Research Funding, Authority Relations, and Scientific Production in Switzerland

Benninghoff, Martin; Braun, Dietmar

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590193.003.0003

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Changes to the public funding systems for science are also well documented, such as increased competition and strategic orientation of research financing (e.g. Benninghoff & Braun, 2010; Braun, 1998; Geuna, 1999; Heinze, 2008; Laudel, 2006a). Similarly, the introduction of managerialism ideals at the expense of academic collegial governance, and the increased demands for accountability and (economic) relevance have been studied, along with their consequences in terms of intensified assessment exercises based on quantitative measures of publications, citations, and the ability to attract external grants (Deem et al, 2007; Radder, 2010; Schmoch et al, 2010; Whitley & Gläser, 2007).…”

Section: Basic Assumptions and Viewpointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How scientists may ‘benefit from the mess’: A resource dependence perspective on individual organizing in contemporary science

Hallonsten

2014

Social Science Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is general consensus in the study of science, and especially research policy studies, that a wave of profound change has struck academic science in the past decades. Central parts of this change are increased competition, growing demands of relevance and excellence, and managerialism reforms in institutions and policy systems. The underpinning thesis of this article is that, if seen from the perspective of individual scientists, these changes are exogenous and lead to greater environmental complexity and uncertainty, which in turn induces or forces individuals towards strategic planning and organizing in order to maintain control over their own research programs. Recent empirical studies have made various worthy contributions to the understanding of the macro-level (institutions, policy and funding systems, and broader epistemic developments) and the micro-level (individual and group behavior) developments of the social system of science, but there is a lack of comprehensive conceptual tools for analysis of change and its effect on individual scientists. This article takes the first steps towards developing a conceptual scheme for use in empirical studies of the (strategic) response of individual scientists to exogenous change, based on an adaptation of Resource Dependence Theory (RDT). The intended theoretical contribution builds on conceptualization of the individual researcher as crucially able to act rationally and strategically in the face of potentially conflicting demands from a growingly unpredictable environment. Defining a basic framework for a broad future research program, the article adds to the knowledge about the recent changes to the academic research system and calls for renewed interest in organizing in science and an analysis of the complex social system of science from the perspective of its smallest performing units: individuals.

show abstract

Section: Basic Assumptions and Viewpointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How scientists may ‘benefit from the mess’: A resource dependence perspective on individual organizing in contemporary science

Hallonsten

2014

Social Science Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lack of a common governance framework that characterizes the Swiss university system allows each academic institution to be a unique case of governance, while the political authorities only have limited decision power (Lepori 2007: 120). The institutional context of the Swiss academic field has changed from a local rootedness, valuing industrial experiences through extra-academic careers, to a system based on the principles of new public management and competitive instruments (Benninghoff and Braun 2010). In the late 1990s, these management principles were introduced to increase the central state's influence in the higher education sector, by formalizing new relationships between academic institutions and their regulatory authority.…”

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The transformation of professors’ careers: standardization, hybridization, and acceleration?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the recent decades, the turn to managerial governance has thoroughly transformed the European university systems and, by extension, the careers of university professors. Scholars postulated that professors' careers have undergone an increasing formalization, that disciplinary careers have been hybridized, and that new modes of selection and recruitment (through assistant professorship) have been introduced. This article, based on a case study of the EPFL Lausanne, one of the leading European technical universities, aims to understand these changes by conducting a sequence analytical study of the actual trajectories of professors. By studying the careers of 351 professors who were nominated between 1969 and 2010 at the EPFL, we first develop a typology of professors' careers. We distinguish between "direct careers," "seniority careers," "conversion careers," and "parallel careers." We then examine, based on a series of binomial logistic regression models, how career types vary according to the nomination cohort, the discipline, and the recruitment mode. Our results show that slower "seniority careers" within academia have become more important in recent cohorts, that disciplinary logics still shape professors' careers, and that new recruitment mechanisms, such as assistant professorship, do not necessarily lead to accelerated careers. This article contributes to the literature by showing that beyond the analysis of the institutional setting of academic careers, it is also important to study their actual progression.

show abstract

“…The NCCR scheme has four overarching objectives (Benninghoff & Braun, 2010; CSSI, 2015, p. 8), namely (i) to foster institutional competition, division of labour and collaboration among universities; (ii) to support excellence in research, in particular with the aim of bolstering Switzerland's international position in new fields considered to be strategic; (iii) to contribute to structural reinforcement of the university landscape, favouring long-term institutional anchoring of scientific excellence; and (iv) to systematically encourage more sectorial objectives deemed important for Swiss research excellence such as knowledge and technology transfer, support for young researchers (essentially PhD students), and promotion of equal opportunities.…”

Section: Switzerland: National Centres Of Competence In Research (Nccr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Different recipes for the same dish: Comparing policies for scientific excellence across different countries

Cremonini

Horlings

Hessels

2017

Science and Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Many countries witness the rise of 'excellence initiatives'. These policies promote vertical differentiation in the science system by funding top research performers and expecting positive spill-over effects. However, current understanding of the functioning and (potential) effects of these instruments is limited. We compare policies aimed at promoting excellence in four countries (the UK, Germany, Denmark and Switzerland), using secondary sources and 14 expert interviews. Using the notion of coordination approaches as a heuristic tool, we characterise each policy in terms of the coordinating actor, the system addressed, the activities that are coordinated, the specific interventions taken and the types of relationships affected. We find that countries adopt very different approaches to reach similar goals and thus bring into question appealing but simplistic ideas of 'excellence' as an agreed concept. Remarkably, excellence policies are more prone to reveal existing but tacit diversity in the system than to generate new relational patterns.http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/spp AbstractMany countries witness the rise of 'excellence initiatives'. These policies promote vertical differentiation in the science system by funding top research performers and expecting positive spill-over effects. However, current understanding of the functioning and (potential) effects of these instruments is limited. We compare policies aimed at promoting excellence in four countries (the UK, Germany, Denmark and Switzerland), using secondary sources and 14 expert interviews. Using the notion of coordination approaches as a heuristic tool, we characterise each policy in terms of the coordinating actor, the system addressed, the activities that are coordinated, the specific interventions taken and the types of relationships affected. We find that countries adopt very different approaches to reach similar goals and thus bring into question appealing but simplistic ideas of 'excellence' as an agreed concept. Remarkably, excellence policies are more prone to reveal existing but tacit diversity in the system than to generate new relational patterns.Keywords: excellence; science policy; coordination; differentiation; Matthew Effect IntroductionIn many countries promoting scientific excellence has become the primary target of science policy. A generic measure is to make research funding conditional upon performance. Several countries have introduced performance-based research funding system in which resources are directed towards excellent performers (Hicks 2012;Lewis & Ross 2011;Lewis 2015;Jonkers & Zacharewicz 2016). In addition, funding has shifted from institutional core funding to competitive project funding (Lepori et al. 2007;Jongbloed et al 2015). In a recent report, the OECD observed the emergence of research excellence initiatives (REIs) aimed at encouraging 'outstanding research by providing large-scale, long-term funding to designated research units, with an emphasis on research of exceptional quality.' (OECD 2014, p. 2...

show abstract

Research Funding, Authority Relations, and Scientific Production in Switzerland

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

How scientists may ‘benefit from the mess’: A resource dependence perspective on individual organizing in contemporary science

How scientists may ‘benefit from the mess’: A resource dependence perspective on individual organizing in contemporary science

The transformation of professors’ careers: standardization, hybridization, and acceleration?

Different recipes for the same dish: Comparing policies for scientific excellence across different countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About