The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research
Securing public funding to conduct research and leading it by being a principal investigator (PI) is seen as significant career development step. Such a role brings professional prestige but also new responsibilities beyond research leadership to research management. If public funding brings financial and infrastructure support, little is understood about the inhibiting factors that publicly funded PIs face given the research autonomy offered by publicly funded research. Our study finds that there are three key PI inhibiting factors (1) political and environmental, (2) institutional and (3) project based. Traditional knowledge, skills and technical know-how of publicly funded PIs are insufficient to deal with the increasing managerial demands and expectations i.e. growing external bureaucracy of public funding agencies. Public funding is no longer the ‘freest form of support’ as suggested by Chubin and Hackett (Peerless science: peer review and US science policy. Suny Press, New York, 1990 ) and the inhibiting factors experienced by publicly funded PIs limits their research autonomy. We also argue that PIs have little influence in overcoming these inhibiting factors despite their central role in conducting publicly funded research. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 39 (2014)
Issue (Month): 1 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/journal/10961/PS2|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Thursby, Jerry G. & Thursby, Marie C., 2011. "Has the Bayh-Dole act compromised basic research?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1077-1083, October.
- Lyall, Catherine & Bruce, Ann & Firn, John & Firn, Marion & Tait, Joyce, 2004. "Assessing end-use relevance of public sector research organisations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 73-87, January.
- Dirk Libaers & Martin Meyer & Aldo Geuna, 2006. "The Role of University Spinout Companies in an Emerging Technology: The Case of Nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 443-450, 07.
- Vincett, P.S., 2010. "The economic impacts of academic spin-off companies, and their implications for public policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 736-747, July.
- Adler, Niclas & Elmquist, Maria & Norrgren, Flemming, 2009. "The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1136-1149, September.
- Benjamin Clark, 2011. "Influences and conflicts of federal policies in academic–industrial scientific collaboration," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 514-545, October.
- Dietz, James S. & Bozeman, Barry, 2005. "Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 349-367, April.
- Bozeman, Barry & Gaughan, Monica, 2007. "Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers' interactions with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 694-707, June.
- Julia Melkers & Fang Xiao, 2012. "Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: determinants of funding success for academic scientists," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 251-270, June.
- Sue Rosser & Jean-Lou Chameau, 2006. "Institutionalization, Sustainability, and Repeatability of ADVANCE for Institutional Transformation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 335-344, 05.
- Jain, Sanjay & George, Gerard & Maltarich, Mark, 2009. "Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 922-935, July.
- Owen-Smith, Jason & Powell, Walter W., 2003. "The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1695-1711, October.
- Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2013.
"The exploitation of publicly funded technology,"
in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 8, pages 127-135
Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Devrim Göktepe-Hulten & Prashanth Mahagaonkar, 2010. "Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 401-423, August.
- Ben Martin & Puay Tang, 2007. "The benefits from publicly funded research," SPRU Working Paper Series 161, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
- Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
- Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
- Hessels, Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro, 2008. "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 740-760, May.
- Roach, Michael & Sauermann, Henry, 2010. "A taste for science? PhD scientists' academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 422-434, April.
- Christopher Palmberg, 2008. "The transfer and commercialisation of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of university and company researchers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 631-652, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:39:y:2014:i:1:p:93-110. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.