IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v8y2021i1d10.1057_s41599-021-00884-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Returns of research funding are maximised in media visibility for excellent institutes

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Entradas

    (Iscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
    London School of Economics and Political Science)

  • João M. Santos

    (Iscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa)

Abstract

This paper investigates public communication activity across research institutes with varying levels of excellence in research, and how competitive funding affects this activity. With competing funding trends requiring plans for public engagement in the funded research, a question arising is whether institutes capturing higher amounts of funding return the most value for public communication. Using international data from N = 1550 institutes in six countries, we first compare public communication activity among excellent and less-than-excellent institutes. We then investigate the relationship between competitive funding and public communication across levels of excellence. We find that the returns of funding are maximised in media interactions in excellent institutes when compared to the less excellent, but not in public events. This suggests that returns of research funding may not result in the expected outcomes for increased ‘public engagement in science’ if institutions are guided by instrumental goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Entradas & João M. Santos, 2021. "Returns of research funding are maximised in media visibility for excellent institutes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00884-w
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00884-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-021-00884-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-021-00884-w?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis L Murray & Douglas Morris & Claude Lavoie & Peter R Leavitt & Hugh MacIsaac & Michael E J Masson & Marc-Andre Villard, 2016. "Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    3. Elaine Howard Ecklund & Sarah A James & Anne E Lincoln, 2012. "How Academic Biologists and Physicists View Science Outreach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-5, May.
    4. Niels Mejlgaard & Carter Bloch & Emil Bargmann Madsen, 2019. "Responsible research and innovation in Europe: A cross-country comparative analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 198-209.
    5. Marta Entradas & Martin W Bauer & Colm O'Muircheartaigh & Frank Marcinkowski & Asako Okamura & Giuseppe Pellegrini & John Besley & Luisa Massarani & Pedro Russo & Anthony Dudo & Barbara Saracino & Car, 2020. "Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Vincent Larivière & Benoit Macaluso & Éric Archambault & Yves Gingras, 2010. "Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 45-53, March.
    7. Carter Bloch & Mads P. Sørensen, 2015. "The size of research funding: Trends and implications," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 30-43.
    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. Yumei Fu, 2023. "The impact of government funding on research innovation: An empirical analysis of Chinese universities," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(1), pages 285-296, January.
    2. Abhay S. D. Rajput & Sangeeta Sharma, 2022. "Top Indian scientists as public communicators: a survey of their perceptions, attitudes and communication behaviors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3167-3192, June.
    3. Leila Jabrane, 2022. "Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Peixin Duan, 2022. "How large of a grant size is appropriate? Evidence from the National Natural Science Foundation of China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Wu, Jiang & Ou, Guiyan & Liu, Xiaohui & Dong, Ke, 2022. "How does academic education background affect top researchers’ performance? Evidence from the field of artificial intelligence," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    6. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    7. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    8. Gibson, Elizabeth & Daim, Tugrul U. & Dabic, Marina, 2019. "Evaluating university industry collaborative research centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 181-202.
    9. Frederik T. Verleysen & Tim C.E. Engels, 2013. "A label for peer-reviewed books," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 428-430, February.
    10. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    11. Li, Heyang & Wu, Meijun & Wang, Yougui & Zeng, An, 2022. "Bibliographic coupling networks reveal the advantage of diversification in scientific projects," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    12. Dawud Ansari & Regine Schönenberg & Melissa Abud & Laura Becerra & Anne Cristina de la Vega-Leinert & Nigel Dudley & Michael Dunlop & Carolina Figueroa & Oscar Guevara & Philipp Hauser & Hannes Hobbie, 2021. "Communications on Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss with Local Populations: Exploring Best-practices and Postcolonial Moments in Eight Case Studies from across the Globe," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1945, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Mohamed Boufarss & Mikael Laakso, 2020. "Open Sesame? Open access priorities, incentives, and policies among higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1553-1577, August.
    14. Craig R McClain, 2017. "Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: Becoming a “Nerd of Trust”," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-9, June.
    15. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    16. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Ashley Ball, 2021. "Fifteen Years of a PBRFS in New Zealand: Incentives and Outcomes," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(2), pages 208-230, June.
    17. Karacic, Domagoj & Miskulin, Ivan & Serdarusic, Hrvoje, 2016. "State Investment In Science And Scientific Productivity Of Universities," UTMS Journal of Economics, University of Tourism and Management, Skopje, Macedonia, vol. 7(1), pages 37-48.
    18. Giliberto Capano & Benedetto Lepori, 2024. "Designing policies that could work: understanding the interaction between policy design spaces and organizational responses in public sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 53-82, March.
    19. Marja Vehviläinen & Liekki Valaskivi, 2022. "Situated gender equality in regional research and innovation: Collaborative knowledge production [Policies as Gendering Practices: Re-Viewing Categorical Distinctions]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 561-572.
    20. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).

    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:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00884-w. 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/ .

    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.