IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v35y2008i5p302-318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Heinze

Abstract

A key challenge for research management and science policy is support of scientific exploration of new research frontiers. This paper examines funding schemes that aim to encourage scientists to conduct unconventional and high-risk research. Schemes are analyzed across institutional dimensions, such as: target group and field, selection process and criteria, budget size, and funding duration. It argues that sponsorship programs for ground-breaking research should: respond to the existing talent pool rather than setting arbitrary funding thresholds, undertake efforts to contend with the selection bias of peer review, and take an applicant's ongoing research into account. It discusses whether such programs should be within existing funding organizations, or if new funding agencies that are dedicated to sponsoring ground-breaking research should be set up. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Heinze, 2008. "How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(5), pages 302-318, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:35:y:2008:i:5:p:302-318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234208X317151
    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. David Gurwitz & Elena Milanesi & Thomas Koenig, 2014. "Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-6, December.
    2. Conor O'Kane & James Cunningham & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Underpinning Strategic Behaviours and Posture of Principal Investigators in Transition/Uncertain Environments," Working paper serie RMT - Grenoble Ecole de Management hal-00794944, HAL.
    3. Leila Jabrane, 2022. "Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Heinze, Thomas & Shapira, Philip & Rogers, Juan D. & Senker, Jacqueline M., 2009. "Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 610-623, May.
    5. Sandström, Ulf & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2018. "Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 365-384.
    6. Conor O'Kane & James Cunningham & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Underpinning Strategic Behaviours and Posture of Principal Investigators in Transition/Uncertain Environments," Working Papers hal-00794944, HAL.
    7. Karolin Sjöö & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, 2023. "Gender mainstreaming research funding: a study of effects on STEM research proposals," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 304-317.
    8. 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.
    9. Pelkonen, Antti – Thomas, 2014. "Project-based Funding and Novelty in University Research – Findings from Finland and the UK," ETLA Reports 29, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    10. J. Rigby & K. Julian, 2014. "On the horns of a dilemma: does more funding for research lead to more research or a waste of resources that calls for optimization of researcher portfolios? An analysis using funding acknowledgement ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1067-1075, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.
    13. Eva Barlösius & Kristina Blem, 2021. "Evidence of research mastery: How applicants argue the feasibility of their research projects [Concepts of originality in the natural science, medical, and engineering disciplines: An analysis of r," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 563-571.
    14. Julian Clark & Gabrielle Hirsch & Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2016. "Research Funding Mechanisms and Biomedical Research Outputs," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 35(2), pages 142-154, June.
    15. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    16. Lettice, Fiona & Smart, Palie & Baruch, Yehuda & Johnson, Mark, 2012. "Navigating the impact-innovation double hurdle: The case of a climate change research fund," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1048-1057.
    17. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    18. Irwin Feller, 2013. "Peer review and expert panels as techniques for evaluating the quality of academic research," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 5, pages 115-142, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Andereggen, Stefan & Vischer, Moritz & Boutellier, Roman, 2012. "Honest but broke: The dilemma of universities acting as honest brokers," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 118-126.
    20. Jürgen Janger & Thomas König, 2020. "Forschungspolitik in Österreich. Zentrale Ansatzpunkte für eine Leistungssteigerung in der Grundlagenforschung," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 66625, February.
    21. Adriana Bin & Sergio Salles-Filho & Luiza Maria Capanema & Fernando Antonio Basile Colugnati, 2015. "What difference does it make? Impact of peer-reviewed scholarships on scientific production," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1167-1188, February.
    22. Dangzhi Zhao, 2010. "Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 293-306, August.
    23. Luukkonen, Terttu, 2014. "Universities, Funding Systems, and the Renewal of the Industrial Knowledge Base – UNI Project Findings," ETLA Reports 33, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.

    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:scippl:v:35:y:2008:i:5:p:302-318. 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/spp .

    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.