Excellence and frontier research have made inroads into European research policymaking and structure political agendas, funding programs and evaluation practices. The two concepts travelled a long way from the United States and have derived from contexts outside of science. Following their conceptual journey, we ask how excellence and frontier research have percolated into European science and higher education policies and how they have turned into lubricants of competition that buttress an ongoing reform process in Europe.

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 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. (shrink)

This paper offers a conceptually novel contribution to the understanding of the distinctive governance challenges arising from the increasing reliance on formalized knowledge in the governance of research activities. It uses the current Australian research governance system as an example – a system which exhibits a comparatively strong degree of formalization as to its knowledge mechanisms. Combining theoretical reflections on the political-administrative and epistemic dimensions of processes of formalization with analyses of interview data gathered at Australian universities, it is suggested (...) that such a strong reliance on formalized knowledge has rather ambivalent governance ramifications. On the one hand, it allows for a seemingly rational and efficient form of the control and coordination of research activities. Yet on the other hand, it also increases the risk that knowledge is used in governance contexts in superficial, unconsidered and ultimately unreasonable ways. It is further suggested that there are a range of indications that precisely such use elicits and reinforces a range of dysfunctional behaviors on part of relevant individual and organizational actors in the public science system. (shrink)

The media have become an important arena where struggles over the symbolic legitimacy of expert authority take place and where scientific experts increasingly have to compete for public recognition. The rise of authoritarian and populist leaders in many countries and the growing importance of social media have fueled criticism against scientific institutions and individual researchers. This paper discusses the new hidden forms of suppression and self-censorship regarding scientists’ roles as public experts. It is based on two web surveys conducted among (...) Finnish researchers in 2015 and 2017. We focus on answers to the open-ended questions in these surveys, where respondents reflect upon issues of freedom of expression and the feedback they receive in public arenas. Building on previous research on suppression, “research silencing,” and the “chilling effect,” we discuss the connection between freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry. We make a distinction between four forms of suppression: political and economic control, organizational control, control between rival academics, and control from publics. Moreover, we make explicit and discuss the means, motives, and practices of suppression within each of these four forms. (shrink)

En los últimos años, la participación desigual de mujeres en ciencia y tecnología ha sido objeto de atención política y de reflexión académica. En este trabajo, nos concentramos en la situación de las mujeres en dos organismos públicos de investigación y desarrollo en la Argentina - la Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica y el Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria - para comprender la forma en que estas desigualdades son problematizadas en fuentes documentales y académicas. Además de sistematizar aquellos procesos que (...) aparecen como significativos para la producción de brechas y barreras de género, nuestro relevamiento busca identificar el rol atribuido a los mecanismos de reclutamiento, evaluación, y promoción científica y tecnológica. En ambas instituciones, existen problematizaciones de las brechas de género, así como también de las arbitrariedades e inconsistencias en los procesos institucionales de evaluación, pero ninguna de estas áreas de problematización dialoga con la otra. Retomando los aportes de la sociología política de la ciencia, proponemos que el abordaje de los mecanismos de reclutamiento, evaluación y promoción son clave para comprender las barreras de género que, en tanto mecanismos institucionalizados, dificultan el acceso de las mujeres a ciertas posiciones jerárquicas y áreas de experticia. El examen de estos mecanismos también podría contribuir con el desacople de nociones genéricas, como la de STEM, con las que ha sido abordada frecuentemente la problemática, poniendo el foco en los procesos institucionales propios de los organismos públicos de investigación y desarrollo. (shrink)

Notions of research quality are contextual in many respects: they vary between fields of research, between review contexts and between policy contexts. Yet, the role of these co-existing notions in research, and in research policy, is poorly understood. In this paper we offer a novel framework to study and understand research quality across three key dimensions. First, we distinguish between quality notions that originate in research fields and in research policy spaces. Second, drawing on existing studies, we identify three attributes (...) considered important for ‘good research’: its originality/novelty, plausibility/reliability, and value or usefulness. Third, we identify five different sites where notions of research quality emerge, are contested and institutionalised: researchers themselves, knowledge communities, research organisations, funding agencies and national policy arenas. We argue that the framework helps us understand processes and mechanisms through which ‘good research’ is recognised as well as tensions arising from the co-existence of conflicting quality notions. (shrink)

Cet article étudie les effets des politiques de financements sur projets sur la recherche académique. À partir du cas d'un laboratoire de biophysique, il rend compte de l'influence de la temporalité gestionnaire courte des projets sur la trajectoire des collectifs scientifiques en considérant la dimension de politique scientifique propre à cet instrument de financement. Destiné à renforcer la collaboration entre physiciens et biologistes, le programme de financement sur projets associé au laboratoire étudié a permis de faire évoluer durablement ses orientations (...) thématiques : des recherches initiées localement se prolongent ensuite sur des financements externes plus importants. L'article montre alors, en comparant les différentes équipes du laboratoire, que l'influence de cette temporalité gestionnaire des projets sur leurs trajectoires dépend largement de la situation des chercheurs et propose alors d'identifier différents régimes d’usage des financements sur projets en lien avec un couplage plus ou moins fort du « temps du projet » sur le déroulement des recherches. (shrink)

This paper establishes a structural typology of the organisational configurations of public research organisations which vary in their relative internal sharing of authority between researchers and managers; we distinguish between autonomous, heteronomous and managed research organisations. We assume that there are at least two sources of legitimate authority within research organisations, one derived from formal hierarchy and another derived from the research community ; the balance of authority between researchers and managers is essentially structural but is empirically mediated by the (...) funding portfolio of organisations and the corresponding endowment of resources at the disposal of leaders or researchers. Changes in the level, sources and strings of organisational and individual research funding are expected to affect the balance of internal authority in different ways depending on the organisational configuration, and to open the door to the influence of external actors in the development of research agendas. (shrink)