IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v22y2013i3p187-197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating transformative research programmes: A case study of the NSF Small Grants for Exploratory Research programme

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline S. Wagner
  • Jeffrey Alexander

Abstract

This article describes an evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) programme conducted for NSF by SRI International (a non-profit research company). SGER was a 16-year programme sponsored by NSF and operating across the agency from 1990 until 2006 to encourage programme directors to invest in high-risk, high-reward research that might not pass the traditional peer review process. This article provides a detailed background of SGER; a description of the outcomes of the programme; details about the methodology used to evaluate the SGER programme; and the findings of the evaluation. The analysis shows that SGER was highly successful in supporting research projects that produced transformative results as measured by citations and as reported through expert interviews and a survey. However, the NSF programme directors as a whole underutilized the tool for most of the years it was in operation spending far less than the allowable funds allocated to exploratory research; this suggests that internal actions to take risks may not have been rewarded. Moreover, the programme itself was successful beyond expectations. A high-risk programme would be expected to have transformative results in just a few cases. SGER had transformative research results tied to more than 10% of projects. This suggests that programme managers remained risk averse and continued to support projects that were likely to produce positive outcomes. Copyright The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline S. Wagner & Jeffrey Alexander, 2013. "Evaluating transformative research programmes: A case study of the NSF Small Grants for Exploratory Research programme," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 187-197, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:22:y:2013:i:3:p:187-197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvt006
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    2. Jacqueline N. Lane & Misha Teplitskiy & Gary Gray & Hardeep Ranu & Michael Menietti & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2022. "Conservatism Gets Funded? A Field Experiment on the Role of Negative Information in Novel Project Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4478-4495, June.
    3. Laudel, Grit & Gläser, Jochen, 2014. "Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1204-1216.
    4. Seolmin Yang & So Young Kim, 2023. "Knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by homogeneous funding sources: a case of US federally funded research in biomedical and life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3257-3282, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:22:y:2013:i:3:p:187-197. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.