Fun and less fun funding: the experiential affordances of research grant conditions

Author:

Stage Andreas Kjær1ORCID,Utoft Ea Høg2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University , Bartholins Allé 7, Aarhus 8000, Denmark

2. Gender & Diversity Studies, Radboud University , Thomas van Aquinostraat 4, Nijmegen 6525 GD, The Netherlands

Abstract

Abstract The conditions of mainstream research funding constrain risky, novel research. However, alternative grants are emerging. We study grantees of a double-blinded funding scheme targeting risky, novel research: The Villum Experiment (VE). Without prompting, scientists juxtaposed the experience of performing research under these conditions with that of performing research funded by mainstream grants: fun and less fun. The conditions of VE felt less intrusive and appealed to their self-perceptions and idealized views of scientific work, which shaped how they conducted the funded research. This paper makes three contributions: (1) it reaffirms that how researchers experience grant conditions affects whether a scheme affords what it intends, (2) it highlights that the affordances of research funding are relative to other concurrent funding options, and (3) it shows that small, more broadly allocatable grants can afford scientists a protected space for autonomous research, usually associated with elusive tenure positions or European Research Council (ERC) grants.

Funder

Villum Fonden

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Public Administration,Geography, Planning and Development

Reference67 articles.

1. Concentration or Dispersal of Research Funding?;Aagaard;Quantitative Science Studies,2019

2. Getting to the Bottom of Research Funding: Acknowledging the Complexity of Funding Dynamics;Aagaard;PLoS One,2021

3. Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding;Ayoubi;Science and Public Policy,2021

4. Evidence of Research Mastery: How Applicants Argue the Feasibility of Their Research Projects;Barlösius;Research Evaluation,2021

5. The Troubles with Peer Review for Allocating Research Funding;Bendiscioli;EMBO Reports,2019

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3