Over 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.

License: Article 25fa pilot End User Agreement This publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act (Auteurswet) with explicit consent by the author. Dutch law entitles the maker of a short scientific work funded either wholly or partially by Dutch public funds to make that work publicly available for no consideration following a reasonable period of time after the work was first published, provided that clear reference is made to the source of the first publication of the work. This publication is distributed under The Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) 'Article 25fa implementation' pilot project. In this pilot research outputs of researchers employed by Dutch Universities that comply with the legal requirements of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act are distributed online and free of cost or other barriers in institutional repositories. Research outputs are distributed six months after their first online publication in the original published version and with proper attribution to the source of the original publication. You are permitted to download and use the publication for personal purposes. All rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyrights owner(s) of this work. Any use of the publication other than authorised under this licence or copyright law is prohibited. If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons.

In spite of the growing literature about excellence funding in science, we know relatively little about its implications for academic research practices. This article compares organizational and epistemic effects of excellence funding across four disciplinary fields, based on in-depth case studies of four research groups in combination with twelve reference groups. In spite of the highly selective nature of excellence funding, all groups employ dedicated strategies to maximize their chances of acquiring it, which we call strategic anticipation. The groups with ample excellence funding acquire a relatively autonomous position within their organization. While the epistemic characteristics of the four fields shape how excellence funding can be used, we find that in all fields there is an increase in epistemic autonomy. However, in fields with more individual research practices a longer time horizon for grants, beyond the usual 5 years, would fit better with the research process.

Water pollution is an urgent and complex problem worldwide, with many dire consequences for ecosystems, human health and economic development. Although policy measures in OECD countries have helped to reduce point source pollution, the situation is set to worsen: population growth and climate change are placing increasing pressures on the ability of water bodies to process wastewater, nutrients and contaminants [1].For future generations to maintain a sufficient supply of clean drinking water and to retain a vital level of biodiversity, it is critical to involve the general public in dealing with the problems of water quality and water pollution. One specifically important and increasingly prominent way for the general public to get acquainted with water quality issues is through participation in research projects. All around the world numerous citizen science (CS) projects take place in the field of (drinking) water quality, hydrology, groundwater levels, and water biology [2]. In most cases these projects are motivated by the enormous potential volunteering citizens have to increase the temporal and spatial data availability. We argue that the value of many CS projects lies beyond data availability, in the broader societal benefits that these projects aspire or claim to achieve. In turn, these benefits could improve the way we approach water quality issues. The list of claimed and potential benefits is long: raising awareness, democratisation of science, development of mutual trust, confidence, and respect between scientists, authorities and the public, increased knowledge and scientific literacy, social learning, incorporation of local, traditional and indigenous knowledge, increased social capital, citizen empowerment, behavioural change, improved environment, health and livelihoods, and finally motivational benefits [3].Many of these broader societal benefits of public engagement with water research are especially important to battle water related issues worldwide. Increased 'water awareness' among the public is needed to encourage a general sense of urgency and hence support for research investments and policy measures. In the Netherlands, like in many other countries, many citizens take safe and clean (drinking) water for granted [4]. Therefore, people are not sufficiently aware what investments are needed to provide safe tap water and what they themselves should do to reduce domestic water pollution. To truly counter the dangers of deteriorating water quality, water science and policy must be organised more inclusively and democratically.The potential societal effect of CS in the water quality sector is substantial. In the Netherlands alone, more than 100,000 citizens volunteer as 'sensors' or observers in the numerous nature oriented research projects, in which they, for example, count aquatic animals or measure the chemical composition of river water. These projects are generally low-threshold, because the research tasks are relatively simple and adapted to the limited expertise and research skills of t...