IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/2016-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew L. Wallace

    (Ingenio (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València, València, Spain)

  • Ismael Rafols

    (Ingenio (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València, València, Spain
    SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit), University of Sussex, Brighton, England
    Observatoire des Sciences et Techniques (OST-HCERES), Paris, France)

Abstract

Since outbreaks in 2003, avian influenza has received a considerable amount of funding and become a controversial science policy issue in various respects. Like in many so-called “grand challenges”, a variety of perspectives have emerged over how to “tackle” avian influenza and public voices have expressed concern over how research funds are being allocated. In this article we inquire into the priorities of avian influenza research. We use qualitative and quantitative data to examine the relations between societal demands for public science and the existing “research landscape”. Interviews of a cross-section of stakeholders revealed a diversity of perspectives on existing research and its desired outcomes, and a generalized difficulty to explicitly connect the two. We also observed a lack of a common understanding of priorities for conducting and applying research. Rather than well-defined research agendas, we found that most public avian influenza research is shaped by three institutional contexts: pharmaceutical industry priorities, publishing and public research funding pressures, and the mandates of international and national science-based policy or public health organizations. Our results are significant for informing not only resource allocation issues, but also a broad perspective of research governance that explicitly takes into account underlying incentive structures when defining priorities.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:2016-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/swps2016-02
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Nightingale & Alister Scott, 2007. "Peer review and the relevance gap: Ten suggestions for policy-makers," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 543-553, October.
    2. Bulat Sanditov & Saurabh Arora, 2015. "Social network and private provision of public goods," Post-Print hal-01266463, HAL.
    3. Rosenfield, Patricia L., 1992. "The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1343-1357, December.
    4. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    5. Andy Stirling, 2007. "A General Framework for Analysing Diversity in Science, Technology and Society," SPRU Working Paper Series 156, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Gabriele Pellegrino, 2015. "Barriers to Innovation: Can Firm Age Help Lower Them?," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-33, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "Twenty challenges for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 432-450.
    8. Goldfarb, Brent, 2008. "The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 41-58, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Daniele Rotolo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2015. "Matching Medline/PubMed data with Web of Science: A routine in R language," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2155-2159, October.
    11. Shibayama, Sotaro & Baba, Yasunori, 2015. "Impact-oriented science policies and scientific publication practices: The case of life sciences in Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 936-950.
    12. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    13. Bulat Sanditov & Saurabh Arora, 2015. "Social network and private provision of public goods," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-01266463, HAL.
    14. Neil M. Ferguson & Derek A. T. Cummings & Christophe Fraser & James C. Cajka & Philip C. Cooley & Donald S. Burke, 2006. "Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic," Nature, Nature, vol. 442(7101), pages 448-452, July.
    15. Grit Laudel, 2005. "Is external research funding a valid indicator for research performance?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 27-34, April.
    16. Neal S Young, 2008. "Why Current Publication May Distort Science," Working Papers id:1757, eSocialSciences.
    17. Friedemann Polzin & Steve Sorrell & Colin Nolden, 2015. "Innovative Procurement Frameworks for Energy Performance Contracting in the UK Public Sector," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-31, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    18. Neal S Young & John P A Ioannidis & Omar Al-Ubaydli, 2008. "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-5, October.
    19. Grit Laudel, 2006. "The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(7), pages 489-504, August.
    20. Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Smeby, Jens-Christian, 2005. "Industry funding and university professors' research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 932-950, August.
    21. Yaqub, Ohid & Nightingale, Paul, 2012. "Vaccine innovation, translational research and the management of knowledge accumulation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2143-2150.
    22. 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.
    23. repec:ieb:wpaper:2013/6/doc2015-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Bulat Sanditov & Saurabh Arora, 2015. "Social network and private provision of public goods," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-35, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    25. Ohid Yaqub, 2015. "Explaining Variation in Medical Innovation: The Case of Vaccines, and the HIV AIDS effort," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-34, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    26. Cathelijn J. F. Waaijer & Cornelis A. Bochove & Nees Jan Eck, 2011. "On the map: Nature and Science editorials," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 99-112, January.
    27. Butler, Linda, 2003. "Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications--the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 143-155, January.
    28. Benner, Mats & Sandstrom, Ulf, 2000. "Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 291-301, February.
    29. Foray, D. & Mowery, D.C. & Nelson, R.R., 2012. "Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1697-1702.
    30. Gisela Di Meglio & Jorge Gallego & Andrés Maroto & Maria Savona, 2015. "Services in Developing Economies: A new chance for catching-up?," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-32, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    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. Ben Martin, 2016. "What is Happening to our Universities?," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-03, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Nicola Grassano & Daniele Rotolo & Joshua Hutton & Frédérique Lang & Michael M. Hopkins, 2017. "Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(4), pages 999-1017, April.
    3. Mari Martiskainen, 2016. "The role of community leadership in the development of grassroots innovations," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-10, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Yuti Ariani Fatimah & Saurabh Arora, 2016. "Nonhumans in the Practice of Development: Material Agency and Friction in a Small-Scale Energy Program in Indonesia," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-04, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.

    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. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.
    2. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    3. Emily Cox, 2015. "Opening the Black Box of Energy Security: A Study of Conceptions of Electricity Security in the UK," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-37, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "What's Happening to Our Universities?," Working Papers wp477, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    5. Yuti Ariani Fatimah & Saurabh Arora, 2016. "Nonhumans in the Practice of Development: Material Agency and Friction in a Small-Scale Energy Program in Indonesia," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-04, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    7. Auranen, Otto & Nieminen, Mika, 2010. "University research funding and publication performance--An international comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 822-834, July.
    8. Mario Coccia & Greta Falavigna & Alessandro Manello, 2015. "The impact of hybrid public and market-oriented financing mechanisms on the scientific portfolio and performances of public research labs: a scientometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 151-168, January.
    9. Schuetzenmeister, Falk, 2010. "University Research Management: An Exploratory Literature Review," Institute of European Studies, Working Paper Series qt77p3j2hr, Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley.
    10. Concepta McManus & Abilio Afonso Baeta Neves, 2021. "Funding research in Brazil," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 801-823, January.
    11. Daniele Rotolo & Michael Hopkins & Nicola Grassano, 2023. "Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 50-66, January.
    12. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Brigida Blasi & Carmela Anna Nappi & Sandra Romagnosi, 2022. "Quality of research as source and signal: revisiting the valorization process beyond substitution vs complementarity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 407-434, April.
    13. Ávila-Robinson, Alfonso & Islam, Nazrul & Sengoku, Shintaro, 2019. "Co-evolutionary and systemic study on the evolution of emerging stem cell-based therapies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 324-339.
    14. Wenjing Wang & Yiwei Liu, 2022. "Industrial funding and university technology transfer: the moderating role of intellectual property rights enforcement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1549-1572, October.
    15. Jian Xu & Yi Bu & Ying Ding & Sinan Yang & Hongli Zhang & Chen Yu & Lin Sun, 2018. "Understanding the formation of interdisciplinary research from the perspective of keyword evolution: a case study on joint attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 973-995, November.
    16. Diego Chavarro & Puay Tang & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues: evidence from a developing country," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 195-209.
    17. Loet Leydesdorff & Dieter Franz Kogler & Bowen Yan, 2017. "Mapping patent classifications: portfolio and statistical analysis, and the comparison of strengths and weaknesses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1573-1591, September.
    18. Filippo Corsini & Rafael Laurenti & Franziska Meinherz & Francesco Paolo Appio & Luca Mora, 2019. "The Advent of Practice Theories in Research on Sustainable Consumption: Past, Current and Future Directions of the Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    19. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    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:sru:ssewps:2016-02. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.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.