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

Laudel, Grit; Gläser, Jochen

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.006

Cited by 111 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the purpose of excellence funding is to selectively support top performance, policymakers need to reflect on the degree of inequality that is desirable. We argue that, as an implication of the variation we found for research councils, and in line with earlier claims (Laudel and Gläser 2014), funding instruments could cater more to the specific needs of individual epistemic cultures. For example, epistemic cultures that depend more on staff than equipment (mathematics, humanities) for the production of data need smaller grants than cultures requiring costly facilities.…”

Section: Variation In Valuationsupporting

confidence: 88%

Variation in Valuation: How Research Groups Accumulate Credibility in Four Epistemic Cultures

Hessels

Franssen

Scholten

et al. 2019

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Variation In Valuationsupporting

confidence: 88%

Variation in Valuation: How Research Groups Accumulate Credibility in Four Epistemic Cultures

Hessels

Franssen

Scholten

et al. 2019

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although most of the research is concerned with collaboration, a portion of the literature has shown interest in individual level grants, particularly those offered through the European Research Council (see Cruz-Castro et al, 2016;Edler et al, 2014;Hörlesberger et al, 2013;König, 2016;Laudel & Gläser, 2014;Luukkonen, 2012Luukkonen, , 2014Nedeva, 2013;Neufeld et al, 2013;Thomas & Nedeva, 2012). These studies focus on how this funding instrument has affected research organizations and the governance of breakthrough research (Cruz-Castro et al, 2016;Edler et al, 2014;Laudel & Gläser, 2014;Luukkonen, 2014;Thomas & Nedeva, 2012), as well as what characterizes those that are awarded funding (Neufeld et al, 2013). Results from this last study show that researchers applying for this type of grant are already top tier scholars and there is no difference in terms of scientific productivity between those who are awarded funding and those who aren'tthe distinguishing factor rather lies in the impact of their scientific productivity (Neufeld et al, 2013).…”

Section: Eu Fp Specific Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who gets Horizon 2020 research grants? Propensity to apply and probability to succeed in a two-step analysis

Enger

Castellacci

2016

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…8 This can be, for example, by introducing separate criteria and ratings of societal impact(Langfeldt and Scordato 2016). Studies of grant review indicate that the feasibility of projects is often highly emphasised, and grant review is accused of being 'conservative' and inhibiting unconventional projects(Lee 2015;Laudel and Gläser 2014;Luukkonen 2012). This suggests a counter-emphasis in relation to review of manuscripts for publication (noted above).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-existing Notions of Research Quality: A Framework to Study Context-specific Understandings of Good Research

Langfeldt

Nedeva

Sörlin

et al. 2019

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 (Field-type) and in research policy spaces (Space-type). Second, drawing on existing studies, we identify three attributes (often) 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 (potentially) conflicting quality notions. 3Co-existing Notions of Research Quality dimensions of our framework, encompassing: (i) types of quality notions; (ii) attributes of quality; and (iii) sites where notions are established and institutionalised. Third, we combine these three dimensions into an overall framework to study and understand research quality notions. We then discuss ways in which this proposed approach stands to change the research agenda.

show abstract

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

Cited by 111 publications

References 39 publications

Variation in Valuation: How Research Groups Accumulate Credibility in Four Epistemic Cultures

Variation in Valuation: How Research Groups Accumulate Credibility in Four Epistemic Cultures

Who gets Horizon 2020 research grants? Propensity to apply and probability to succeed in a two-step analysis

Co-existing Notions of Research Quality: A Framework to Study Context-specific Understandings of Good Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About