The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding
Minerva 56 (1):11-33 (2018)
AbstractOver the past decades, science funding shows a shift from recurrent block funding towards project funding mechanisms. However, our knowledge of how project funding arrangements influence the organizational and epistemic properties of research is limited. To study this relation, a bridge between science policy studies and science studies is necessary. Recent studies have analyzed the relation between the affordances and constraints of project grants and the epistemic properties of research. However, the potentially very different affordances and constraints of funding arrangements such as awards, prizes and fellowships, have not yet been taken into account. Drawing on eight case studies of funding arrangements in high performing Dutch research groups, this study compares the institutional affordances and constraints of prizes with those of project grants and their effects on organizational and epistemic properties of research. We argue that the prize case studies diverge from project-funded research in three ways: 1) a more flexible use, and adaptation of use, of funds during the research process compared to project grants; 2) investments in the larger organization which have effects beyond the research project itself; and 3), closely related, greater deviation from epistemic and organizational standards. The increasing dominance of project funding arrangements in Western science systems is therefore argued to be problematic in light of epistemic and organizational innovation. Funding arrangements that offer funding without scholars having to submit a project-proposal remain crucial to support researchers and research groups to deviate from epistemic and organizational standards.
Similar books and articles
At Arm’s Length? Applied Social Science and its Sponsors.Heidi Kjærnet - 2010 - Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (3):161-169.
Funding, Objectivity and the Socialization of Medical Research.James Robert Brown - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):295--308.
Centralized Funding and Epistemic Exploration.Shahar Avin - 2017 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axx059.
Why Do Funding Agencies Favor Hypothesis Testing?Chris Haufe - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (3):363-374.
Cerebral Palsy Research Funding From the National Institutes of Health, 2001 to 2013.Y. W. Wu, A. S. Mehravari, A. L. Numis & P. Gross - unknown
Do Financial Conflicts of Interest Bias Research?: An Inquiry Into the “Funding Effect” Hypothesis.Sheldon Krimsky - 2012 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 38 (4):566-587.
La Politique Britannique D’Aide À L’Innovation : Pour Une Recherche Scientifique D’Excellence British Policy and Innovation: Supporting Outstanding World-Class Scientific Research.Esposito Marie-Claude - unknown
“Broader Impacts” or “Responsible Research and Innovation”? A Comparison of Two Criteria for Funding Research in Science and Engineering.Michael Davis & Kelly Laas - 2014 - Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (4):963-983.
Funding the Frontier – the Human Frontier Science Program.Martin Reddington - 2010 - Bioessays 32 (10):842-844.
A 'Parallel Process'? Beginning a Constructive Conversation About a Mäori Methodology.Fiona Cram, Hazel Phillips, Bevan Tipene-Matua, Murray Parsons & Katrina Taupo - 2004 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 1 (1):14-19.
Values in Nanomedical Research: A Discussion Based on the NANOCAN Project on Nanoparticles in Cancer Therapy and Diagnosis.Anders Strand - 2017 - NanoEthics 11 (3):259-271.
Ethical Issues in Funding Orphan Drug Research and Development.C. A. Gericke - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (3):164-168.
Transformative Science: A New Index and the Impact of Non-Funding, Private Funding, and Public Funding.Barrett R. Anderson & Gregory J. Feist - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (2):130-151.
Researcher Views About Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in Nanotechnology.Katherine A. McComas - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):699-717.
Taking the “Soft Impacts” of Technology Into Account: Broadening the Discourse in Research Practice.Simone van der Burg - 2009 - Social Epistemology 23 (3):301-316.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Portfolios of Worth: Capitalizing on Basic and Clinical Problems in Biomedical Research Groups.Sarah de Rijcke, Thomas Franssen & Alexander Rushforth - 2019 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 44 (2):209-236.
The Way We Ask for Money… The Emergence and Institutionalization of Grant Writing Practices in Academia.Kathia Serrano Velarde - 2018 - Minerva 56 (1):85-107.
Internally Incentivized Interdisciplinarity: Organizational Restructuring of Research and Emerging Tensions.Mikko Salmela, Miles MacLeod & Johan Munck af Rosenschöld - 2021 - Minerva 59 (3):355-377.
The Policy of Testing Hypotheses in Chilean Science. The Role of a Hypothesis-Driven Research Funding Programme in the Installation of a Hypothesis-Driven Experimental System in Visual Neuroscience.Juan Manuel Garrido Wainer, Natalia Hirmas-Montecinos & Nicolás Trujillo Osorio - 2022 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 96:68-76.
References found in this work
The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences.Richard Whitley - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
The Proliferation of Prizes: Nobel Complements and Nobel Surrogates in the Reward System of Science.Harriet Zuckerman - 1992 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 13 (2).