IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v43y2014i7p1204-1216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding

Author

Listed:
  • Laudel, Grit
  • Gläser, Jochen

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to initiate a discussion about links between epistemic properties and institutional conditions for research by providing an exploratory analysis of such links featured by projects funded by the European Research Council (ERC). Our analysis identifies epistemic properties of research processes and links them to necessary and favourable conditions for research, and through these to institutional conditions provided by grants. Our findings enable the conclusion that there is research that is important for the progress of a field but is difficult to fund with common project grants. The predominance and standardisation of grant funding, which can be observed about many European countries, appears to reduce the chances of unconventional projects across all disciplines. Funding programmes of the ‘ERC-type’ (featuring large and flexible budgets, long time horizons, and risk-tolerant selection processes) constitute an institutional innovation because they enable such research. However, while the ERC funding and other new funding schemes for exceptional research attempt to cover these requirements, they are unlikely to suffice.

Suggested Citation

  • Laudel, Grit & Gläser, Jochen, 2014. "Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1204-1216.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:43:y:2014:i:7:p:1204-1216
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733314000389
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Heinze, 2008. "How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(5), pages 302-318, June.
    2. Whitley, Richard, 2003. "Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1015-1029, June.
    3. Thomas Heinze & Philip Shapira & Jacqueline Senker & Stefan Kuhlmann, 2007. "Identifying creative research accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(1), pages 125-152, January.
    4. Braun, Dietmar, 1998. "The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 807-821, December.
    5. Jonathan Grant & Liz Allen, 1999. "Evaluating high risk research: an assessment of the Wellcome Trust's Sir Henry Wellcome Commemorative Awards for Innovative Research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 201-204, December.
    6. Caroline S. Wagner & Jeffrey Alexander, 2013. "Evaluating transformative research programmes: A case study of the NSF Small Grants for Exploratory Research programme," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 187-197, June.
    7. Heinze, Thomas & Shapira, Philip & Rogers, Juan D. & Senker, Jacqueline M., 2009. "Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 610-623, May.
    8. Terttu Luukkonen, 2012. "Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 48-60, February.
    9. Campbell, Eric G. & Weissman, Joel S. & Causino, Nancyanne & Blumenthal, David, 2000. "Data withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 303-312, February.
    10. Edwin Horlings & Thomas Gurney, 2013. "Search strategies along the academic lifecycle," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1137-1160, March.
    11. Feller, Irwin & Ailes, Catherine P. & Roessner, J. David, 2002. "Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 457-474, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.
    2. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    3. Lucas Brunet & Ruth Müller, 2022. "Making the cut: How panel reviewers use evaluation devices to select applications at the European Research Council," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 486-497.
    4. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao & Eugenio Petrovich, 2019. "Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, September.
    5. Suominen, Arho & Peng, Haoshu & Ranaei, Samira, 2019. "Examining the dynamics of an emerging research network using the case of triboelectric nanogenerators," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 820-830.
    6. Albert, Mathieu & Laberge, Suzanne, 2017. "Confined to a tokenistic status: Social scientists in leadership roles in a national health research funding agency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 137-146.
    7. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    8. Julia Heuritsch, 2021. "Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, November.
    9. Jia Zhou & Aifang Guo & Yutao Chen & Jin Chen, 2022. "Original Innovation through Inter-Organizational Collaboration: Empirical Evidence from University-Focused Alliance Portfolio in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    10. Soo Jeung Lee & Christian Schneijderberg & Yangson Kim & Isabel Steinhardt, 2021. "Have Academics’ Citation Patterns Changed in Response to the Rise of World University Rankings? A Test Using First-Citation Speeds," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, August.
    11. Leila Jabrane, 2022. "Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    12. Julia Heuritsch, 2023. "The Evaluation Gap in Astronomy—Explained through a Rational Choice Framework," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-26, June.
    13. Eva Barlösius & Laura Paruschke & Axel Philipps, 2024. "Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 623-634.
    14. Abbas Abdul, 2023. "Policy seduction and governance resistance? Examining public funding agencies and academic institutions on decarbonisation research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 87-101.
    15. Groen-Xu, Moqi & Bös, Gregor & Teixeira, Pedro A. & Voigt, Thomas & Knapp, Bernhard, 2023. "Short-term incentives of research evaluations: Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    16. Li, Xin & Wen, Yang & Jiang, Jiaojiao & Daim, Tugrul & Huang, Lucheng, 2022. "Identifying potential breakthrough research: A machine learning method using scientific papers and Twitter data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    17. Koppman, Sharon & Leahey, Erin, 2019. "Who moves to the methodological edge? Factors that encourage scientists to use unconventional methods," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    18. Claartje J Vinkenburg & Sara Connolly & Stefan Fuchs & Channah Herschberg & Brigitte Schels, 2020. "Mapping career patterns in research: A sequence analysis of career histories of ERC applicants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, July.
    19. Eva Barlösius & Kristina Blem, 2021. "Evidence of research mastery: How applicants argue the feasibility of their research projects [Concepts of originality in the natural science, medical, and engineering disciplines: An analysis of r," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 563-571.
    20. Benneworth,Paul & Olmos-Peñuela,Julia, 2014. "Resolving tensions of research utilization: The value of a usability-based approach," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201410, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 22 Oct 2018.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Youtie, Jan & Rogers, Juan & Heinze, Thomas & Shapira, Philip & Tang, Li, 2013. "Career-based influences on scientific recognition in the United States and Europe: Longitudinal evidence from curriculum vitae data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1341-1355.
    2. J. Rigby & K. Julian, 2014. "On the horns of a dilemma: does more funding for research lead to more research or a waste of resources that calls for optimization of researcher portfolios? An analysis using funding acknowledgement ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1067-1075, November.
    3. Lettice, Fiona & Smart, Palie & Baruch, Yehuda & Johnson, Mark, 2012. "Navigating the impact-innovation double hurdle: The case of a climate change research fund," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1048-1057.
    4. Pelkonen, Antti – Thomas, 2014. "Project-based Funding and Novelty in University Research – Findings from Finland and the UK," ETLA Reports 29, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    5. Conor O'Kane & James Cunningham & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Underpinning Strategic Behaviours and Posture of Principal Investigators in Transition/Uncertain Environments," Working paper serie RMT - Grenoble Ecole de Management hal-00794944, HAL.
    6. Conor O'Kane & James Cunningham & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Underpinning Strategic Behaviours and Posture of Principal Investigators in Transition/Uncertain Environments," Working Papers hal-00794944, HAL.
    7. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    8. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    9. Benjamin Clark, 2011. "Influences and conflicts of federal policies in academic–industrial scientific collaboration," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 514-545, October.
    10. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    11. Schuetzenmeister, Falk, 2010. "University Research Management: An Exploratory Literature Review," Institute of European Studies, Working Paper Series qt77p3j2hr, Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley.
    12. Mie Augier & James G. March & Andrew W. Marshall, 2015. "Perspective—The Flaring of Intellectual Outliers: An Organizational Interpretation of the Generation of Novelty in the RAND Corporation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1140-1161, August.
    13. Balietti, Stefano & Riedl, Christoph, 2021. "Incentives, competition, and inequality in markets for creative production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    14. Lepori, Benedetto, 2011. "Coordination modes in public funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 355-367, April.
    15. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    16. Nicolas Battard & Paul F. Donnelly & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Integration of multiple stakeholders in scientific research : A sensemaking-sensegiving approach," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-01514751, HAL.
    17. Shibayama, Sotaro & Lawson, Cornelia, 2021. "The use of rewards in the sharing of research resources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    18. Tim Flink, 2022. "Taking the pulse of science diplomacy and developing practices of valuation [The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 191-200.
    19. Manlio Del Giudice & Melita Nicotra & Marco Romano & Carmela Elita Schillaci, 2017. "Entrepreneurial performance of principal investigators and country culture: relations and influences," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 320-337, April.
    20. Sandström, Ulf & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2018. "Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 365-384.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:43:y:2014:i:7:p:1204-1216. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.