IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rif/report/29.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Project-based Funding and Novelty in University Research – Findings from Finland and the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Pelkonen, Antti – Thomas

Abstract

While societal expectations for university research have grown, university research has become more and more dependent on external funding sources. External funding has substantially increased at Finnish – and also UK – universities, and currently in practice a major share of university research is conducted with external funding. This report relates the main findings of a study that analysed the use of project-based research funding instruments at universities, most of which are external. The main focus in the study is on the aspects of novelty and creativity in research and the question of the extent to which different research funding instruments promote these aspects of research. This report draws on different data sources, but mostly on the UNI project (Universities, funding systems, and the renewal of the industrial knowledge base), funded by Tekes innovation research instrument. The major findings include an observation that Finnish research funding system lacks a funder that would strongly encourage risk-taking and novel approaches. Discontinuity and instability of research funding appears as a major challenge for research. There seems to be an overall increase of thematically predefined funding vis-à-vis free researcher-driven funding and close attention should be paid to this balance. Differences between Finland and the UK in terms of novelty generation turned out to be smaller than originally expected.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:rif:report:29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/ETLA-Raportit-Reports-29.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Tsang, Eric W. K., 2014. "Old and New," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(03), pages 390-390, November.
    3. Jonathan Grant & Liz Allen, 1999. "Evaluating high risk research: an assessment of the Wellcome Trust's Sir Henry Wellcome Commemorative Awards for Innovative Research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 201-204, December.
    4. Terttu Luukkonen, 2012. "Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 48-60, February.
    5. Luukkonen, Terttu & Thomas, Duncan A., 2013. "Industrial Engagement of University Research," ETLA Brief 20, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. Ali Shalizar Jalali, 2018. "Male Fertility as a Bull’s Eye for Mastocytosis," Global Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 3(3), pages 58-60, February.
    8. Nikolov, Plamen & Adelman, Alan, 2019. "Do private household transfers to the elderly respond to public pension benefits? Evidence from rural China," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).
    9. Dana Benešová & Viera Kubičková & Miroslava Prváková, 2020. "Open innovation model in the knowledge intensive business services in the Slovak Republic," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 8(2), pages 1340-1358, December.
    10. Selman, P., 2014. "Intercountry Adoption Agencies and the HCIA," ISS Working Papers - General Series 77404, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    11. Martinho, Vítor João Pereira Domingues, 2019. "Historical records of wine: Highlighting the old wine world," EconStor Preprints 193461, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    12. Trine Filges & Anu Siren & Torben Fridberg & Bjørn C. V. Nielsen, 2020. "Voluntary work for the physical and mental health of older volunteers: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), December.
    13. Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor & Walid Hamma & Huu Duy Nguyen & Giovanni Randazzo & Anselme Muzirafuti & Mari-Isabella Stan & Van Truong Tran & Roxana Aştefănoaiei & Quang-Thanh Bui & Dragoş-Florian Vintilă, 2020. "Degradation of Coastlines under the Pressure of Urbanization and Tourism: Evidence on the Change of Land Systems from Europe, Asia and Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-43, August.
    14. repec:ers:journl:v:special_issue:y:2018:i:1:p:466-478 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Sellami Sana & Verhaest Dieter & Nonneman Walter & Van Trier Walter, 2017. "The Impact of Educational Mismatches on Wages: The Influence of Measurement Error and Unobserved Heterogeneity," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, February.
    16. Kenneth M. Johnson & Daniel T. Lichter, 2016. "Diverging Demography: Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Contributions to U.S. Population Redistribution and Diversity," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 35(5), pages 705-725, October.
    17. Su, Guifu & Tu, Jianhua & Das, Kinkar Ch., 2015. "Graphs with fixed number of pendent vertices and minimal Zeroth-order general Randić index," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 270(C), pages 705-710.
    18. Zbigniew Drewniak & Rafal Drewniak & Robert Karaszewski, 2020. "The Assessment of the Features of Inter-organisational Relationships: Benefits, Duration, Repeatability and Maturity of the Relationship with the Company's Stakeholders," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 443-461.
    19. Tanja Lepistö & Tiina Mäkitalo-Keinonen & Tiina Valjakka, 0. "Opportunity recognition in a hub-governed network – insights from garage services," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-24.
    20. Sierra, Jazmin & Hochstetler, Kathryn, 2017. "Transnational activist networks and rising powers: transparency and environmental concerns in the Brazilian National Development Bank," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 79089, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    21. Carlo Borzaga & Silvia Sacchetti, 2015. "Why Social Enterprises Are Asking to Be Multi-stakeholder and Deliberative: An Explanation around the Costs of Exclusion," Euricse Working Papers 1575, Euricse (European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Funding; University research; Novelty;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • O39 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rif:report:29. 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: Kaija Hyvönen-Rajecki (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/etlaafi.html .

    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.