Governing Science

Gläser, Jochen; Laudel, Grit

doi:10.1017/s0003975616000047

Cited by 137 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 186 publications

(209 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, current funding mechanisms limit transitions towards new research topics and encourages researchers to engage in scientific "window dressing" [90]. Gläser and Laudel [42] regards "window dressing" as a way to "bootleg money for the start of new research under the cover of existing grants" (p. 125). Our results showed that this practice occurred in the studied projects as some coordinators reported on the "hidden research agendas" of researchers who followed their individual research interests and contributed little to the joint projects.…”

Section: Academic Structures and Cultures Do Not Integrate Well With Tdrmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Adoption and Implementation of Transdisciplinary Research in the Field of Land-Use Science—A Comparative Case Study

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) is discussed as a promising approach in land-use science and spatial research to address complex multifaceted "real-world problems" and to design strategies and solutions for sustainable development. TDR has become a widespread research approach in sustainability science and is increasingly promoted by research programmes and agencies (e.g., Future Earth and Horizon 2020). Against this backdrop, TDR can be considered a (social) innovation in the academic system, which is currently in the midst of an up-scaling diffusion process from a rather small TDR-advocating expert community to a broader science-practice community. We argue that this up-scaling phase also places TDR in a critical state as the concept potentially risks a type of "rhetorical mainstreaming". The objectives of this study were to analyse how the challenging approach of TDR is currently adopted and implemented in the field of land-use research and to identify potential influencing factors. We studied 13 transdisciplinary research projects from Germany by performing qualitative interviews with coordinators, document analysis and participatory observation during meetings over a period of five years. Results show that the adoption level of the TDR concept varied widely among the studied projects, as did the adoption of the TDR indicators used in our analysis. In many of the investigated projects, we identified a clear lack of conceptual knowledge of TDR. In addition, we found that current academic structures limit the ability of researchers to thoroughly adapt to the requirements of TDR. We conclude that further communication and educational efforts that promote TDR are required. In addition, we advocate for the development of suitable funding instruments that support sustained research structures.

show abstract

Section: Academic Structures and Cultures Do Not Integrate Well With Tdrmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Adoption and Implementation of Transdisciplinary Research in the Field of Land-Use Science—A Comparative Case Study

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is relatively little empirical work on the relation between funding arrangements and organizational and epistemic properties of research (but see Heinze 2008 ; Heinze et al 2009 ). To study this relation a bridge between science policy studies, strong in the analysis of funding mechanisms, and science studies, strong in the analysis of organizational and epistemic properties of research, is necessary (Gläser and Laudel 2016 ). In recent years, in relation to the rise of the ERC funding schemes, a group of studies that aim to do exactly this has appeared.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding

Franssen

Scholten

Hessels

et al. 2018

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decades, science funding shows a shift from recurrent block funding towards project funding mechanisms. However, our knowledge of how project funding arrangements influence the organizational and epistemic properties of research is limited. To study this relation, a bridge between science policy studies and science studies is necessary. Recent studies have analyzed the relation between the affordances and constraints of project grants and the epistemic properties of research. However, the potentially very different affordances and constraints of funding arrangements such as awards, prizes and fellowships, have not yet been taken into account. Drawing on eight case studies of funding arrangements in high performing Dutch research groups, this study compares the institutional affordances and constraints of prizes with those of project grants and their effects on organizational and epistemic properties of research. We argue that the prize case studies diverge from project-funded research in three ways: 1) a more flexible use, and adaptation of use, of funds during the research process compared to project grants; 2) investments in the larger organization which have effects beyond the research project itself; and 3), closely related, greater deviation from epistemic and organizational standards. The increasing dominance of project funding arrangements in Western science systems is therefore argued to be problematic in light of epistemic and organizational innovation. Funding arrangements that offer funding without scholars having to submit a project-proposal remain crucial to support researchers and research groups to deviate from epistemic and organizational standards.

show abstract

“…Research communities are embedded in specific social contexts, for example in geographical, linguistic, and disciplinary contexts, which influence what a research community considers as subjects of interest in their research field and as good scholarship standards (Gläser and Laudel, 2016;Hess, 2016, p. 162).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why researchers publish in non-mainstream journals: Training, knowledge bridging, and gap filling

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Papers should be submitted to swps@sussex.ac.uk as a PDF or Word file. The first page should include: title, abstract, keywords, and authors' names and affiliations. The paper will be considered for publication by an Associate Editor, who may ask two referees to provide a light review. We aim to send referee reports within three weeks from submission. Authors may be requested to submit a revised version of the paper with a reply to the referees' comments to swps@sussex.ac.uk. The Editors make the final decision on the inclusion of the paper in the series. When submitting, the authors should indicate if the paper has already undergone peer-reviewing (in other series, journals, or books), in which case the Editors may decide to skip the review process. Once the paper is included in the SWPS, the authors maintain the copyright. AbstractIn many countries research evaluations confer high importance to mainstream journals, which are considered to publish excellent research. Accordingly, research evaluation policies discourage publications in other non-mainstream journals under the assumption that they publish low quality research. This approach has prompted a policy debate in low and middle-income countries, which face financial and linguistic barriers to access mainstream journals. A common criticism of the current evaluation practices is that they can hinder the development of certain topics that are not published in mainstream journals although some of them might be of high local relevance. In this article, we examine this issue by exploring the functions of non-mainstream journals in scientific communication. We interviewed researchers from agricultural sciences, business and management, and chemistry in Colombia on their reasons to publish in non-mainstream journals. We found that non-mainstream journals serve the following functions: 1) offer a space for initiation into publishing (training); 2) provide a link between articles in mainstream journals and articles read by communities with limited access to them (knowledge-bridging); 3) publish topics that are not well covered by mainstream journals (knowledge gap-filling). Therefore, publication in non-mainstream journals cannot be attributed only to 'low scientific quality' research. They also fulfil specific communication functions. These results suggest that research evaluation policy in low and middleincome countries should consider assigning greater value to non-mainstream journals given their role in bridging and disseminating potentially useful and novel knowledge.

show abstract

Governing Science

Cited by 137 publications

References 186 publications

The Adoption and Implementation of Transdisciplinary Research in the Field of Land-Use Science—A Comparative Case Study

The Adoption and Implementation of Transdisciplinary Research in the Field of Land-Use Science—A Comparative Case Study

The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding

Why researchers publish in non-mainstream journals: Training, knowledge bridging, and gap filling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About