IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v50y2021i10s0048733321001591.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pens and purse strings: Exploring the opportunities and limits to funding actionable sustainability science

Author

Listed:
  • Arnott, James C.

Abstract

Producing actionable science to improve social and environmental well-being enables the scientific enterprise to uphold expectations that accompany public funding for science. While innovations in the management of science funding may help overcome institutional hurdles to generating actionable science, the role of program managers in implementing such changes is relatively underexamined. Using sustainability science and related fields as a case, this study examines program documents (n = 33) and interviews of program management staff (n = 61) from public science funding programs in the United States and Europe. The results illuminate program management perspectives on the changing relationship between science and society and their own role in shaping it. In many instances, program managers in both regions are actively experimenting with practices that may strengthen links between knowledge and action. In certain contexts, program manager discretion may also amount to a form of science policy formation. However, program managers may still be limited in their ability to enact changes due to capacity constraints and still prevalent norms expressed by the research community. These results provide a window, and basis for future research, into the contemporary practice of science funding program management and its implications for sustainability and the social contract for science.

Suggested Citation

  • Arnott, James C., 2021. "Pens and purse strings: Exploring the opportunities and limits to funding actionable sustainability science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:50:y:2021:i:10:s0048733321001591
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733321001591
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104362?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    2. Jesper W. Schneider & Kaare Aagaard & Carter W. Bloch, 2016. "What happens when national research funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? A comparison of the Australian and Norwegian publication-based funding models," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 244-256.
    3. Gabriele Bammer & Michael O’Rourke & Deborah O’Connell & Linda Neuhauser & Gerald Midgley & Julie Thompson Klein & Nicola J. Grigg & Howard Gadlin & Ian R. Elsum & Marcel Bursztyn & Elizabeth A. Fulto, 2020. "Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Emanuela Reale & Antonio Zinilli, 2017. "Evaluation for the allocation of university research project funding: Can rules improve the peer review?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 190-198.
    5. Laurens Klerkx & Cees Leeuwis, 2008. "Delegation of authority in research funding to networks: Experiences with a multiple goal boundary organization," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 183-196, April.
    6. Guido Caniglia & C. Luederitz & T. Wirth & I. Fazey & B. Martín-López & K. Hondrila & A. König & H. Wehrden & N. A. Schäpke & M. D. Laubichler & D. J. Lang, 2021. "A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 93-100, February.
    7. David H Guston, 1996. "Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 229-240, August.
    8. Barry Bozeman & Daniel Sarewitz, 2005. "Public values and public failure in US science policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 119-136, April.
    9. Albert V. Norström & Christopher Cvitanovic & Marie F. Löf & Simon West & Carina Wyborn & Patricia Balvanera & Angela T. Bednarek & Elena M. Bennett & Reinette Biggs & Ariane Bremond & Bruce M. Campbe, 2020. "Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 182-190, March.
    10. Angela T. Bednarek & Ben Shouse & Charlotte G. Hudson & Rebecca Goldburg, 2016. "Science-policy intermediaries from a practitioner’s perspective: The Lenfest Ocean Program experience," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 291-300.
    11. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    12. J Britt Holbrook & Robert Frodeman, 2011. "Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 239-246, September.
    13. Braun, Dietmar, 1998. "The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 807-821, December.
    14. Sarah de Rijcke & Paul F. Wouters & Alex D. Rushforth & Thomas P. Franssen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2016. "Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 161-169.
    15. Michael Gibbons, 1999. "Science's new social contract with society," Nature, Nature, vol. 402(6761), pages 81-84, December.
    16. Dietmar Braun & David H Guston, 2003. "Principal-agent theory and research policy: An introduction," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(5), pages 302-308, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aparna Bamzai-Dodson & Renee A. McPherson, 2022. "When Do Climate Services Achieve Societal Impact? Evaluations of Actionable Climate Adaptation Science," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Estevão, João & Lopes, José Dias & Penela, Daniela, 2023. "SDG9 and the competitiveness: Employing mixed methods to understand how countries can use science to compete," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    3. Vivian Tseng & Angela Bednarek & Kristy Faccer, 2022. "How can funders promote the use of research? Three converging views on relational research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lepori, Benedetto, 2011. "Coordination modes in public funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 355-367, April.
    2. Alessandro Margherita & Gianluca Elia & Claudio Petti, 2022. "What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes and Evaluation Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    4. Nyboer, Elizabeth A & Nguyen, Vivian & Young, Nathan & Rytwinski, Trina & Taylor, Jessica J & Lane, John Francis & Bennett, Joseph R & Harron, Nathan & Aitkin, Susan M & Auld, Graeme, 2021. "Supporting actionable science for environmental policy: Advice for funding agencies from decision makers," EcoEvoRxiv 4ye2u, Center for Open Science.
    5. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    6. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    7. Marco Gatti, 2018. "The Impact of Management Accounting Research: An Analysis of the Past and a Look at the Future," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(5), pages 1-47, March.
    8. Alba Viana Lora & Marta Gemma Nel-lo Andreu, 2020. "Alternative Metrics for Assessing the Social Impact of Tourism Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-12, May.
    9. Laurens Klerkx & Andy Hall & Cees Leeuwis, 2009. "Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: are innovation brokers the answer?," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(5/6), pages 409-438.
    10. Cash, David & Clark, William, 2001. "From Science to Policy: Assessing the Assessment Process," Working Paper Series rwp01-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    11. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Myroslava Hladchenko, 2023. "Assessing the effects of publication requirements for professorship on research performance and publishing behaviour of Ukrainian academics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4589-4609, August.
    12. Kenny, Ursula & Regan, Áine & Hearne, Dave & O'Meara, Christine, 2021. "Empathising, defining and ideating with the farming community to develop a geotagged photo app for smart devices: A design thinking approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    13. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    14. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    15. J. Britt Holbrook, 2017. "The future of the impact agenda depends on the revaluation of academic freedom," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Daniela Filippo & Pablo Sastrón-Toledo, 2023. "Influence of research on open science in the public policy sphere," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1995-2017, March.
    17. Boon, Wouter P.C. & Moors, Ellen H.M. & Kuhlmann, Stefan & Smits, Ruud E.H.M., 2011. "Demand articulation in emerging technologies: Intermediary user organisations as co-producers?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 242-252, March.
    18. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    19. Michael Taylor, 2020. "An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2523-2543, December.
    20. Irwin Feller, 2022. "Assessing the societal impact of publicly funded research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 632-650, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:50:y:2021:i:10:s0048733321001591. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.