IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v34y2025iprvaf028..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How impact-focused funding influences researchers’ knowledge mobilization activities

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen MacGregor
  • Creso Sá
  • Nadiia Kachynska

Abstract

This study explores the influence of impact-focused funding on the knowledge mobilization (KMb) activities of federally funded researchers in Canada, focusing on recipients of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grants. The findings challenge assumptions that funding programs emphasizing societal impact reliably lead to increased engagement in KMb activities. By examining pre- and post-funding KMb engagement across disciplines, the study reveals that while a small subset of researchers increased their KMb efforts, a larger proportion disengaged after receiving funding. These results point to significant barriers, including insufficient institutional support, disciplinary norms, and competing academic priorities, which may hinder the alignment of funding agency goals with researcher practices. The study also sheds light on discipline-specific and role-based variations, such as lower KMb engagement in applied fields and among researchers with administrative responsibilities. This research contributes to literature by identifying complications and unintended consequences associated with impact-driven funding mechanisms. The findings have implications for policymakers, funding agencies, and universities working to enhance the societal impact of publicly funded research.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen MacGregor & Creso Sá & Nadiia Kachynska, 2025. "How impact-focused funding influences researchers’ knowledge mobilization activities," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 1-028..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf028.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaf028
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf028.. 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.