IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-05204-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Excellent prospects: arguing ‘value-added’ in research excellence proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Tomas Hellström

    (Lund University)

  • Merle Jacob

    (Lund University)

Abstract

Research excellence instruments (REIs) are among the most popular types of research funding in several research systems, including the Global South. A significant proportion of REIs is intended to promote pathbreaking or groundbreaking contributions. Specific research outcomes can often be traced back to a given project’s scientific objectives, but projections about the impact on the field and the broader scientific community require the researcher to engage in more speculative estimates. This paper takes its rationale from the assumption that such projections are sources of insight into researchers’ perspectives on the field significance of their research agenda. Consequently, they reveal the broader impact landscape of scientists who receive such funding, and hint at potential social implications, a concern that dominates extant research on impact. This study focused on the ‘value-added’ to the field projections in successful applications for the Swedish distinguished professor’s grant (DPG), a unique variant of REIs that targets individuals rather than the more commonly studied Centers of Excellence (CoEs). We categorize the value-added statements made in these applications into a typology based on their logical structure, distinguishing between intermediate and final values. We use a logic model analysis of these statements to uncover a series of cause-and-effect projections tied to research funding. Our study also sheds light on accepted preconceived notions of field impact and the pathways to achieving them. It adds a crucial dimension to the numerous studies on the after-the-fact social impacts of research.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomas Hellström & Merle Jacob, 2025. "Excellent prospects: arguing ‘value-added’ in research excellence proposals," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-05204-0
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-05204-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-05204-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-05204-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan P. L. de Jong & Jorrit Smit & Leonie van Drooge, 2016. "Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 102-114.
    2. Stefan Hornbostel, 2001. "Third party funding of German universities. An indicator of research activity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(3), pages 523-537, March.
    3. Juha-Pekka Lauronen, 2022. "The epistemic, production, and accountability prospects of social impact: An analysis of strategic research proposals," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 214-225.
    4. Inge van der Weijden & Maaike Verbree & Peter van den Besselaar, 2012. "From bench to bedside: The societal orientation of research leaders: The case of biomedical and health research in the Netherlands," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 285-303, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Leila Jabrane, 2022. "Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    8. repec:plo:pone00:0065263 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Carter Bloch & Jesper W Schneider & Thomas Sinkjær, 2016. "Size, Accumulation and Performance for Research Grants: Examining the Role of Size for Centres of Excellence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Jonna Brenninkmeijer, 2022. "Achieving societal and academic impacts of research: A comparison of networks, values, and strategies [University Research Funding and Publication Performance - an International Comparison]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 728-738.
    11. van den Besselaar, Peter & Mom, Charlie, 2022. "The effect of writing style on success in grant applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    12. Jack Spaapen & Leonie van Drooge, 2011. "Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 211-218, September.
    13. Núria Bautista-Puig & Carlos García-Zorita & Elba Mauleón, 2019. "European Research Council: excellence and leadership over time from a gender perspective," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 370-382.
    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. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    2. Jonna Brenninkmeijer, 2022. "Achieving societal and academic impacts of research: A comparison of networks, values, and strategies [University Research Funding and Publication Performance - an International Comparison]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 728-738.
    3. Tomas Hellström, 2018. "Centres of Excellence and Capacity Building: from Strategy to Impact," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 543-552.
    4. Axel Philipps, 2022. "Research funding randomly allocated? A survey of scientists’ views on peer review and lottery," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 365-377.
    5. Linming Xu & Baicun Li & Shuo Chen & Meijuan Li, 2025. "Research productivity and novelty under different funding models: evidence from NIH-funded research projects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(7), pages 3743-3771, July.
    6. Baicun Li & Aruhan Bai, 2025. "The influence of grant renewal on research content: evidence from NIH-funded PIs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(5), pages 2617-2638, May.
    7. John Rigby, 2013. "Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 57-73, January.
    8. Michael Fritsch & Viktor Slavtchev, 2007. "What determines the efficiency of regional innovation systems?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2007-006, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    9. M. Teresa Antonio-García & Irene López-Navarro & Jesús Rey-Rocha, 2014. "Determinants of success for biomedical researchers: a perception-based study in a health science research environment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1747-1779, December.
    10. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    11. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    12. Elvira Uyarra & Jens Sörvik & Inger Midtkandal, 2014. "Inter-regional Collaboration in Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3). S3 Working Paper Series no 6/2014," JRC Research Reports JRC91963, Joint Research Centre.
    13. Burmaoglu, Serhat & Sartenaer, Olivier & Porter, Alan, 2019. "Conceptual definition of technology emergence: A long journey from philosophy of science to science policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Svein Kyvik & Ingvild Reymert, 2017. "Research collaboration in groups and networks: differences across academic fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 951-967, November.
    16. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    17. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban & Maria Nedeva, 2022. "From ‘productive interactions’ to ‘enabling conditions’: The role of organizations in generating societal impact of academic research [One Size Does Not Fit All! New Perspectives on the University ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 643-645.
    18. Barry Bozeman & Gordon Kingsley, 2013. "Research value mapping and evaluation: theory and application," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 7, pages 166-189, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Pablo D’Este & Oscar Llopis & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Towards an alternative framework for the evaluation of translational research initiatives," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 235-243.
    20. Shibayama, Sotaro, 2019. "Sustainable development of science and scientists: Academic training in life science labs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 676-692.

    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:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-05204-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/palcomms/ .

    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.