IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v32y2005i3p199-209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tensions in the research council-research community relationship

Author

Listed:
  • Magnus Gulbrandsen

Abstract

Research councils have often met difficult balancing acts, for instance between basic and applied research, disciplinary and cross-disciplinary work, and trade-off decisions about review and monitoring systems. Contemporary councils such as the Research Council of Norway (RCN) often have multiple missions that introduce new tensions when innovation goals, new forms of monitoring and user control enter the scene. This article views tensions in the research council-research community relationship from a principal-agent perspective using data from an empirical investigation of RCN. The principal-agent dilemmas ‘adverse selection’ and ‘moral hazard’ are tied to the discussion of tensions, including an exploration of how these dilemmas can be ‘balanced’ or ‘stabilised’. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2005. "Tensions in the research council-research community relationship," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 199-209, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:32:y:2005:i:3:p:199-209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154305781779524
    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.

    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:32:y:2005:i:3:p:199-209. 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.