ChapterPDF Available

The rise of project funding and its effects on the social structure of academia



Content may be subject to copyright.
The rise of project funding and its effects on the social structure of
In this chapter we analyzed the effects of the rise of project funding on the social structure of
academia. We show that more temporary positions are created and the temporary phase in the
career is extended. Short-term contracts increase job and grant market participation of early career
researchers which in turn establishes competition as a mode of governance, reaffirms the
individual as the primary epistemic subject and increases anxiety and career uncertainty. All of
which impacts the social fabric of research groups and departments. Communitarian ideals are
promoted by senior staff members, which is necessary to establish the research group as a
community, but cannot solve the inherent tension because of the structural nature of the
mechanisms we describe. We conclude that individual research groups will be unlikely to be able
to solve these problems and a more radical shift in the distribution of research funding is
Franssen, T. & De Rijcke, S. (2019) “The rise of project funding and its effects on the social
structure of academia”. In: Cannizzo, F & Osbaldiston, N. (Eds) The social structures of global
academia. London: Routledge
The rise of project funding and its effects on the social structure of
In this chapter we analyzed the effects of the rise of project funding on the social structure of
academia. We show that more temporary positions are created and the temporary phase in the
career is extended. Short-term contracts increase job and grant market participation of early career
researchers which in turn establishes competition as a mode of governance, reaffirms the
individual as the primary epistemic subject and increases anxiety and career uncertainty. All of
which impacts the social fabric of research groups and departments. Communitarian ideals are
promoted by senior staff members, which is necessary to establish the research group as a
community, but cannot solve the inherent tension because of the structural nature of the
mechanisms we describe. We conclude that individual research groups will be unlikely to be able
to solve these problems and a more radical shift in the distribution of research funding is
The distribution of funding for scientific research has changed over the past decades due to an
increasing governmental involvement in the governance of research and innovation (Glaser &
Laudel, 2016). This has resulted in the introduction of performance-based and competitive project
funding mechanisms (Auranen & Nieminen, 2010) and had a differentiating effect on the
distribution of research funding across universities, departments and individual researchers
(Masso & Ukrainski, 2009). The competitive distribution of research funding leads to
concentration due to the Matthew effect (Merton, 1968), which is strengthened on the
organizational level by the increase of grant size aimed at creating critical mass at a select number
of organisations (Bloch & Sørensen, 2015). Consequently, the social structure of some research
groups has changed due to the influx of a large number of PhD-students and other temporary staff
members. For all researchers it has increased time spent on grant proposal writing and an
administrative burden to provide increasingly detailed information on output activities for these
grant applications as well as formal evaluations (De Rijcke et al., 2015).
Previous research on the effect of the rise of project funding points to a range of detrimental
effects on the science system as a whole, including increasing short-term employment, hyper-
competition, and the narrowing of valuation regimes (Fochler, Felt & Müller, 2016) as well as
increasing anxiety and career uncertainty (Sigl, 2016) - especially among early career researchers.
However, an understanding of the mechanisms through which project funding changes the social
structure of individual research groups is missing.
In this chapter we analyse the mechanisms through which negative consequences of project
funding come about, building on the existing literature and an in-depth case study of a, in terms of
project funding, particularly successful research group in the social sciences. We focus on the
structural effects of the rise of temporary positions due to incoming project funding, and on the
experiences of early career researchers in such temporary positions.
In the last section we discuss a response of senior staff members that try to counter the
individuating force (Knorr-Cetina, 1999) of project funding by promoting communitarian values
in hiring committees. While such a response is useful and necessary to establish the research
group as a community, it also introduces another set of demands to the already long list of what
early career researchers are expected to do. This suggests that communitarian ideals are not
straightforwardly positive (Stöckelová, 2014), as communitarian demands can be circumvented by
obtaining a project grant. This increases the inequality of expectations between those with project
grants and those without. We conclude that because of the structural nature of the mechanisms we
describe, individual research groups will be unlikely to be able to solve these problems and a more
radical shift in the distribution of research funding is necessary.
The effects of project funding: A model
In this chapter we present an in-depth case study of a Dutch research group in a social science
discipline. By combining our empirical analysis with prior research on the effects of funding, we
aim to develop a model of the effects of the rise of project funding on the social structure of
research groups. In figure 4.1 we present our model and in the following sections we will take the
reader through each element of the model as well as explain the relations (the arrows) between
each element. Our aim, and contribution to the literature, is to analytically and empirically clarify
these relations and their underlying mechanisms.
Figure 4.1: Model of the effects of the rise of project funding
To summarize the model, we argue that the rise of project funding (1) has increased the number of
temporary positions (2) as well as the length of the temporary career phase. The increase of
temporary positions means that the frequency with which early career scholars participate in the
job market (4) increases drastically. This is heightened by the increasing differentiation between
research and teaching tasks (3) and research intensive and teaching intensive career scripts and
trajectories, which push early career scholars to try to increase their research time continuously.
The rise of project funding (1) also introduces competitions for funding as a mode of governance
(5). With this we point not just to the rise of competitive behaviour but specifically to the
outsourcing of epistemic authority (that is the authority over what kind of research is being done
and who becomes part of the research group) to funding bodies that effectively determine whether
or not an early career researcher gets a position (through granting someone a project grant).
Both job market participation (4) and project funding competition (5) establish and reaffirm the
individual as the primary epistemic subject (6) in the science system. We show that early career
researchers think about the science system in individualized terms that highlight their CV, grants
and publications and pushes them towards entrepreneurial behaviour.
The differentiation between teaching and research (3), the frequency of job market participation
(4) and the competition for project funding (5) as a means to secure a position all increase career
uncertainty and anxiety (7) as early career researchers do not know what is enough to secure a
permanent academic position.
Project funding and the social structure of a research group
The rise of project funding (1): The Dutch situation
In OECD countries, science funding has changed considerably over the last decades. Most
importantly, there has been a rise in project funding which shifted control over large amounts of
research funds towards funding agencies (Auranen & Nieminen, 2010) that distribute these funds
across groups or individuals. The distribution of funds usually takes place through a competitive
selection procedure for which scholars have to apply by writing a project proposal (however see
Franssen et al., 2018 on prize funding). Project proposals are reviewed by either employees of the
funding organization or, as is much more usual, through a peer review committee that also draws
on external peer reviews of individual project proposals (e.g. Luukkonen, 2012; Glaser & Laudel,
2016, pp. 122125 for an overview of the literature).
In the Dutch higher education system, project funding is part of a three-tier funding system (see
Koier et al., 2016 for a detailed description). The first flow, from the Ministry of Education,
Culture and Science is traditionally the largest. The first funding flow is composed of a student-
dependent and a student-independent part and is allocated by the Ministry to the university. The
university divides these funds across faculties. In both the allocation mechanism used by the
Ministry and those used by universities, natural and life science disciplines are systemically
prioritized over social science and humanities disciplines due to historical developed differences.
The second component, the student-dependent factor, is based on student numbers and includes
not only funding for teaching but also some additional research funding. This means that in social
scientific disciplines in the Netherlands, more than among natural and life science disciplines,
research time and staff are linked to student numbers.
The second flow is research funding distributed through the Netherlands Organization for
Scientific Research (NWO) and the European Committee (currently Horizon 2020). As noted
above, this funding flow has become more important over the past decades and is also the main
focus in our case. It is important to note that funding through the second flow needs to be
‘matched’ by universities. The matching funds are relocated from the first flow and therefore
diminish the funds available for research from the first flow even further (Koier et al., 2016).
Next to individual and group-based project funding that is distributed through funding agencies,
additional competitive funding mechanisms have been introduced at the university and faculty
level (Versleijen et al., 2007). On these levels the allocation of research funds from the first flow
is increasingly based on past performance or, again, open competition. Examples of this
phenomenon are university-wide research priority areas, additional funding for ‘excellent’
institutes or graduate schools, or competitions within research institutes for project funding.
The third flow funds are acquired through contract research for private partners and (non-
)governmental organizations that operate in the public domain. For the department under study
this was a major source of funding in the 1990s and early 2000s but its importance has declined
over the last 10 years.
The rise of temporary positions (2)
The case
The research group we studied is part of a prominent social science department of a major Dutch
university. We selected this research group because of its success in acquiring project funding.
Between 2009 and 2015 members of the group obtained 7 individual grants from NWO or the
ERC, participated in a number of Horizon 2020 projects and obtained additional funding for PhD-
students through competitive individual PhD-funding programs and funding assigned to the
institute or graduate school as part of different ‘excellence’ initiatives.
We conducted interviews with 17 group members and one junior research manager. We
interviewed the group’s professor at the start and the end of the project. Also, we were given the
opportunity to observe research seminars and group meetings on a number of occasions. At one of
the meetings we presented our research as a ‘member check’. At the time of conducting the
research project (November 2014 May 2015), great upheaval characterized Dutch academia as
the building housing the central board of one of the universities was occupied by students and
faculty (Blaustein, 2015). This gave great urgency to the issues we were analyzing for the group
members and other academics working in the Netherlands. Group members tended to reflect on
the topic of research governance outside the context of interviews, for instance in faculty-wide
email discussions. In some cases, these emails were publically available (sent out to a large
number of staff or even university-wide) and we were able to collect them. We also collected other
relevant documentation regarding the group.
The composition of the group
At the time of analysis, the research group consisted of one professor, five associate professors,
eight assistant professors, four postdocs and eight PhD-students. In addition, two lecturers without
research time had permanent contracts in the department and were part of the group. The professor
and associate professors had tenured contracts. Of the eight assistant professors, only three had a
tenured contract and the others had contracts of approximately three years without tenure or
other form of extension. The postdocs had temporary contracts (often 1-3 years) while the PhD-
students had three-year contracts.
The rise of project funding has resulted in a new composition of this research group around the
group leader, who was PI of many of the external projects and supervisor of most PhD-students.
This new structure resembles the natural science labs (e.g. Knorr-Cetina, 1999) but is a relative
novelty in the social sciences. The size of the research group is a direct result of competitive
funding as usually all or most temporary positions are funded externally. While PIs often have
permanent or tenure-track positions, the much larger group of postdocs and PhD-students does not
(Müller, 2012; 2014; Sigl, 2016). In this case all temporary staff (5 of the assistant professors, 4
postdocs, 8 PhD-students) were funded through external project funding, which created a large
group of highly skilled, highly motivated early career researchers. Researchers on the associate
level did have permanent contracts and had often been successful in acquiring project funding
The group leader was aware of the increase of temporary positions due to project funding and the
difficulties temporary staff members experience. He explained:
Group leader: Someone who has a permanent contract can, first of all, probably hire a
postdoc him or herself, a temporary person, and then we have the policy that a replacement
must be found, but the teaching should not be done by a temporary lecturer so then an
assistant professor for 4 or 5 years comes in, so you have two temporary members to be able
to give a permanent staff member the possibility to, for a while, teach less, and that increases
the dynamic because we succeed in bringing in good, talented people for these temporary
Interviewer: A large temporary basis.
Group Leader: And I mean, we really cannot go in any direction, because there wasn’t
even a job to begin with. And that is in this whole discussion the rock hard message, because
I understand the frustration and I see it, and at the same time, that we are having this
conversation is because a temporary position has been created because of a grant, otherwise
this conversation would not take place.
‘There wasn’t even a job to begin with’, as the group leader explains, characterizes the
contradiction inherent in the positions created through project funding. It is only first flow funding
that provides continuous funds, provided that student numbers remain relatively stable, for
permanent positions. All other funding creates temporary positions that will terminate after the
funded project ends. However, as he notes, this dynamic is intensified because the people that
come in on temporary positions themselves also acquire additional project funding. This
cumulative effect of temporary positions acquiring new external funding is an effect that the
literature has not addressed in any detail yet. The rise of project funding implies that, because of
the Matthew effect, funding becomes increasingly concentrated with certain individuals or groups.
As such, temporary positions become equally concentrated and new temporary staff members
acquire project funding of their own, thereby increasing concentration even further.
Increasing differentiation (3): Teaching intensive and research intensive career trajectories
Contracts of staff members in social science disciplines in the Netherlands will typically consist of
a 60 percent/40 percent time allocation between teaching and management on the one hand and
research on the other. This means that a staff member will, based on a full time contract, have
1000 hours of teaching and 666 hours of research time.
Acquired project funding can be used by staff members to ‘buy’ themselves out of teaching, a
common strategy in the social sciences. The buy-out is restricted in this particular research group,
because staff members are not allowed to buy-out fully. However, taking into account managerial
tasks and PhD supervision, senior staff members do not carry a large teaching load. The professor
in the group was involved in one course in the academic year 2014-2015 (based on the online
study guide of the university), and associate professors with grant funding also had a minimal
teaching load. Consequently, there is a large teaching load that does not rest on the senior staff
The rise of project funding, and related the teaching buy-out in the social sciences, leads to
increasing differentiation and specialization among university staff and to either teaching intensive
or research intensive careers (Leisyte & Dee, 2012; Musselin, 2011). In this research group, and
the institute at large, this was perceived as an unwelcome development that the institute aimed to
counter. As such, there were only two lecturers with little to no research time in the department,
and management had developed a strategy to deal with the potential separation between teaching
and research staff. The organisational solution to this differentiation was the development of a new
temporary position, the temporary assistant professor (TAP). This temporary position introduces a
new hierarchical layer between the postdoc and assistant professor position and increases the
length of the early career phase in academia as characterized by temporary contracts. Where the
assistant professor position traditionally was the start of the tenure track in the social sciences, this
is no longer the case. These TAPs have contracts that themselves consist of 60 percent teaching
and 40 percent research. TAPs cover the teaching load of senior staff members who used project
funding for a buy-out. The development of the TAP showed an organisational commitment to the
academic ideal of the intimate relation between research and teaching in the social sciences.
However, as we will show below, this did not dissolve the tendency towards specialization, as
project grants increasingly determine both research time and career trajectories of early career
researchers. The TAP is therefore a temporary solution to extend the early career phase. However,
scholars who are able to obtain a tenure track assistant professorship are primarily those who
obtain more research time and project funding.
Crucially, early career researchers are increasingly socialized with a particular research intensive
career script as the ideal career (Müller, 2012). The rise of project funding changes how
researchers think about who has a right to research time. We find that early career researchers
have a fear of missing the boat of the research intensive career if they don’t get particular grants
that allow them to devote more time to research and publishing. The story of one TAP who was
transitioning to a teaching intensive position shows how continuing a research intensive career is
becoming increasingly limited to those researchers that can do research (and publish) in a
particular, high paced, way.
Elena: I prefer to make sure something's really good. I think of high quality, theory-heavy
slowly built papers. Slow has nothing to do with it, but it takes time to do that, I do not feel
rushed to just try to crank out publications. But here, I felt that right away, and I was like
“shit I am never going to catch up”. It is sort of this vicious cycle too, because if you do
not have enough papers you cannot get a grant, and then if you do not have a grant you
cannot get data to get 27 papers out.
Elena explains later on that she does feel appreciated at the institute for her teaching skills and in
general for her role in the group. In the social sciences the importance of teaching, compared to
the life sciences, might prevent a narrowing of valuation regimes (Fochler, Felt & Müller, 2016,
see the last section on communitarian values). However, what is important here is how she
contrasts her abilities (doing theory-heavy slowly built papers) to the much faster paced (27
papers) research practices of those that are allowed to continue doing research as assistant
professors in the Netherlands, and the importance of the cycle of publications-grant-data-
publications they need to sustain for a research intensive career.
Increasing frequency of job market participation (4)
The rise of temporary positions, and the increasing length of the temporary career stage, force
early career researchers onto the labour market much more often. The early career scholars in this
research group all applied to the same internal positions for postdocs, temporary assistant
professorships and tenure-track assistant professorships. This was often not to get an entirely new
position, but rather to make their current position more research intensive. Below we quote a TAP
and a postdoc who talk about their job history within the research group which gives a particular
good insight in how ‘patchworked’ academic positions are becoming:
David: I had a lectureship for 4 days a week, 100% teaching. (...) After a while, I applied
for research time. This was a policy that a number of lecturers could get 20% research time.
I applied for that, and I got it. So after half a year, 9 months that I just taught, I got a contract
in which I taught 3 days and did research on 1 day. After I had let them know a number of
times I wanted to become an assistant professor (AP), and also applied for an AP 2 or 3
times without getting it, I finally got a contract in which I worked 5 days a week with 40%
research time and 60% teaching. Then an official AP position came up and I applied for that,
and for that, so since August I’m officially an [temporary] AP (...) If someone would leave
now who has a tenure-track contract as an AP, and if a job application procedure would
arise, then I will apply for that and hope I get it.
Danielle: The postdoc is coming to an end. Last year there was a vacancy, a formal vacancy
for an open rank. I applied for that to become AP, but I didn’t get it, but I did get a
lectureship [meaning a teaching-only position]. And then, last November there was a
postdoc vacancy because of the research priority area, I applied for that as well. That
consisted of 0.8 FTE research time, and they have split that between me and [name of
temporary AP]. So we both got 0.4 FTE to do research within that project. (...) I will have
0.4 FTE teaching and 0.4 FTE research.
Interviewer: For how long?
Danielle: 2 years.
Interviewer: Okay, and when did that postdoc start?
Danielle: I am still working on the old postdoc.
Interviewer: You were hired as a lecturer but you have not yet taken that up?
Danielle: No I didn’t. But that will be my official title. Lecturer, but with research time.
Project funding has introduced, through short-term contracts, a much greater sense of competition
for early career researchers. As the quotes above show, early career researchers are constantly in
competition. These experiences of competition also mark the moments where early career
researchers feel evaluated. Danielle explains that the length of contracts prevents the yearly
appraisal from being a significant moment:
Danielle: It [the yearly appraisal] has never really been relevant for me because my
contracts were so short. Right after the yearly appraisal a new contract would start. For me
the job application is the evaluation moment, not the yearly appraisal. I have another one
coming up about my current post but after three months that will seize to exist, so I don’t
really care what the appraisal is about.
Interviewer: but you do feel you are being evaluated?
Danielle: Yes, in the job applications.
Competition as a mode of governance (5)
Competition was not only a more recurrent phenomenon due to participation on the job market,
but also because of the competition for project funding, increasingly, as a mode of governance (De
Boer, Enders & Leisyte, 2007; Felt, 2009). That is, competition for project funding is increasingly
a means to govern who becomes part of the research group, or more broadly speaking who is
allowed to stay in academia by creating a job for oneself (Müller, 2014), or whose career
progresses after the early career phase (Bloch, Graversen and Pedersen, 2014).
In our case, too, successful grant applications could be used by early career researchers to
negotiate a position in the research group, possibly a tenure-track one (in case of large grants).
One postdoc explains how grant applications increase her worth, in terms of her CV, and give her
leverage towards the university to obtain a position:
Interviewer: How do you see funding applications, as a way to get a job somewhere? Or is
it a way to create a job for yourself?
Mags: (…) If you get a Veni, and that's also what people tell me, then you're much more...
You're WORTH more in academia, because wow, you got that. There is a lot of pressure
of course involved in it. So, yeah, it's not only your money or you know, I guess people... I
mean... Not in my position, but who actually have a job, or at least a contract for a bit
longer, and don't get the Veni are also very much under pressure, because this is something
that counts a lot. And this was something that someone from [project] in the first few
months told me, that if you get that, you can have a good career here. It's very special.
Interviewer: If you would get it, the Veni, would you then become assistant professor?
Mags: That would be a condition yeah. (…) Then you're worth much more here, you offer
something, and I understand that the university also... Yeah, basically, they are proud of
having Veni-researchers. The [university] advertised it last summer: this is how many of
them we got so this is a good thing for them.
The increasing importance of project funding as income to the university also means that the
research group and group leader becomes increasingly important institutionally. Group leaders are
nodes through which competitive project funding comes into the university (Edler et al., 2014;
Whitley, 2014; Raudla et al., 2015). This means that high-performing group leaders can direct the
course of research, through successful funding applications, to an increasingly large extent.
Epistemic authority thus shifts in two ways; to funding bodies and to group or project leaders.
Individuation: The individual as the primary epistemic subject (6)
In being on the job and grant market, in competition with peers, the individual is constantly
established and reproduced as the primary epistemic subject (Knorr-Cetina, 1999: 205). This
individuating force, and the way early career scholars respond to it, calls to mind the process of
individualization that characterizes late modernity (Beck, 1992; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002).
Beck’s individualization theory points to individualization as a process in which people learn to
see themselves as ‘the centre of action’ (Beck, 1992: 135) in which society becomes a set of
‘environmental variables’ (136) that need to be dealt with to build the life one desires. Rather than
relate what happens in the life course, for instance failure in terms of social mobility, to systemic
contradictions, it is reconceptualised as a set of individual risks and opportunities (Beck & Beck-
Gernsheim, 2002). The individualization of precarity, where this is felt as a personal failure rather
than a sign of system failure, is a particular harmful outcome of this process (Gill, 2010; Sigl,
2016; Loveday, 2017).
Moreover, the reflexive biographies that early career scholars are building follow an increasingly
narrow career script (Müller, 2012) as they report a narrowing of valuation regimes, towards a
single form of academic worth, focused on high-impact publication output (Fochler, Felt &
Müller, 2016; Müller, 2014). This was true also for our early career researchers when they talked
about continuing a research intensive career. The insecurity of fixed-term positions pushes the
early career researchers in the group towards an entrepreneurial and reflexive strategy. They are
reflexive about their careers, what is lacking, what needs to happen and how they can influence
their position. As they are in a constant competition, for jobs or grants, they feel a constant need to
appear attractive as candidates for a new (tenure track) position or a project grant. Denise reflects
on how she does this:
Denise: I think it is really important as an assistant professor to find your niche, about that
there might be comparison going on between each other.
Interviewer: And then others gauge whether you are in their way, in a manner of
Denise: Yes exactly, because everyone wants to find his or her niche. If we all go towards
[subarea], that is [group leader] his main topic, you cannot raise your profile with that
theme. My profile is really being in between [two sub areas]. I think everyone is looking
for his or her own niche (…) You are also really thinking about your CV. And it is really
important. And besides that I want to function well [in the department]. I like organizing
things, and I think it is important to get good student evaluations, because I want to be a
good teacher and a good academic. It is also really about output, indeed about publications.
Interviewer: I aim to understand what it is like to be in a 3-year contract, when you have
to publish a lot, but it doesn’t seem to affect you, do you think it influences your research?
Denise: Maybe it does. Maybe you want to publish even more, you want to do as many
different things as you can I think. I really enjoy working with others, so I like saying to
people “Maybe we can write a paper about this and this.” Whether we will really get to
write it, that is the next question of course, but you try to keep balls in the air in the sense
of “we could do this and this”. At the moment for the yearly [global disciplinary
organisation]-deadline, a big conference deadline, I try to finish stuff, now there are five
papers and they can be submitted.
Denise clearly shows reflexivity about her CV and what needs to be on it to make it. She reflects
on what it takes to be an enterprise or a brand that needs to be visible and needs to show potential.
It is this continuous showing of potential and worth that is important in a science system in which
research time is increasingly distributed on a competitive basis rather than part of the job. This
also makes for a strong individual focus. Research time is understood as something that an
individual can receive, rather than acquired through collective effort. Indeed, while some grants
are collective in nature, the individual grants offer greater prestige and larger funds which puts one
in a position to secure a tenure track position. The seeming certainty of employment a grant
implies is the main reason for its desirability. The importance of publication is derived from the
grant competitions in which publication counts are said to be crucial in judging ones CV.
Anxiety and career uncertainty (7)
The short-term contracts and constant competition on the basis of individual merits create
immense pressure on early career researchers (Müller, 2014; Sigl, 2016; Fochler & Sigl, 2018).
Early career researchers tend to do as much as possible without a clear idea of what is enough.
This is well documented in the literature and also came up often in our interviews in a pressure
early career researchers put on themselves. As one example among many Ron illustrates this
reflecting on why the work is never finished:
Ron: I work hard yes, that is a bit of a problem sometimes.
Interviewer: Do you have on the weekend, a morning, afternoon or day of?
Ron: Yes I do. I notice that I do have to take a bit of rest this week. That is the disadvantage
of the postdoc-life: that there is an endless stream of work. And much of it us just for
yourself. I have 20 students, that is manageable, and other than that I don’t HAVE TO do
anything. Everything I do, I do for myself. That makes it very alluring to just continue. But I
don’t work 7 days a week, and I sleep in, but I have to be careful I don’t exaggerate it.
Interviewer: that you don’t work too hard and too much… is that a problem with postdocs?
Ron: For me it is. Look if you put me in one of those work surveys, then I will score high on
stress and… but I have a temporary contract, if I want to continue in the academic world
then this is the moment to step on it for a bit. Not endless. Last summer I was on a holiday
for three weeks, and this summer I will go for a month so it isn’t like. I do take a holiday.
For sure. But like this during the week (…) it is often that nearly every day, also in the
weekend, you have something to do, that isn’t always nice.
Countering individuation by promoting communitarian ideals in hiring committees
In this research group, senior staff members aim to counter the individuating effect of the rise of
project funding by promoting communitarian ideals and merit-based (rather than publication
count-based) hiring procedures. The group leader explains that publication counts are not all that
matters when a position opens up:
Group leader: I will dare to say out loud that our selection committees are not blind and
stupid. It is not the case that if there are 4 internal candidates and you see that one has 7
publications and the other has 1, ‘oh weird that person has 7 publications within [name]
VICI-project, or [name] ERC-project’, that nobody thinks ‘oh well, it is convenient to have
data on 25 countries being embedded within such a large team’. So that person with 1
publication can be compared to the person with 7. People are not blind to those things. What
is more, often you have a different assistant professor-selection criterion: you do not want to
have 7 APs who all do the same thing. So maybe that person who has 1 publication, who
represents a different sub-area, maybe has a competitive advantage in a different area, can
teach broader for instance, which is 60% of an AP-position. So it might look like it, but for 8
years I have been in almost all selection committees and they can see through that. If
someone comes from a big project, and is co-author on 5 things within the project, then you
can still compare that to someone who almost did a solo project.
What matters according to senior members of the research group is the extent to which group
members contribute group work and act collegially. In almost all interviews the issue of
collegiality came up. Interviewees argued that collegiality was very important for them, and that
they appreciated this in others as well. This senior staff member feared collegiality was not valued
in job application procedures, and he contrasts collegiality with publications, but his experience in
the institute proved otherwise:
Christoph: I feel there has been discussion the last years about that it cannot be only
publications, and of course there always already was some criticism from outside that we
would be soulless publication monsters. My feeling is, and I have been through many job
application procedures here, my feeling is that it has become increasingly important what
you do for the group, the softer things, that that plays a role. I was always afraid that that
would not be the case, but my feeling is that it does matter, that is my experience.
Interviewer: Is that being made explicit, that that is important?
Christoph: Well, the other way around. It is never stated that it is only about publications.
There is no official guideline that says ‘If you have this and this and this and this, then you
will be successful’ or something like that.
A second senior-member explains that a research group needs a diverse group in terms of topics
but also in what people are willing to do, for the group to function:
Sarah: I think definitely. I think output of course is number 1. I think there is an awareness
that you can't just run a department on loners who can publish 50 articles per year, that's
impossible, it will implode. You need a couple of people who keep it together.
The staff members in temporary positions also understand that helping out in the group is part of
their job and doing so has helped them or will help them in job application procedures. David
David: If I look at my own trajectory, then I see that, after my PhD, I solved a lot of tasks
that had to be solved, but that a lot of people could not or did not want to do. There was a
course for which within 1 month a new lecturer had to be found. I am someone who says
‘yes’ quickly with these kinds of things. (...) How flexible you are in terms of teaching,
helping your colleagues, being present (...) In the end that is something that plays an
important role. You have to look at the group as a whole, and that is what I mean with the
idea that I have an important role, in a way, within the group. Because I teach certain
courses, have a certain expertise, and maybe I do other things very badly, that could be, but
this type of position within the group you cannot account for that by measuring output or
measuring student evaluations.
The senior members quoted above, including the group leader, all declare that collegiality is
important next to publication output. The two senior members both call into imagination an image
of a ‘publication monster’ and a ‘loner who can publish 50 articles per year’, the type of academic
they might feel fits with today’s academic reward structures. This becomes clear because
collegiality is seen as something that does not show up in quantitative measures, it is never visible
but crucial to ‘run a department’. Without staff members that do ‘group work’, organize seminars,
are very active in teaching and coordination, the group could not function. But this also adds to the
already lengthy list of what makes a good scholar. A TAP from a different group concluded:
We spend a lot of time wondering what the criteria are but I’m not sure there are any criteria
at all. Like they see a person and think, oh I like this person, I like his work, so let’s hire
him. We can say this hire was based on X, Y, Z. but then next time it is D, E, F. There is no
transparency who we want to hire, and based on what criteria we want to do that. (fieldnotes,
The communitarian ideals make hiring procedures less transparent as they add a new valuation
regime that can be used, but does not have to be used, in selecting candidates (see also Lamont,
2009). As Stöckelová (2014) shows, a plurality of ideals is not necessarily better for early career
researchers. In this case, in hiring and promotion decisions made based on successful grant
applications communitarian ideals do not necessarily apply. Communitarian ideals seem to be
important for scholars who do not obtain a grant which increases the inequality of expectations
between those with project grants and those without.
Conclusion: The limits of valuation heterarchy without structural change
In this chapter we analyzed the effects of the rise of project funding on the social structure of
academia. We show that more temporary positions are created and the temporary phase in the
career is extended. Short-term contracts make that early career researchers are more often on the
job and grant market which in turn increases experiences of competition, establishes competition
as a mode of governance, reaffirms the individual as epistemic subject and increases anxiety and
career uncertainty. All of which impacts the social fabric of research groups and departments.
In high performing research groups such as the one we studied the effects of project funding are
visible to a larger extent. In such groups the amount of project funding is very large leading to a
bigger group of early career researchers in temporary positions. To establish a community, the
group leader and senior staff members promote communitarian ideals in hiring committees,
making clear that it is not just publications that determine whether someone receives a job offer.
While a heterarchy of valuation regimes (e.g. Stark, 2011; Rushforth, Franssen & De Rijcke,
2018) might be a way to counter the negative effects of project funding our analysis shows
important limitations. Following the analysis of Stöckelová (2014) we find that valuation regimes
are not inherently bad or good. Promoting communitarian values also adds to the lists of
expectations early career researchers have to deal with. Moreover, these hiring committees can be
circumvented by researchers that obtain individual grants who can negotiate a position. It also
decreases the transparency of criteria, which, while narrow, are at least clear when focused solely
on publication counts. This analysis teaches us that in a heterarchy of valuation regimes a crucial
question becomes what values count when and for whom.
Moreover, in high performing research groups such as this one the effects of project funding are
not incidental but structural. Success in obtaining competitive project grants will always lead to
more temporary positions, both PhD positions and post-PhD positions. The short-term of these
contracts will always push these early career scholars to the job and grant market. As the amount
of temporary staff members greatly surpasses the needs of any research group, based on their first
flow financing, for new permanent staff these temporary staff members will have to seek
employment elsewhere.
It is an important question to what extent the concentration of funding (and therefore of early
career researchers) in a small number of research groups negatively effects the discipline as a
whole on an epistemic level. The skills of any scholar are by definition limited. It might therefore,
in terms of epistemic diversity, be useful to spread research funding across a larger number of
Thomas Franssen is a researcher at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS),
Leiden University. He works at the intersection of sociology, valuation studies and STS. He
studies the effects of research governance on epistemic properties of research. He is particularly
interested in changing research practices in the humanities.
Sarah de Rijcke is Professor of Science, Techology and Innovation Studies at the Centre for
Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, where she leads the Science and
Evaluation Research Group. Research interests include academic e/valuation processes, changing
research cultures, knowledge infrastructures, and roles of research in and for society.
Acknowledgements This chapter was supported by the KNOWSCIENCE project
(, funded by the Riksbankens
Jubileumsfond Sweden, grant FSK15-0881:1 and the R-Quest project (
funded by the Research Council of Norway, grant 256223. We thank Francisca Grommé and the
editors for their helpful comments.
Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance
an international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822834.
Blaustein, G. (2015). Letter from Amsterdam. Retrieved from
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. London: Sage.
Bloch, C., Graversen, E. K., & Pedersen, H. S. (2014). Competitive research grants and their
impact on career performance. Minerva, 52(1), 7796.
Bloch, C., & Sørensen, M. P. (2015). The size of research funding: Trends and implications.
Science and Public Policy, 42(1), 3043.
De Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education:
The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 2746.
De Rijcke, S., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2015).
Evaluation practices and effects of indicator usea literature review. Research Evaluation,
25(2), 161169.
Edler, J., Frischer, D., Glanz, M., & Stampfer, M. (2014). Funding individualsChanging
organisations: The impact of the ERC on universities. Organizational transformation and
scientific change: The impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual
innovation (pp. 77-109). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Felt, U. (Ed.). (2009). Knowing and living in academic research: Convergences and heterogeneity
in research cultures in the European context. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy
of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
Fochler, M., Felt, U., & Müller, R. (2016). Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in
life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral
scientists’ work and lives. Minerva, 54(2), 175200.
Fochler, M., & Sigl, L. (2018). Anticipatory uncertainty: How academic and industry researchers
in the life sciences experience and manage the uncertainties of the research process
differently. Science as Culture, 27(3), 349374.
Franssen, T., Scholten, W., Hessels, L. K., & de Rijcke, S. (2018). The drawbacks of project
funding for epistemic innovation: Comparing institutional affordances and constraints of
different types of research funding. Minerva, 56(1), 1133.
Gill, R. (2010). Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of the neoliberal university. In R. Flood,
& R. Gill (Eds.), Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections (pp. 228
244). London: Routledge.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2016). Governing science. European Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 117
Koier, E., Van der Meulen, B., Horlings, E., & Belder, R. (2016). Chinese borden Financiële
stromen en prioriteringsbeleid in het Nederlandse universitaire onderzoek. Den Haag:
Rathenau Instituut.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How scientists make sense. Chicago, Indiana:
University of Chicago Press.
Lamont, M. (2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
Leisyte, L., & Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding academic work in a changing institutional
environment. In L. W. Perna, R. D. Perry, S. L. Thomas, & M. A. Titus (Eds.), Higher
education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 123206). Netherlands: Springer.
Loveday, V. (2017). Luck, chance, and happenstance? Perceptions of success and failure amongst
fixedterm academic staff in UK higher education. The British Journal of Sociology.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12307
Luukkonen, T. (2012). Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices.
Research Evaluation, 21(1), 4860.
Masso, J., & Ukrainski, K. (2009). Competition for public project funding in a small research
system: the case of Estonia. Science and Public Policy, 36(9), 683695.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 5663.
Müller, R. (2012). Collaborating in life science research groups: The question of authorship.
Higher Education Policy, 25(3), 289311.
Müller, R. (2014). Postdoctoral life scientists and supervision work in the contemporary
university: A case study of changes in the cultural norms of science. Minerva, 52(3), 329
Musselin, C. (2011). The academic workplace: What we already know, what we still do not know,
and what we would like to know. In D. Rhoten, & C. Calhoun (Eds.), Knowledge matters:
The public mission of the research university (pp. 423457). New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Raudla, R., Karo, E., Valdmaa, K., & Kattel, R. (2015). Implications of project-based funding of
research on budgeting and financial management in public universities. Higher Education,
70(6), 957971.
Rushforth, A., Franssen, T. & de Rijcke, S. (2018). Portfolios of worth: Capitalizing on basic and
clinical problems in biomedical research groups. Science, Technology, & Human Values.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0162243918786431
Sigl, L. (2016). On the tacit governance of research by uncertainty: How early stage researchers
contribute to the governance of life science research. Science, Technology, & Human
Values, 41(3), 347374.
Stark, D. (2011). The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Stöckelová, T. (2014). Power at the interfaces: The contested orderings of academic presents and
futures in a social science department. Higher Education Policy, 27(4), 435451.
Versleijen, A., van der Meulen, B., van der Steen, J., Kloprogge, P., Braam, R., Mamphuis, R, &
van den Besselaar, P. A. A. (2007). Dertig jaar publieke onderzoeksfinanciering trends,
beleid en implicaties. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut.
Whitley, R. (2014). How do institutional changes affect scientific innovations? The effects of
shifts in authority relationships, protected space, and flexibility. In R. Whitley, & J. Glaser
(Eds.), Organisational transformation and scientific change: The impact of institutional
restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation (pp. 367406). Bingley, UK:
Emerald Group Publishing.
... It functions as follows: Funding agencies organise competitive calls for projects in which academics (usually organised as research teams) participate with their project proposals. A specifically appointed committee evaluates the competing research proposals, assessing them in relation to the requisites that are established beforehand by funding agencies themselves, and decide which project(s) deserve(s) funding (Franssen and De Rijcke, 2019). Several aspects are taken into account when projects are evaluated, including not only the plan of research as such, but also the budget, that is to say, the estimation of costs to be incurred. ...
... In a brief outline, it can be said that it is a highly time-consuming and inefficient funding instrument (Franssen et al., 2018;Ioannidis, 2011); it stifles innovation, creativity and risk-taking in research (Franssen et al., 2018;Wang et al., 2018); it reinforces the 'Matthew effect' in science, as CPBF diverts funding towards researchers with a strong record in previous competitive calls for projects (Bol et al., 2018). Even more importantly, CPBF is a vector of precariousness, especially for early-stage researchers -who are doomed to research-only, fixed-term contracts associated to research projects (Franssen and De Rijcke, 2019). For universities as institutions, CPBF creates greater financial volatility and instability (Raudla et al., 2015), making financial planning more difficult and exposing them to what Slaughter and Cantwell (2012) in another context term 'market failure': Universities' budgets will be severely strained if their employees fail to win competitive calls for projects over a relatively short period of time. ...
The current growth of competitive project-based funding (CPBF) as a funding instrument for academic science reveals that public funding plays a critical role in the spreading of the capitalist relations of production in academia. However, this issue has not been properly addressed in the extant literature. This paper examines CPBF in the light of the determinations of capitalist relations of production captured by the Marxist notion of ‘formal subsumption of labour under capital’. It will then show that CPBF mediates commodity-based productive relations between funding agencies and academic institutions, and that the latter are, in turn, premised on the separation of academic labour from the objective conditions of knowledge production. It will be also demonstrated how CPBF reproduces and deepens that split, leading from the partial to the complete formal subsumption of academic labour under capital. Our analysis challenges the assumption that increased public funding will put to a halt the commodification of academia and academic research.
... On the contrary, CPBF is problematic for the R&D system as a whole in several respects. To start with, CPBF is a vector of precariousness for academics, particularly early-stage researchers (Franssen & de Rijcke, 2019). For universities as institutions, it means more financial instability and greater risk of market failure (Raudla et al., 2015). ...
Academics today are expected not only to produce knowledge, but to communicate it to broad audiences as well. Science communication (SC) has become a central aspect of the scientific enterprise and an obligation that academics must comply with. Project-based SC is one of the forms through which that task is imposed on academics. Funding agencies around the world ask academics to carry out communication activities alongside their core scientific activities in those research projects funded by the former. By analyzing project-based SC in the light of the determinants of the capitalist relations of production captured by the Marxian category of ‘formal subsumption of labor under capital’, this chapter will demonstrate that this contemporary modality of SC can be regarded as an expression of the formal subsumption of academic labor under capital. This is because project-based SC is grounded on competitive project-based funding (CPBF), and CPBF is actually one of the most important mechanisms through which the separation of academic labor from its conditions of production is affected. As it explores the economic foundations of project-based SC and the nature of CPBF as a funding mechanism, this chapter adds to current Marxian scholarship focusing on the commodification of academic research and higher education, more broadly speaking.
... First, we see do-ability as shaped by whether the material, human, and temporal resources for conducting particular research projects are available or attainable in the present. In the current research landscape, where many research groups lack stable base funding, these resources increasingly need to be covered by competitive project funding (Franssen & De Rijcke, 2019). Hence, doable problems usually need to fit with given funding opportunities. ...
Soil microbial ecology is a relatively young research field that became established around the middle of the 20th century and has grown considerably since then. We analyze two epistemic re-orientations in the field, asking how possibilities for creating do-able problems within current conditions of research governance and researchers' collective sense-making about new, more desirable modes of research were intertwined in these developments. We show that a first re-orientation towards molecular omics studies was comparably straightforward to bring about, because it allowed researchers to gain resources for their work and to build careers-in other words, to create do-able problems. Yet, over time this mode of research developed into a scientific bandwagon from which researchers found it difficult to depart, even as they considered this kind of work as producing mostly descriptive studies rather than exploring interesting and important ecological questions. Researchers currently wish to re-orient their field again, towards a new mode of conducting 'well-rounded' interdisciplinary and ecologically-relevant studies. This re-orientation is, however, not easy to put into practice. In contrast to omics studies, this new mode of research does not easily enable the creation of do-able problems for two reasons. First, it is not as readily 'packaged' and hence more difficult to align with institutional and funding frameworks as well as with demands for productivity and career building. Second, while the first re-orientation was part of a broader exciting bandwagon across the life sciences and promised apparent discoveries, the current re-orientation goes along with a different sense of novelty, exploring complex environmental relations and building an understanding at the intersection of disciplines, instead of pushing a clearly circumscribed frontier. Ultimately, our analysis raises questions about whether current conditions of research governance structurally privilege particular kinds of scientific re-orientation over others.
... Previous literature has highlighted areas of funding effects to consider. These are somewhat fragmented, but indicate: funding can change whether novel topics and long-term intellectual innovations are researched; short-term project-based, and narrowly prioritised funding can reduce the resilience of research(ers) to respond to societal shocks; explicit funder requirements for specified topics to be tackled, by particular funded consortia compositions, can lead to more users-and use-based perspectives being included in funded research than would occur without such intervention; and, funding requirements for openness can affect researcher choices about whether to keep their materials, methods and findings secret or not (Bourke and Butler, 1999;Geuna, 2001;Laudel, 2006a;Lepori et al., 2007;Hong and Walsh, 2009;Evans, 2010;Hallonsten, 2014;Czarnitzki et al., 2015;Franssen et al., 2018;Franssen and de Rijcke, 2019;Perkmann et al., 2021;Ryan, 2021;Gläser et al., 2022). ...
... Most importantly, a critical trend across many countries has been a substantial increase in the share of funding for researchers coming externally from research councils and other funding organizations, whilst the share from block grants is decreasing (Bourke and Butler 1999;Langfeldt 2001;Geuna and Martin 2003;Laudel 2006a;Heinze 2008;Aagaard 2017). Simultaneously, there has been a steady increase in the number of different project funding instruments available to researchers (Lepori et al. 2007;Franssen and de Rijcke 2019). ...
Shaping public research to enhance its societal contribution has become a key policy concern. Against this background, how research funding may stimulate the societal orientation of scientific research—or how funding is societally targeted—has been underexplored. This article proposes an exploratory approach to characterize societal targeting in individual researcher funding, based on four key societal targeting dimensions: interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, prioritized research problems and user-oriented outputs. All these targeting dimensions of funding can potentially shape both researchers’ research networks and practices towards societal goals. These dimensions can be identified in context by studying ex ante specifications of funding instruments, i.e. rules and conditions for funding provision to researchers. We illustrate the dimensions in various degrees using two real cases of national public research funding. This systematic perspective on funding instrument characteristics then can potentially improve research evaluation, by allowing assessment in more detail of which funding dimensions associate with particular kinds of research ultimately being undertaken.
... While some of these dissimilarities undoubtedly have to do with individual level variations in talent, effort and efficiency, differences in productivity and achievement cannot solely be explained by ability, hard work and motivation, but must also be understood as 'cumulative advantage' and the ability to leverage past successes (Stephan, 1996). As a process of social selection, the Matthew effect intensifies and accelerates the concentration of research resources on successful groups and scientists (Merton, 1968;Franssen and de Rijcke, 2019;Katz and Matter, 2020). However, it is suggested that there are limits to cumulative advantage and that various social mechanisms in science act to limit too unequal distributions of funding . ...
Full-text available
This chapter examines the rationales behind larger grants, from large individual or project grants to research centers. It discusses arguments and evidence in favour of increased grant sizes, such as economies of scale in research and redistribution of resources towards top researchers to increase scientific productivity and pathbreaking research as well as potentially negative impacts of increasing funding size, leading to the concentration of funding among a smaller number of researchers. In recent years, increasing attention has been placed on inequality in science and the growing concentration of funding. Research funding policies play an important role in these developments, particularly through the design of funding instruments, where a focus on larger funding grants can contribute to concentration trends and increased inequality. Distribution of funding has repercussions for the science system at all levels, from individual researchers to institutions, regions, and disciplines.
... Previous literature has highlighted areas of funding effects to consider. These are somewhat fragmented, but indicate: funding can change whether novel topics and long-term intellectual innovations are researched; short-term project-based, and narrowly prioritised funding can reduce the resilience of research(ers) to respond to societal shocks; explicit funder requirements for specified topics to be tackled, by particular funded consortia compositions, can lead to more users-and use-based perspectives being included in funded research than would occur without such intervention; and, funding requirements for openness can affect researcher choices about whether to keep their materials, methods and findings secret or not (Bourke and Butler, 1999;Geuna, 2001;Laudel, 2006a;Lepori et al., 2007;Hong and Walsh, 2009;Evans, 2010;Hallonsten, 2014;Czarnitzki et al., 2015;Franssen et al., 2018;Franssen and de Rijcke, 2019;Perkmann et al., 2021;Ryan, 2021;Gläser et al., 2022). ...
Research funding has become complicated in many fields across contemporary science. Changing funding policies, programme and instruments also affect the funding situations of individual researchers, meaning they may now have to engage with more varied funders, funding aims and forms. This situation is underexplored, prompting us to propose two new study frames to address it: researcher funding configurations, and researcher funding trails. A configuration frames all a researcher’s concurrent funding instrument grants within a specified time window. A funding trail maps a researcher’s configurations over their scientific lifetime. These frames can help us study more accurately how funding connects to research(er) direction changes. We argue that without this reframing, we limit our analytical abilities to explore the effectiveness of contemporary research funding policies, programmes, and practices. In our chapter, we define configurations and trails, discuss what they afford analytically, and conclude with some further study considerations and policy implications. [Pre-print of Chapter 15 from a forthcoming Handbook, see:]
... Most importantly, a critical trend across many countries has been a substantial increase in the share of funding for researchers coming externally from research councils and other funding organizations, whilst the share from block grants is decreasing (Bourke and Butler 1999;Langfeldt 2001;Geuna and Martin 2003;Laudel 2006a;Heinze 2008;Aagaard 2017). Simultaneously, there has been a steady increase in the number of different project funding instruments available to researchers (Lepori et al. 2007;Franssen and de Rijcke 2019). ...
Shaping public research to enhance its societal contribution has become a key policy concern. Against this background, how research funding may stimulate the societal orientation of scientific research has been underexplored. This paper proposes a two-fold exploratory approach both to characterize and observe societal targeting in individual researcher funding. First, stemming from literature, policy and practices, we select four key societal targeting dimensions: interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, prioritized research problems and user-oriented outputs. All these targeting dimensions of funding can potentially shape both research networks and practices towards societal goals. These dimensions may be identified in context through ex ante specifications of funding instruments, in rules and conditions for funding provision to researchers. Second, we also consider potential interactions of funding instruments, since researchers may engage with various instruments simultaneously when conducting their research. Therefore, each researcher funding configuration at a moment in time may generate bespoke shaping of research, depending on the societal targeting dimensions present and whether funding is co-used to support different research topics and activities within a researcher’s portfolio. The combination of the targeting dimensions and their potential interactions would allow for empirical exploration at different scales and in diverse settings. They expand our understanding of funding use dynamics that might shape research. This systematic perspective on funding instrument characteristics and their configurational possibilities will be relevant to assess the role of funding in research evaluation. We conclude with both policy implications of this exploratory societal targeting approach to funding and suggestions to expand it in further research.
... In all sixteen groups, we find behavior that we label as strategic anticipation (drawing on Mü ller 2014, see also Franssen and De Rijcke 2019). Mü ller quotes Adams et al. (2009) to describe anticipation as a state in which '[t]he present is governed, at almost every scale, as if the future is what matters most. . . . ...
Full-text available
In spite of the growing literature about excellence funding in science, we know relatively little about its implications for academic research practices. This article compares organizational and epistemic effects of excellence funding across four disciplinary fields, based on in-depth case studies of four research groups in combination with twelve reference groups. In spite of the highly selective nature of excellence funding, all groups employ dedicated strategies to maximize their chances of acquiring it, which we call strategic anticipation. The groups with ample excellence funding acquire a relatively autonomous position within their organization. While the epistemic characteristics of the four fields shape how excellence funding can be used, we find that in all fields there is an increase in epistemic autonomy. However, in fields with more individual research practices a longer time horizon for grants, beyond the usual 5 years, would fit better with the research process.
Full-text available
There is a lack of objective evaluative standards for academic work. While this has been recognized in studies of how gatekeepers pass judgment on the works of others, little is known about how scholars deal with the uncertainty about how their work will be evaluated by gatekeepers. Building upon 35 interviews with early career academics in political science and history, this paper explores how junior scholars use appraisal devices to navigate this kind of uncertainty. Appraisal devices offer trusted and knowledgeable appraisals through which scholars are informed whether their work and they themselves are good enough to succeed in academia. Investigating how early career academics rely upon appraisals from assessors (i.e., 'academic mentors'), the study adds to existing literature on uncertainty and worth in academic life by drawing attention to how scholars' anticipatory practices are informed by trusting the judgment of others. The empirical analysis demonstrates that early career academics are confronted with multiple and conflicting appraisals that they must interpret and differentiate between. However, the institutional conditions for dealing with uncertainty about what counts in future evaluations , as well as which individuals generally come to function as assessors, differ between political science and history. This has an impact on both valuation practices and socialization structures. Focusing on what I call practices of appraisal devices, the paper provides a conceptual understanding of how scholars cope with uncertainties about their future. Furthermore, it expands existing theory by demonstrating how scholars' self-concept and desired identities are key to the reflexive ways appraisal devices are used in the course of action.
Full-text available
How are “interesting” research problems identified and made durable by academic researchers, particularly in situations defined by multiple evaluation principles? Building on two case studies of research groups working on rare diseases in academic biomedicine, we explore how group leaders arrange their groups to encompass research problems that latch onto distinct evaluation principles by dividing and combining work into “basic-oriented” and “clinical-oriented” spheres of inquiry. Following recent developments in the sociology of (e)valuation comparing academics to capitalist entrepreneurs in pursuit of varying kinds of worth, we argue that the metaphor of the portfolio is helpful in analyzing how group leaders manage these different research lines as “alternative investment options” from which they were variously hoping to capitalize. We argue portfolio development is a useful concept for exploring how group leaders fashion “entrepreneurial” practices to manage and exploit tensions between multiple matrices of (e)valuation and conclude with suggestions for how this vocabulary can further extend analysis of epistemic capitalism within science and technology studies.
Full-text available
The institutional contexts of research increasingly require researchers to anticipate their productivity and the uncertainties inherent in their research. This applies to both academic researchers and to researchers in start-up companies. This creates a specific kind of uncertainty, anticipatory uncertainty, that we define as the state of being uncertain as to whether research processes will be productive in a specific time frame and along situated definitions of good performance. In the life sciences, this anticipatory uncertainty is experienced and managed differently, depending on how research is organized and the cultural resources available in specific institutional contexts. In biotechnology companies, there is a readiness to embrace dynamic changes in both research strategies and the organization of work in response to new developments in the progress of the overall research agenda. In academia, the ability of research groups to react with similar flexibility seems significantly constrained by the individual attribution of research work and credit, and the correspondingly high level of individual anticipatory uncertainty. This raises questions about how far the current organization of academic research allows epistemic uncertainty to be embraced and corresponding risks to be taken, rather than safe questions to be pursued.
Full-text available
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.
Full-text available
This review explores contributions by science policy studies and the sociology of science to our understanding of the impact of governance on research content. Contributions are subsumed under two perspectives, namely an “impact of”—perspective that searches for effects of specific governance arrangements and an “impact on”—perspective that asks what factors contribute to the construction of research content and includes governance among them. Our review shows that little is known so far about the impact of governance on knowledge content. A research agenda does not necessarily need to include additional empirical phenomena but must address the macro-micro-macro link inherent to the question in its full complexity, and systematically exploit comparative approaches in order to establish causality. This requires interdisciplinary collaboration between science policy studies, the sociology of science, and bibliometrics, which all can contribute to the necessary analytical toolbox.
Full-text available
There is a crisis of valuation practices in the current academic life sciences, triggered by unsustainable growth and “hyper-competition.” Quantitative metrics in evaluating researchers are seen as replacing deeper considerations of the quality and novelty of work, as well as substantive care for the societal implications of research. Junior researchers are frequently mentioned as those most strongly affected by these dynamics. However, their own perceptions of these issues are much less frequently considered. This paper aims at contributing to a better understanding of the interplay between how research is valued and how young researchers learn to live, work and produce knowledge within academia. We thus analyze how PhD students and postdocs in the Austrian life sciences ascribe worth to people, objects and practices as they talk about their own present and future lives in research. We draw on literature from the field of valuation studies and its interest in how actors refer to different forms of valuation to account for their actions. We explore how young researchers are socialized into different valuation practices in different stages of their growing into science. Introducing the concept of “regimes of valuation” we show that PhD students relate to a wider evaluative repertoire while postdocs base their decisions on one dominant regime of valuing research. In conclusion, we discuss the implications of these findings for the epistemic and social development of the life sciences, and for other scientific fields.
Full-text available
This review of the international literature on evaluation systems, evaluation practices, and metrics (mis)uses was written as part of a larger review commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to inform their independent assessment of the role of metrics in research evaluation (2014–5). The literature on evaluation systems, practices, and effects of indicator uses is extremely heterogeneous: it comprises hundreds of sources published in different media, spread over disciplines, and with considerable variation in the nature of the evidence. A condensation of the state-of-the-art in relevant research is therefore highly timely. Our review presents the main strands in the literature, with a focus on empirical materials about possible effects of evaluation exercises, ‘gaming’ of indicators, and strategic responses by scientific communities and others to requirements in research assessments. In order to increase visibility and availability, an adapted and updated review is presented here as a stand-alone—after authorization by HEFCE.
The Academic Workplace. What we already know, what we still do not know, and what we would like to know
What does it mean to attribute success to 'luck', but failure to personal deficiency? In 2015/16, more than 34 per cent of academic employees in UK higher education institutions were employed on temporary contracts, and the sector itself has undergone a substantial transformation in recent years in terms of expansion, measurement, and marketization. Based on two waves of interviews conducted with fixed-term academic employees at different career stages, the article explores the narrativization of success and failure amongst staff working at the 'sharp end' of the so-called neoliberal academy. Arguing that precarious employment situations precipitate the feeling of being 'out of control', the majority of the participants' narratives were characterized by a distinct lack of agency. The paper explores the recourse to notions of chance and the consolidation of 'luck' as an explanatory factor in accounting for why good things happen; however, in tandem with this inclination is the tendency to individualize failure when expectations have been thwarted. While accounts of fixed-term work are suffused with notions of chance and fortune, 'luck' remains an under-researched concept within sociology. The article thus concludes by considering what the analysis of 'luck' might offer for a fuller, politicized understanding of processes at work in the contemporary academy.