2006
DOI: 10.3152/147154306781778957
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scientists’ coping strategies in an evolving research system: the case of life scientists in the UK

Abstract: Scientists in academia have struggled to adjust to a policy climate of uncertain funding and loss of freedom from direction and control. How UK life scientists have negotiated this challenge, and with what consequences for their research and the research system, is the empirical entrance point of this paper. We find that policy impacts can be modulated and buffered by strategies and compromises devised and deployed at research performer level. This shifts conceptualisation from terms of responses to one of mor… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
29
0
6

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
29
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition to recognizing this two-way perspective in the principal-agent relationship, principal-agent theory has also been expanded to include configurations that go beyond bilateral or trilateral principal-agent relationships and concern multilateral relationships. Pleas for a more context-sensitive science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993;Gibbons et al, 1994;Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000) have given rise to a shift from delegation by contract based on 'new public management' to 'delegation to networks', which besides government and researchers also involve third parties such as users 2 (van der Meulen, 2003;Davenport et al, 2003;Gulbrandsen, 2005;Morris and Rip, 2006). Braun argues in this respect (2003: Laurens Klerkx is an assistant professor at the Communication and Innovation Studies Group at Wageningen University.…”
Section: Principal-agent Theory Perspectives On Delegation Of Authorimentioning
confidence: 95%
“…In addition to recognizing this two-way perspective in the principal-agent relationship, principal-agent theory has also been expanded to include configurations that go beyond bilateral or trilateral principal-agent relationships and concern multilateral relationships. Pleas for a more context-sensitive science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993;Gibbons et al, 1994;Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000) have given rise to a shift from delegation by contract based on 'new public management' to 'delegation to networks', which besides government and researchers also involve third parties such as users 2 (van der Meulen, 2003;Davenport et al, 2003;Gulbrandsen, 2005;Morris and Rip, 2006). Braun argues in this respect (2003: Laurens Klerkx is an assistant professor at the Communication and Innovation Studies Group at Wageningen University.…”
Section: Principal-agent Theory Perspectives On Delegation Of Authorimentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Research on British scientists tends to focus on outcomes of scientific work-such as commercialization of research (Haeussler and Colyvas 2011), science communication with the public (Pearson 2001;Johnson et al 2016), and scientists' involvement in policy (Waterton 2005)-rather than conditions of scientific work. We build on earlier studies of British scientists (Gaston 1975) and more recent essays (Morris and Rip 2006;Pritchard 1998) that consider workplace conditions. Specifically, the conditions of structural strain we identify illuminate threats to job satisfaction and professional autonomy in UK academic science careers.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Researchers are in general oriented to exploit, but also strengthen the particular structures of the system (e.g. multiple funding sources that are available for the same kind of research) and operating practices (peer review) (Morris and Rip, 2006). Therefore, competitive funding mechanisms not only result in the intended effects of directing research activities and improving quality, but also have side effects such as accepting researchers in mainstream, inflexible and lowquality research (Laudel, 2006).…”
Section: Levels Of Competition and Their Interdependence In Project Fmentioning
confidence: 99%