Different recipes for the same dish: Comparing policies for scientific excellence across different countries

Abstract

Abstract:Many countries witness the rise of 'excellence initiatives'. These policies promote vertical differentiation in the science system by funding top research performers and expecting positive spill-over effects. However, current understanding of the functioning and (potential) effects of these instruments is limited. We compare policies aimed at promoting excellence in four countries (the UK, Germany, Denmark and Switzerland), using secondary sources and 14 expert interviews. Using the notion of coordination approaches as a heuristic tool, we characterise each policy in terms of the coordinating actor, the system addressed, the activities that are coordinated, the specific interventions taken and the types of relationships affected. We find that countries adopt very different approaches to reach similar goals and thus bring into question appealing but simplistic ideas of 'excellence' as an agreed concept. Remarkably, excellence policies are more prone to reveal existing but tacit diversity in the system than to generate new relational patterns.http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/spp AbstractMany countries witness the rise of 'excellence initiatives'. These policies promote vertical differentiation in the science system by funding top research performers and expecting positive spill-over effects. However, current understanding of the functioning and (potential) effects of these instruments is limited. We compare policies aimed at promoting excellence in four countries (the UK, Germany, Denmark and Switzerland), using secondary sources and 14 expert interviews. Using the notion of coordination approaches as a heuristic tool, we characterise each policy in terms of the coordinating actor, the system addressed, the activities that are coordinated, the specific interventions taken and the types of relationships affected. We find that countries adopt very different approaches to reach similar goals and thus bring into question appealing but simplistic ideas of 'excellence' as an agreed concept. Remarkably, excellence policies are more prone to reveal existing but tacit diversity in the system than to generate new relational patterns.Keywords: excellence; science policy; coordination; differentiation; Matthew Effect IntroductionIn many countries promoting scientific excellence has become the primary target of science policy. A generic measure is to make research funding conditional upon performance. Several countries have introduced performance-based research funding system in which resources are directed towards excellent performers (Hicks 2012;Lewis & Ross 2011;Lewis 2015;Jonkers & Zacharewicz 2016). In addition, funding has shifted from institutional core funding to competitive project funding (Lepori et al. 2007;Jongbloed et al 2015). In a recent report, the OECD observed the emergence of research excellence initiatives (REIs) aimed at encouraging 'outstanding research by providing large-scale, long-term funding to designated research units, with an emphasis on research of exceptional quality.' (OECD 2014, p. 2...

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

“…This mechanism amplifies the 'Matthew-effect' (Merton 1968) which predicts that researchers that have acquired a certain level of recognition, more easily receive more recognition for their achievements than researchers that are relatively unknown in the academic community. In this way, prestigious excellence grants, which are of growing prominence in many science systems (Cremonini et al 2017), may create a positive feedback loop that increases the inequality of resources in a given science system. Although the purpose of excellence funding is to selectively support top performance, policymakers need to reflect on the degree of inequality that is desirable.…”

The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship

“…The transformative power of a values-enacted approach If, as we have suggested, a first step in deepening the meaning of scholarly excellence is to realign our systems of evaluation with an explicit understanding of the values that shape our scholarship, we are now in a position to recognize that "quality" scholarship simply is intentionally enacting the values that give our work purpose. Notions of "excellence" when it comes to research evaluation have long been discussed and often contested (Adams and Gurney, 2014;Bernal and Villalpando, 2002;Brown and Leigh, 2018;Carli et al, 2019;Cremonini et al 2018;Hamann, 2016;Hazelkorn, 2015;Hester, 2003;Hicks, 2012;Johnston, 2008;Kalpazidou Schmidt and Graversen, 2018;Kraemer-Mbula et al, 2020;Kwok, 2013;Ndofirepi, 2017;Oancea and Furlong, 2007;Thelwall and Delgado, 2015;Tijssen, 2003;Tijssen and Kraemer-Mbula, 2017;Vessuri et al, 2013). From Bill Readings' The University in Ruins (1997) and Michèle Lamont's How Professors Think (2010) to the more recent "Excellence R Us" article (Moore et al, 2016), we have repeated reminders that excellence often itself serves as a false proxy for evaluating scholarly work and institutions.…”

How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment

“…During the past few decades, researchers increasingly have become incentivised to focus their efforts on achievements connected to the notion of academic excellence, which is measured by various indicators, including journal publications, funding or academic promotion (Cremonini et al 2017;Moore et al 2017). However, at the same time, science and innovation policies increasingly have prioritised research that is relevant to society (D'Este et al 2018;Hessels et al 2009).…”

“…In some instances, this allows the researcher to dedicate more time to research, which can further enhance the quality and quantity of research output. The acquisition of funding for academic research has become more competitive and connected to the notion of excellence (Cremonini et al 2017;OECD 2014). Competitive research grants, particularly excellence grants, can help the researcher obtain peer recognition (Young 2015).…”