Practical Applications as a Source of Credibility: A Comparison of Three Fields of Dutch Academic Chemistry

Abstract

In many Western science systems, funding structures increasingly stimulate academic research to contribute to practical applications, but at the same time the rise of bibliometric performance assessments have strengthened the pressure on academics to conduct excellent basic research that can be published in scholarly literature. We analyze the interplay between these two developments in a set of three case studies of fields of chemistry in the Netherlands. First, we describe how the conditions under which academic chemists work have changed since 1975. Second, we investigate whether practical applications have become a source of credibility for individual researchers. Indeed, this turns out to be the case in catalysis, where connecting with industrial applications helps in many steps of the credibility cycle. Practical applications yield much less credibility in environmental chemistry, where application-oriented research agendas help to acquire funding, but not to publish prestigious papers or to earn peer recognition. In biochemistry practical applications hardly help in gaining credibility, as this field is still strongly oriented at fundamental questions. The differences between the fields can be explained by the presence or absence of powerful upstream end-users, who can afford to invest in academic research with promising long term benefits.

Coordination in the Science System: Theoretical Framework and a Case Study of an Intermediary Organization

“…ACTS was established in 2002 as part of a shift towards consortia-based funding in the Dutch science system (Hessels and van Lente 2011). My analysis focuses on its first cohort of research programmes (see Table 2).…”

The effects of a changing institutional environment on academic research practices: three cases from agricultural science

“…The effects of funding shifts on the actual research agenda may be reduced by opportunistic behaviour, like referring to fashionable themes in their research proposals, but at the same time continuing existing (fundamental) research lines (Morris, 2000). To make the picture even more complex, scientific fields react differently to changes in funding and evaluation (Gläser et al, 2010;Hessels and van Lente, 2011). Overall, our understanding of the impact of institutional changes on research practices in different scientific fields is limited.…”

“…The institutions of the research system give shape to certain conversions of credibility, e.g. the possibilities of turning recognition into money (Packer and Webster, 1996;Hessels and van Lente, 2011). Simultaneously, research output is used for formulating science policy and research programs.…”

Changing Struggles for Relevance in Eight Fields of Natural Science

“…Existing structures are the product of practices and of dominant visions on the potential value of research outcomes. The institutions within this system give rise to certain conversions of credibility -for example, the possibility to convert recognition into money (Packer andWebster, 1996, Hessels andvan Lente, 2011).…”

“…Preliminary evidence suggests that changes in the academic research system may involve conflicting forces: shifts in funding stimulate scientists to make direct contributions to economic growth or other societal goals, but the rise of systematic performance evaluation increases the pressure to achieve scientific excellence as measured in bibliometric terms (Steele et al, 2006;Hessels and van Lente, 2011;Hessels et al, forthcoming).…”