): 53001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fujimura, Joan. 1987. Constructing ‘Do-able’ problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science 17: 257–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Furman, Jeffrey L., Fiona Murray, and Scott Stern. 2012. Growing stem cells: The impact of federal funding policy on the US scientific frontier. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 31(3): 661–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gläser, Jochen, Enno Aljets, Adriana Gorga, Tina Hedmo, Elias Håkansson, and Grit Laudel. 2014a. Path dependence and policy steering in the social sciences: The varied impact of international large scale student assessment on the educational sciences in four European countries. In Organizational transformation and scientific change: The impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation, eds. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser, 267–295. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  18. Gläser, Jochen, Enno Aljets, Eric Lettkemann, and Grit Laudel. 2014b. Where to go for a change: The impact of authority structures in universities and public research institutes on changes of research practices. In Organizational transformation and scientific change: The impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation, eds. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser, 297–329. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  19. Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. 2015. A bibliometric reconstruction of research trails for qualitative investigations of scientific innovations. Historical Social Research - Historische Sozialforschung 40(3): 299–330.Google Scholar
  20. Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. 2016. Governing science: How science policy shapes research content. European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie 57(01): 117–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guston, David H. 2000. The expanding role of peer review processes in the United States. Proceedings from US-EU workshop “Learning from science and technology policy evaluation”, Bad Herrenalb, Germany, September.Google Scholar
  22. Hackett, Edward J. 2005. Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research. Social Studies of Science 35(5): 787–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hessels, Laurens K., John Grin, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2011. The effects of a changing institutional environment on academic research practices: Three cases from agricultural science. Science and Public Policy 38(7): 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hicks, Diana. 2012. Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy 41: 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kearnes, Matthew, and Matthias Wienroth. 2011. Tools of the trade: UK research intermediaries and the politics of impacts. Minerva 49(2): 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krohn, Wolfgang, and Johannes Weyer. 1994. Society as laboratory: The social risks of experimental research. Science and Public Policy 21(3): 173–183.Google Scholar
  27. Langfeldt, Liv, Mats Benner, Gunnar Sivertsen, Ernst H. Kristiansen, Dag W. Aksnes, Siri Brorstad Borlaug, Hanne Foss Hansen, Egil Kallerud, and Antti Pelkonen. 2015. Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect. Science and Public Policy 42(5): 661–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laudel, Grit, Martin Benninghoff, Eric Lettkemann, and Elias Håkansson. 2014a. Highly adaptable but not invulnerable: Necessary and facilitating conditions for research in evolutionary developmental biology. In Organizational transformation and scientific change: The impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation, eds. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser, 235–265. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  29. Laudel, Grit, Eric Lettkemann, Raphaël Ramuz, Linda Wedlin, and Richard Woolley. 2014b. Cold atoms—Hot research: High risks, high rewards in five different authority structures. In Organizational transformation and scientific change: The impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation, eds. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser, 203–234. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  30. Laudel, Grit, and Elke Weyer. 2014. Where have all the scientists gone? Building research profiles at Dutch universities and its consequences for research. In Organizational transformation and scientific change: The impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation, eds. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser, 111–140. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  31. Laudel, Grit, and Jochen Gläser. 2014. Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding. Research Policy 43(7): 1204–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, Frederic. 2009. A history of heterodox economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Lepori, Benedetto, Peter van den Besselaar, Michael Dinges, Bianca Potì, Emanuela Reale, Stig Slipersæter, Jean Thèves, and Barend van der Meulen. 2007. Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change? Science and Public Policy 34(6): 372–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leydesdorff, Loet, and Élaine Gauthier. 1996. The evaluation of national performance in selected priority areas using scientometric methods. Research Policy 25(3): 431–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luukkonen, Terttu, and Duncan A. Thomas. 2016. The ‘negotiated space’ of university researchers’ pursuit of a research agenda. Minerva 54(1): 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Makkonen, Teemu. 2013. Government science and technology budgets in times of crisis. Research Policy 42(3): 817–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Matthews, David. 2015. Success rates: Surge in applications to ‘struggling’ research councils. Retrieved 20 May 2016, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/success-rates-surge-applications-struggling-research-councils.
  38. Meier, Frank, and Uwe Schimank. 2010. Mission now possible: Profile building and leadership in German universities. In Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 211–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morris, Norma. 2000. Science policy in action: Policy and the researcher. Minerva 38(4): 425–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Musselin, Christine. 2014. Empowerment of French Universities by funding and evaluation agencies. In Organizational transformation and scientific change: The impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation, eds. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser, 51–76. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  41. National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2015. Research and training grants: Success rates by mechanism and selected activity codes. Retrieved 20 May 2016, from http://report.nih.gov/NIHDatabook/Charts/Default.aspx?showm=Y&chartId=202&catId=2.
  42. Owen-Smith, Jason, and Walter W. Powell. 2001. To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1–2): 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paradeise, Catherine, Emanuela Reale, Ivar Bleiklie, and Ewan Ferlie (eds.). 2009. University governance: Western European comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Pavitt, Keith. 2001. Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn). Industrial and Corporate Change 10(3): 761–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rafols, Ismael, Loet Leydesdorff, Alice O’Hare, Paul Nightingale, and Andy Stirling. 2012. How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management. Research Policy 41(7): 1262–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Research Councils UK. 2006. Report of the Research Councils UK efficiency and effectiveness of peer review project. Wiltshire: Research Councils UK.Google Scholar
  47. Rip, Arie. 1994. The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education 28: 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rip, Arie. 1995. New combinations. European Review 3: 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rip, Arie. 2011. Protected spaces of science: Their emergence and further evolution in a changing world. In Science in the context of application, eds. Martin Carrier and Alfred Nordmann, 197–220. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenau, James. 2004. Strong demand, huge supply: Governance in an emerging epoch. In Multi-level governance, eds. I. Bache and M. Flinders, 31–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Schimank, Uwe. 2005. ‘New Public Management’ and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation. Minerva 43: 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Solla Price, Derek de. 1986 [1963]. Little science, big science… and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Weingart, Peter. 2003. Growth, differentiation, expansion and change of identity—The future of science. In Social studies of science and technology: Looking back, ahead, eds. Bernward Joerges and Helga Nowotny, 183–200. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whitley, Richard. 2011. Changing governance and authority relations in the public sciences. Minerva 49(4): 359–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whitley, Richard. 2014. How do institutional changes affect scientific innovations? The effects of shifts in authority relationships, protected space, and flexibility. In Organizational transformation and scientific change: The impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation, eds. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser, 367–406. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  56. Whitley, Richard, and Jochen Gläser (eds.). 2007. The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Whitley, Richard, and Jochen Gläser. 2014a. Editor’s introduction. In Organizational transformation and scientific change: The impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation, eds. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser, 1–15. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  58. Whitley, Richard, and Jochen Gläser. 2014b. The impact of institutional reforms on the nature of universities as organisations. In Organizational transformation and scientific change: The impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation, eds. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser, 19–49. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  59. Ziman, John. 1994. Prometheus bound: Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alliance Manchester Business SchoolThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Center for Technology and SocietyTU BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of SociologyTU BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations