No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Context matters: conceptualizing research funding policies through the lens of the varieties of academic capitalism approach
... Matz (1986) argued that self-worth, efficacy, and empowerment are fundamental to educational effectiveness. Psychological empowerment of academic staff may improve faculty performance and, indirectly, student learning outcomes (Caouette et al., 2023). ...
Universities, as educational and research environments, can serve as appropriate platforms for knowledge sharing. Faculty members are recognized as the most vital element of universities and as individuals who possess intellectual and cognitive capital. They share their knowledge under specific conditions and contribute to the success of the organization. Accordingly, the present study was conducted with the aim of identifying the components of organizational knowledge sharing and examining its impact on psychological empowerment among faculty members of public universities in Iraq. This research employed a mixed-methods design. In the qualitative phase, data collection tools included systematic review and Delphi panel, while in the quantitative phase, questionnaires derived from the qualitative findings were used. Data analysis was carried out using SPSS and hierarchical regression analysis. As a result, the dimensions and components of knowledge sharing behavior and psychological empowerment among faculty members were first extracted through a systematic review of 86 articles published between 2020 and 2025, and were then validated and categorized by 50 experts. The identified components of knowledge sharing behavior included: individual factors, organizational factors, technological and infrastructural factors, social and interpersonal factors, environmental and cultural factors, and barriers and challenges to knowledge sharing. Based on the components obtained in the qualitative phase, the impact of knowledge sharing behavior on psychological empowerment was assessed by distributing questionnaires to 150 faculty members in the field of management at public universities in Iraq. In the first step, psychological empowerment was entered as the dependent variable, and age, gender, work experience, and job position were entered as independent variables. Hierarchical regression was then performed. The base model was found to be statistically insignificant, and none of the variables (age, gender, work experience, and job position) had a significant relationship with psychological empowerment. Moreover, in the full model, the adjusted coefficient of determination indicated a high explanatory power of the model in accounting for changes in psychological empowerment. The results of hierarchical regression analysis showed that each of the six dimensions of organizational knowledge sharing had a positive and significant impact on the psychological empowerment of faculty members.
Mémoire déposé au Comité permanent de la science et de la recherche dans le cadre du mandat sur la répartition du financement du gouvernement fédéral entre les établissements postsecondaires 1 Recommandations 1. Augmenter le financement dans les programmes traditionnels des conseils de recherche pour offrir plus de chances aux chercheurs notamment ceux en début de carrière et ceux occupant un poste dans des universités autres que celles à forte intensité de recherche. 2. S'assurer que pour aucun des programmes la proportion de demandes financées ne descende sous le seuil de 20% et, ce, afin d'accroître l'efficacité du système de financement de la recherche au Canada. 3. Reconnaitre la diversité des types d'universités au Canada et repenser les critères d'évaluation afin qu'aucune université ne soit désavantagée. 4. Mieux prendre en compte la diversité des profils des chercheurs, des domaines disciplinaires et des types de contributions scientifiques dans l'évaluation des demandes de subvention. 5. Mieux accompagner les chercheurs francophones lors de la préparation et du dépôt des demandes de subventions et s'assurer que l'évaluation des subventions respectent la dualité linguistique du Canada. 6. Amorcer une réflexion fédérale, provinciale et institutionnelle sur un éventuel mécanisme de financement de base pour tous les chercheurs jusqu'à ce qu'ils obtiennent une subvention.
The funding of scientific research is a critical concern for universities. Although the peer-review grants system promotes competition and research excellence, it is resource-intensive and disadvantageous for junior faculty members. Conversely, the block grants system offers an alternative, enabling universities to nurture talent and sustain long-term research. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is transforming university research and intensifying funding competition, necessitating a re-evaluation of the balance between peer-review and block grants systems. This paper advocates for a mixed funding system, with a greater emphasis on the block grants system, to establish an effective approach in supporting diverse research pursuits in the GAI era. By recalibrating the balance between peer-review and block grants, this proposed system aims to alleviate administrative burdens while providing a dependable foundation for early-career scholars. However, empirically substantiating this argument is challenging due to the recent emergence of GAI with insufficient data. To address this, we examine China’s science and technology system, which has recently experienced a significant increase in research grant applications. This case study offers insights into GAI’s potential effects on research funding. Our analysis contributes to the ongoing debate on optimal research funding strategies in the face of rapid technological change.
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.
This article compares how faculty members from British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec perceive the influence of federal and provincial policy instruments on the level of academic research production in their province. Mean scores, and a MANOVA followed by Dunnett C post-hoc tests based on a questionnaire completed by 786 participants reveal that professors perceived federal instruments as being more influential than provincial instruments, but also that there is a significant difference in the average score given by Quebec professors to provincial instruments, when compared to their counterparts in the other provinces.
With the rise of an innovation agenda in science policy, previous studies have identified a shift in how the state delegates responsibility to funding agencies in order to change the behaviour of the scientific community. This paper contributes to this literature through a micro-level study of how one of Canada’s largest research funding agencies, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), has changed resource allocation for research over 25 years. Our study foregrounds research funding agencies as key sites for examining the reconfiguration of the relationship between the state and science, as expressed in programmatic and resource allocation decisions. Through analysis of an original dataset compiled from NSERC’s funding and documentary data, we demonstrate the relationship between the introduction of innovation objectives in funding instruments, the adoption of new delegation modes to guide resource allocation, and changes in funding among research fields over time. Our study empirically demonstrates the cumulative effect of programmatic and funding decisions in a major agency, going beyond previous accounts of more general trends at the national level.
Trade-offs between quality and equality are at the forefront of multiple debates in higher education, and one conceptual tool to approach societies' adjustment in resolving these trade-offs is the welfare regime typology. Relying on the theory of academic capitalism and using research production as a proxy for quality in higher education, this study analyzes how social-democratic welfare regimes resolve the trade-off between comparatively high levels of academic research production, access to higher education and equal citizens' living conditions. Interviews with 56 system actors suggest that equality is perceived to contribute to academic freedom, public investments in research and the expansion of the academic workforce, those features contributing in turn to academic research production. Résumé Les compromis entre qualité et égalité sont au centre de nombreux débats en éducation et l'un des cadres conceptuels permettant d'appréhender les trajectoires d'ajustement des sociétés dans leur manière d'atteindre ces compromis est celui des types d'États providence. En s'appuyant sur la théorie du capitalisme universitaire et en utilisant la production de recherche comme indicateur de qualité dans l'enseignement supérieur, cette étude examine comment les États sociaux-démocrates atteignent des niveaux de production de recherche importants tout en préservant l'accessibilité à l'enseignement supérieur et l'égalité entre les citoyens. Des entretiens avec 56 acteurs-clés des systèmes d'enseignement supérieur suggèrent que l'égalité sociale contribue à la production de recherche en ce sens qu'elle protège la liberté universitaire, encourage les investissements publics en recherche et augmente le bassin de recrutement de chercheurs universitaires.
The UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a system that is intended to evaluate the quality of the research produced by higher education institutes (HEIs) in the UK in three areas: quality of research outputs; impact of this research beyond academia; and research environment. For the next REF, the funding bodies have reviewed the importance of the three assessment elements and decided to increase the weight of ‘impact’ to 25% (from 20% in REF2014) and decrease the weight of ‘outputs’ to 60% (from 65% in REF2014). This article first examines the relevance of some factors for the quality of impact submissions in REF2014 and finds that larger submissions and institutes with higher external research income received better impact scores in the REF. The article then examines the units of assessment (UoAs) and HEIs that benefitted from the inclusion of the impact agenda as part of REF2014 by examining the distribution of the quality‐related research (QR) funding in the 2017–2018 period and finds that the QR funding gap among different UoAs tends to decrease but the gap among HEIs in most of the UoAs increased. With the increased importance of the impact agenda as a criterion for funding bodies, it is expected that research income will be concentrated in fewer universities in the future, with the increased importance of non‐academic impact. This article also discusses some of the gaming strategies and long‐term investment priorities that HEIs may engage in based on the new submission rules of the next REF.
This book is about holistic innovation policy: its theoretical foundations, its problem-oriented approach, and its instrument choices. We start with the observation that most of the current innovation policies are not holistic because they only focus on a few determinants of innovation processes. This book provides a theoretically anchored foundation for the design of holistic innovation policy by identifying the core policy problems that tend to afflict the activities of innovation systems, including the unintended consequences of policy itself. This is a necessary stepping stone for the identification of viable, relevant, and down-to-earth policy solutions. The book also offers a critical analysis of policy instruments and their choice in innovation policy design. It is not a ‘recipe’ nor a ‘how-to’ guide. Instead, it provides analytical depth and substantial considerations about the ways in which policy might be providing solutions to problems in systems of innovation. After introducing its conceptual framework about innovation and innovation policy, the book delves into the following areas of innovation policy-making: knowledge production and research and development; education, training, and skills development; functional procurement as demand-side; change of organizations through entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship; interaction and innovation networks; changing institutions and regulations; and the public financing of early stage innovations. Its critical and novel perspective serves policy-makers, scholars, and anyone interested in the design of innovation policy. The summary chapter (Chapter 12) can be read independently of the rest of the book.
Policy-makers and practitioners alike have increasingly embraced the innovation ecosystem approach to support the flow of knowledge within the Triple Helix framework. This approach focuses on the collaborative and interdependent nature of innovation, which is based on social aspects of knowledge transfer supporting relationships, partnerships, and connections. The important role of intermediary stakeholders that help to facilitate such partnerships is under-researched. This paper examines the work of three intermediary stakeholders in the Canadian innovation ecosystem—the Canadian Science Policy Centre, the MaRS Discovery District, and university Vice Presidents Research. By interviewing 40 experts from the federal and provincial governments, non-governmental organizations, industry, and the higher education sector in Ontario, this study examines how innovation ecosystems are created and what factors influence the success of bringing diverse stakeholders together. The findings suggest that strong political vision and leadership, an inclusive approach to recognizing the needs of diverse stakeholders, and clarity on ways to measure and fund innovation serve as important factors in the Canadian innovation ecosystem.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1186/s40604-018-0062-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The article examines the role of policy advisory bodies in the emergence of national innovation policy. Cross-cutting policy issues such as innovation policy pose unique challenges to governments. Given that they do not fit neatly within the purview of existing government departments, it is often unclear who is responsible for dealing with a given issue. Issues may go unaddressed or else be subject to competing initiatives from different departments. What role do policy advisory bodies play in addressing and advancing cross-cutting policy issues? The article examines how the issue of innovation policy was taken up and addressed by policy advisory bodies in two empirical cases: Norwegian ad hoc advisory commissions examining innovation policy during the period 1972–2016, and the German standing expert commission for science and innovation formed in 2006. The article finds that policy advice on innovation was adopted to a varying extent by the political-administrative system. It argues that this can be attributed to the organisation of advisory bodies and to the efforts of these bodies to establish connections and draw bridges across an entrenched political landscape.
There is growing interest in demonstrating the societal and economic value of research around the world with the UK and Australia are at the forefront of these developments. Characterised as an ‘impact agenda’, impact policies have incited debate amongst the academic community and beyond. On the one hand, the edifying and reinforcing effects of impact can be seen to provide greater visibility about the use of public investment in research, whilst, on the other concerns about the subsequent and unintended effects on the nature and quality of research and research cultures, have contributed to a discourse which was (in the very beginning at least) one dominated by resistance. We draw on a qualitative analysis of interviews with UK and Australian mid-senior career academics (n = 51) which explored academic perceptions for resisting an impact agenda, to describe a range of perceived effects on research funding, motivation and quality. We find a persistent perception that impact favours and prioritises ‘types’ of research, leading to a concern that this will reduce funding for certain disciplines. We also note how academics perceived deleterious effects on motivation, culture, capacity and the quality of research. Where impact was seen to ‘direct’ or ‘drive’ research, we discuss how some academics suggested they would re-orientate their work, often at the expense of quality. Indeed, misconceptions about the very meaning of ‘impact’ appear to persist alongside varied intepretations of impact policies and mixed perceptions about how impact is considered in practice with respect to funding decisions. In addition, we posit that extrinsic motivations for impact are ‘crowding out’ intrinsic motivations of academics, altering perceptions of self-determination. This is further compounded by the growing politicisation of knowledge which in turn creates an ideological barrier to engagement. If impact is to be embraced and sustained at scale, institutions must target and harness a wider range of intrinsic motivations and epistemic responsibilities, improving academics’ abilities to respond to the impact agenda in addition to working with, not against those who create policy.
Universities see a need for major changes in their organisational structures and functioning to be able to respond adequately to current social expectations. A greater provision of funds and an increase of university autonomy are priorities of today’s university policy. This article presents the results of relating excellence and autonomy through data from the Academic Ranking of World Universities of the University of Shanghai and the indicators developed by the European University Association for four types of university autonomy: organisational, academic, staffing and financial.
A recent paper in this journal compares the Norwegian model of using publications counts for university funding with a similar intervention in Australia in the mid-1990 s. The authors argue that the Norwegian model (taking into account the quality of publications) performs better than the Australian (which did neglect paper quality other than being peer reviewed). We argue that these conclusions are in contrast to the evidence provided in the article, and therefore should be considered incorrect.
Purpose - Growth in scientific production and productivity over the 20th century resulted significantly from three major countries in European science - France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Charting the development of universities and research institutes that bolster Europe's key position in global science, we uncover both stable and dynamic patterns of productivity in the fields of STEM, including health, over the 20th century. Ongoing internationalization of higher education and science has been accompanied by increasing competition and collaboration. Despite policy goals to foster innovation and expand research capacity, policies cannot fully account for the differential growth of scientific productivity we chart from 1975 to 2010. Approach and Research Design - Our sociological neo-institutional framework facilitates explanation of differences in institutional settings, organizational forms, and organizations that produce the most European research. We measure growth of published peer-reviewed articles indexed in Thomson Reuters' Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Findings - Organizational forms vary in their contributions, with universities accounting for nearly half but rising in France; ultrastable in Germany at four-fifths, and growing at around two-thirds in the United Kingdom. Differing institutionalization pathways created the conditions necessary for continuous, but varying growth in scientific production and productivity in the European center of global science. The research university is key in all three countries, and we identify organizations leading in research output. Originality/value - Few studies explicitly compare across time, space, and different levels of analysis. We show how important European science has been to overall global science production and productivity. In-depth comparisons, especially the organizational fields and forms in which science is produced, are crucial if policy is to support research and development.
This article explores the changing character and consequences of state authorities’ evolving relationships with universities in the United States, Germany, and Norway—typical cases for different national worlds of higher education. It argues that across the three OECD countries, welfare states have strengthened market principles in university governance, yet shaped competition in different ways. This conceptualization of institutional changes makes two seemingly conflicting perspectives compatible: one diagnosing national convergence on academic capitalism and one arguing for lasting divergence across national political economic regimes. Upon proposing ideal-typical trajectories of market-making institutional liberalization, the article explores path-dependent movement toward varieties of academic capitalism in the three countries. The findings on the socio-economic effects of this transformation suggest the need to moderate expectations on the ability of reformed higher education systems to contain contemporary societies’ centrifugal forces.
Performance based funding is used by most EU Member States to increase the performance of their public research system. This report analyses the different nature of systems in EU Member States, selected associated and third countries. It aims to inform Member States which are in a process of mutual learning to improve the design of their allocation systems.
Research Performance based funding systems provide incentives to increase scientific performance and concentrates resources in well performing organisations
Novel quantitative data on project vs institutional funding by Member State
The nature of systems in place differs widely
The specific features of RPBF assessment designs can generate unintended consequences
The assessment suggests RPBF as a potential avenue for several Member States
The choice for specific designs, taking into accounts costs and potential benefits, should take intoaccount the national context
Background
Government- and charity-funded medical research and private sector research and development (R&D) are widely held to be complements. The only attempts to measure this complementarity so far have used data from the United States of America and are inevitably increasingly out of date. This study estimates the magnitude of the effect of government and charity biomedical and health research expenditure in the United Kingdom (UK), separately and in total, on subsequent private pharmaceutical sector R&D expenditure in the UK. Methods
The results for this study are obtained by fitting an econometric vector error correction model (VECM) to time series for biomedical and health R&D expenditure in the UK for ten disease areas (including ‘other’) for the government, charity and private sectors. The VECM model describes the relationship between public (i.e. government and charities combined) sector expenditure, private sector expenditure and global pharmaceutical sales as a combination of a long-term equilibrium and short-term movements. ResultsThere is a statistically significant complementary relationship between public biomedical and health research expenditure and private pharmaceutical R&D expenditure. A 1 % increase in public sector expenditure is associated in the best-fit model with a 0.81 % increase in private sector expenditure. Sensitivity analysis produces a similar and statistically significant result with a slightly smaller positive elasticity of 0.68. Overall, every additional £1 of public research expenditure is associated with an additional £0.83–£1.07 of private sector R&D spend in the UK; 44 % of that additional private sector expenditure occurs within 1 year, with the remainder accumulating over decades. This spillover effect implies a real annual rate of return (in terms of economic impact) to public biomedical and health research in the UK of 15–18 %. When combined with previous estimates of the health gain that results from public medical research in cancer and cardiovascular disease, the total rate of return would be around 24–28 %. Conclusion
Overall, this suggests that government and charity funded research in the UK crowds in additional private sector R&D in the UK. The implied historical returns from UK government and charity funded investment in medical research in the UK compare favourably with the rates of return achieved on investments in the rest of the UK economy and are greatly in excess of the 3.5 % real annual rate of return required by the UK government to public investments generally.
Academic research systems (ARS) play a fundamental role in post-industrial societies. Using the lenses of comparative political-economy, this article (1) explores correspondence between 16 OECD countries and 12 ARS indicators, and (2) examines the extent to which Esping-Andersen’s welfare regime typology explains this correspondence. The non-parametric correspondence analysis is stable and 67.4% of the variance is explained by three dimensions: Academic Centrality, Research Workforce and Responsiveness to Market Forces. The first and most important dimension distinguishes social-democratic from liberal regimes. Findings point to interplays between welfare mix, productivism and the socialization of risks and ARS' centrality and responsiveness. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/hep/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/hep201525a.html
Bibliometric impact analyses show that Swedish research has less international visibility than Danish research. When taking a global view on all subject fields and selecting publications cited higher than the 90th percentile, i.e., the Top 10 %—publications, the Swedish Research Council shows that although Sweden ranks 15 % above world average, Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland rank 35–40 % above. To explain these different performances, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences asked us to compare the national research systems on three levels: priority setting at national level, governance of universities and direction and funding of research. There are of course many similarities between the Danish and Swedish research systems but there are still subtle differences that have developed over time, which may explain the different international visibility. First of all, it does not depend on different levels of public spending on research and development. However, the core funding of universities relative external funding is higher in Denmark than in Sweden. The academic leadership of Danish universities in terms of board, vice-chancellor, faculty dean and department chair is also more coherent and focused on priority setting, recruitment, organization and deployment of resources to establish research environments that operate at the forefront of international research. On all these points we see a weaker leadership in Sweden. Furthermore, over the last 20 years, public funding of research in Sweden has become more and more unpredictable and program oriented with many new actors, while the Danish funding system, although it also has developed over time, shows more consistency with strong actors to fund individuals with novel ideas. The research policy in Sweden has also developed multiple, sometimes even conflicting goals, which have undermined conditions for high-impact research, while in Denmark a policy to support excellence in research has been more coherent.
Today’s universities are, accordingly to Clark’s entrepreneurial model, sustained by managerialism, whereas collegialism may remain in contrast or work in a different way. More recent literature suggests the clash such as the potential for coexistence between managerialism and collegialism. The study analyses data from a survey of 26 universities in 8 European countries, focusing on middle managers (MMs). The results show that at the level of the individual institutions, there are notable positive correlations between the presence of collegial and of managerial cultures. Multilevel regressions at institutional level are analysed, to‘predict’ collegiality in light of the universities’ managerial culture and other factors affecting organizational change: accountability; distribution of discretional power; funding; impact of quality assurance (QA) and evaluation. The results illustrate that in more managerial universities, collegial culture increases above all when MMs believe that distance-steering tools (QA and evaluation) have had positive impacts. We find that collegiality can indeed thrive, even when‘managerially led’.
[full paper can be downloaded at https://giuliomarini.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/collegiality-vs-managerialism-in-european-higher-education-institutions/]
Each higher education system has one or several universities that stand out among the rest in terms of prestige, embodying the hopes of a nation. They are the frontrunners in educating national elites, in attracting the best students and academics, in granting social status, and, increasingly, in gaining resources intended to improve their performance in global rankings.
In the past two decades, centres of excellence (CoE) and other ‘research excellence initiatives’ likely to increase the cumulative
advantages and stratification of science, have been implemented in many countries. Based on empirical studies of CoE in four
Nordic countries, this paper examines how the resources provided by CoE schemes (generous long-term funding, prestige and
visibility) add to the success and growth dynamics of the CoE. The data indicate a modified Matthew effect with ceilings and
limits avoiding excessive accumulation of resources. Important impacts of the CoE are found, in particular in terms of enabling
more interdisciplinary collaboration and risk-taking and enhancing international recruitment to the research areas involved.
But, in contrast to what might be expected, the CoE grant seem to add less to the relative citation rate of those already
performing at the highest level, than for those performing at a somewhat lower level prior to the CoE grant.
In December 2010, a comprehensive reform (Law 240/2010, or 'Gelmini reform') changed the institutional governance and internal organization of Italian state universities. This paper investigates the redefinition of the state role in the light of public management reform narratives, linking them to the Governance Equalizer Model to evaluate how the on-going reform process has affected the power sharing arrangement and coordination mechanisms in the Italian higher education system thus far. Rhetoric of reform was influenced by the New Public Management narrative; Law 240 was presented as a fundamental change to the traditional Italian governance regime, based on detailed state regulation and academic self-governance. In practice, contradictions between the rhetoric of the reform and the effectiveness of implementation are evident: Italian reform complies more with the Neo-Weberian narrative and it did not have any substantial impact on power distribution.
This paper examines the role of grant size in research funding. There is an increasing focus in a number of countries on larger
grant forms, such as centers of excellence, and in some cases also increases in the size of individual project grants. Among
the rationales for this are economies of scale in research and redistribution of resources towards top researchers in order
to increases scientific productivity and pathbreaking research. However, there may potentially also be negative impacts of
increasing funding size, and there is limited empirical evidence on the actual consequences of increases in size. In this
paper we critically examine the rationales behind increases in funding size and the empirical evidence on the impacts of size
in research funding. Our goal here is to present a more coherent view of the potential impacts of these initiatives, both
positive and negative, that can help inform funding design.
Innovation enhances human prosperity and well-being and is considered a major driver of economic growth. Yet, the innovation process varies in different countries and regions. Understanding the ‘how’ can help both policy makers and practitioners to facilitate innovation. We contribute to such understanding by comparing the development of two small, contrasting innovation systems in Finland and Alberta, Canada in their historical, economic, and social contexts – a type of research that has been called for but is rare in the systemic innovation research. Instead of describing components and outcomes only but change over time in innovation systems, we capture how they work. This and the comparison of systems with different rates of innovation and change offer a more grounded basis for policy and practice recommendations than comparisons to an abstract ideal and also reveal some implications for the notion of path dependence in innovation systems.
Eastern welfare systems have largely been neglected by Western social policy. There is very little information in the West about their operation and the differences between them. Yet, as China and South-East Asia emerge as a major regional economic block, it is vital to understand the social models that are in operation there and how they are developing. This book puts the spotlight on the Chinese and South-East Asian welfare systems, providing an up-to-date assessment of their character and development. In particular, it examines the underlying assumptions of these systems and how the processes of globalisation are impacting on them. As well as specific country case studies, there is a valuable comparative analysis of Eastern and Western welfare states. The book provides a unique insight into the main South-East Asian welfare systems and chapters have been written by experts living and working within them. It focuses on ‘Confucianism’ and globalisation to provide an account of tradition and change within the South-East Asian cultural context.
This chapter considers national system stratification in high participation systems (HPS) of higher education. As demand for higher education increases, the social value of places within a system becomes more differentiated on a binary basis, between places offering exceptionally high positional value and others offering little value. Three prepositions about stratification are advanced. The first expands on the tendency to system bifurcation in HPS, with a small and elite ‘artisanal’ sector, mostly research-intensive universities, opposed to a larger and undistinguished ‘demand-absorbing’ sector. The second proposition identifies a set of drivers that push the bifurcation process. The third proposition recognizes that bifurcation is always incomplete and focuses on the contradictory dynamics of the ‘middle’ layer of higher education institutions in most HPS. Nationally specific factors that accentuate or limit stratification are identified.
The Golden Age of post‐war capitalism has been eclipsed, and with it seemingly also the possibility of harmonizing equality and welfare with efficiency and jobs. Most analyses believe that the emerging post‐industrial society is overdetermined by massive, convergent forces, such as tertiarization, new technologies, or globalization, all conspiring to make welfare states unsustainable in the future. This book takes a second, more sociological and institutional look at the driving forces of economic transformation. What stands out as a result is that there is post‐industrial diversity rather than convergence. Macroscopic, global trends are undoubtedly powerful, yet their influence is easily rivalled by domestic institutional traditions, by the kind of welfare regime that, some generations ago, was put in place. It is, however, especially the family economy that holds the key as to what kind of post‐industrial model will emerge, and to how evolving trade‐offs will be managed. Twentieth‐century economic analysis depended on a set of sociological assumptions that now are invalid. Hence, to grasp better what drives today's economy, it is necessary to begin with its social foundations. After an Introduction, the book is arranged in three parts: I, Varieties of Welfare Capitalism (four chapters); II, The New Political Economy (two chapters); and III, Welfare Capitalism Recast? (two chapters).
The paper compares the value and impact of academic patents in five European countries with different institutional frameworks: Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden. An academic patent is defined as such when at least one university professor appears among its inventors, irrespective of ownership. Most academic patents are assigned to business companies, followed by universities, public research organizations, and individual inventors. The distribution of ownership across these categories (i) differ greatly across country, due to a combination of legal norms on ip and institutional features of the university system; (ii) and it is associated with the value of patents, as measured by forward citations. Company-owned academic patents tend to be as cited as non-academic ones, while university-owned tend to be less cited. Academic patents in the Netherlands are more cited than non-academic ones, irrespective of their ownership, while university-owned patents get fewer citations in both Denmark and Italy. We propose an explanation of these results based on the different autonomy enjoyed by universities in the countries considered. We also find that company-owned academic patents in Sweden get many fewer citations than non-academic. Individually-owned academic patents are more cited than non-academic patents similarly owned by their inventors.
This section presents the third volume of Max Weber's fundamental work Economy and Society which has been translated into Russian for the first time. The third volume includes two works devoted to the sociology of law. The first, 'The Economy and Laws', discusses differences between sociological and juridical approaches to studies of social processes. It describes peculiarities of normative power arenas (orders) at different levels and demonstrates how they influence the economy. The second, 'Economy and Law' ('Sociology of Law'), reviews the evolution of law orders (primarily, the three "greatest systems of law" including Roman Law, Anglo-American Law, and European Continental Law) in the context of changes in the organization of economy and structures of dominancy. Law is considered an influential factor of the rationalization of social life which in turn is affected by a rationalized economy and social management. The Journal of Economic Sociology here publishes an excerpt from the chapter 'Law, Convention and Custom' in this third volume, which shows the role of the habitual in the formation of law; explains the importance of intuition and empathy for the emergence of new orders; and discusses the changeable borders between law, convention and custom. The translation is edited by Leonid Ionin and the chapter is published with the permission of HSE Publishing House. © 2018 National Research University Higher School of Economics. All rights reserved.
Soyez en tête de la compétition mondiale mais coordonnez-vous à l'échelon territorial ! Telle est l'injonction contradictoire adressée aux universités françaises depuis les deux grandes réformes du système d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche initiées en 2000.D’un côté, l’État organise une compétition généralisée entre enseignants- chercheurs et entre universités. Les financements sur projet de la recherche, la publicisation des évaluations et leur utilisation pour allouer les budgets à la performance, comme les très sélectifs appels à projets qui se sont succédé sans relâche depuis le Grand Emprunt de Nicolas Sarkozy, ont accru les écarts entre établissements et fait voler en éclat le principe sur lequel reposait jusqu’alors, en théorie, le système français : des universités équivalentes sur l’ensemble du territoire.De l’autre, un remodelage du paysage universitaire est à l’oeuvre. Il impose que les grandes écoles, les organismes de recherche et les universités d’une même région coordonnent leurs actions dans le but de rationaliser les coûts et de grimper dans les classements mondiaux.De nouvelles structures sont ainsi créées à marche forcée, sans qu’il soit possible de savoir si ces changements majeurs atteindront leurs objectifs et assureront un avenir radieux à l’enseignement supérieur français. (résumé de l'éditeur)
This book investigates the intensifying struggle for excellence between universities in a globalized academic field. The rise of the entrepreneurial university and academic capitalism are superimposing themselves on the competition of scientists for progress of knowledge and recognition by the scientific community. The result is a sharpening institutional stratification of the field. This stratification is produced and continuously reproduced by the intensified struggle for funds with the shrinking of block grants and the growing significance of competitive funding, as well as the increasing impact of international and national rankings on academic research and teaching. The increased allocation of funds on the basis of performance leads to overinvestment of resources at the small top and underinvestment for the broad mass of universities in the middle and lower ranks. There is a curvilinear inverted u-shaped relationship of investments and returns in terms of knowledge production. Paradoxically, the intrusion of the economic logic and measures of managerial controlling into the academic field imply increasing inefficiency in the allocation of resources to universities. The top institutions suffer from overinvestment, the rank-and-file institutions from underinvestment. The economic inefficiency is accompanied by a shrinking potential for renewal and open knowledge evolution.
This chapter looks to discuss what different capitalisms (i.e., neoliberal capitalism as in the USA, state-regulated capitalism as in some European countries, state-led capitalism as in China) mean for higher education markets and the race to achieve world-class university status. After a general introduction to different forms of capitalism and their implications for higher education, we focus specifically on German higher education, which is transitioning from a regulated social welfare economy to a more neoliberal one, and look at the consequences of this for Germany’s efforts to build markets by capturing international student mobility. The chapter is based on case studies of three universities and examines the learning required by faculty and staff as well as the concomitant expansion of institutional work to move from the traditional posture of the Humboldtian university to more market facing postures.
This article presents an application of the Directional Output Distance Function (DODF) model to measure the internal performances
of the Italian National Research Council (CNR). Research institutes are seen as Decision Making Units (DMUs), which produce
two different kinds of scientific outputs using inputs. We consider some outputs more important from a scientific point of
view than others, which we refer to as bad. Financial constraints, recently imposed by the government, do not allow the institutes
to freely dispose of their output portfolio, and bad outputs have to be produced in order to obtain external funds. Using
the DODF framework it is possible to estimate the effect of fund cuts in terms of potential scientific products lost. By applying
the Malmquist–Luenberger indexes we produce evidence on the trend of Total Factor Productivity (TFP) after the 2003 internal
restructuring process. A comparison of results within the standard efficiency framework is provided and the big differences
that emerge allow us to draw alternative conclusions on the recent evidence.
People and governments tend to have shorter time horizons when faced with economic uncertainty. Scientific discoveries and
technological innovations requiring long-term commitment and investment are thus likely to suffer from higher rates of future
discounting in times of economic insecurity. At the same time, governments are pressed for counter-cyclical measures in economic
downturns, since recessions create large demands for compensatory spending for people and sectors at risk. This study explores
how government investment in science and technology responds to economic downturns with a panel analysis of the data from
21 OECD nations for the period 1981–2011. Drawing on the varieties of capitalism (VoC) theory, the study explores how institutional
complementarities underlying different regimes of political economy influence the downturn behavior of government-funded R&D.
The empirical evidence presented here is largely supportive of the VoC conjecture, showing that government R&D funding is
distinctly counter-cyclical in coordinated market economies.
The introduction of competitive funding mechanisms in higher education is found to generally increase research productivity. However, the diversity within higher education systems may lead universities to behave in substantially different ways in response to the adoption of competitive funding criteria. In particular, we argue that the legitimacy of universities, defined as their level of recognition based on the adherence to socially accepted norms and expectations, is crucial in shaping their reaction. This paper investigates the change in research productivity experienced by Italian universities following the introduction of the first Performance-based Research Funding System (PRFS) in 2003, focusing on the moderating effect of university legitimacy. Using a sample of 75 universities observed during the period 1999–2011, we find that the introduction of PRFS leads to an increase in research productivity, and this increase is significantly more pronounced among more legitimate universities.
The importance of R&D investment in explaining economic growth is well documented in the literature. Policies by modern governments increasingly recognise the benefits of supporting R&D investment. Government funding has, however, become an increasingly scarce resource in times of financial crisis and economic austerity. Hence, it is important that available funds are used and targeted effectively. This paper offers the first systematic review and critical discussion of what the R&D literature has to say currently about the effectiveness of major public R&D policies in increasing private R&D investment. Public policies are considered within three categories, R&D tax credits and direct subsidies, support of the university research system and the formation of high-skilled human capital, and support of formal R&D cooperations across a variety of institutions. Crucially, the large body of more recent literature observes a shift away from the earlier findings that public subsidies often crowd-out private R&D to finding that subsidies typically stimulate private R&D. Tax credits are also much more unanimously than previously found to have positive effects. University research, high-skilled human capital, and R&D cooperation also typically increase private R&D. Recent work indicates that accounting for non-linearities is one area of research that may refine existing results.
This study identifies contemporary government accountability requirements impacting research councils in North America and
Europe and investigates how councils deal with such demands. This investigation is set against the background of rising policy
frameworks stressing public sector accountability that have led many national governments to enact legislation requiring public
agencies to collect more performance information and tie it to decision-making. Through documentary analysis and interviews
with informants at several research councils we clarify how broader policy trends are reflected in the operation of public
institutions that provide critical support for academic science. In addition to legislation cast broadly to regulate the activities
of all government agencies, numerous regulations and guidelines have been targeted specifically at science and technology
(S&T) activities. Regulations on S&T expenditures in general and on research councils more specifically include efforts to
develop new metrics specific to science-based or innovation-based outcomes, to enhance the use of indicators in decision-making,
to focus on tracing the broad impacts of programs, to increase the frequency of reporting, and to make agencies more responsive
to business and public interests.
Academic capitalism is currently a widely studied topic amongst higher education scholars, especially in the United States. This paper demonstrates that the theory of academic capitalism also provides a fruitful perspective for analysing the restructuring of Finnish higher education since the 1990s, although with reservations. It will be argued that many reforms in Finnish universities since the 1990s, and especially in the early 2000s, have integrated Finnish universities more tightly with the new knowledge-based economy. As some recent empirical studies indicate, activities and practices related to academic capitalism remain, however, unevenly distributed among different disciplines, and workers in Finnish universities tend to experience increasingly contradictory demands.
The university research environment has been undergoing profound change in recent decades and performance-based research funding systems (PRFSs) are one of the many novelties introduced. This paper seeks to find general lessons in the accumulated experience with PRFSs that can serve to enrich our understanding of how research policy and innovation systems are evolving. The paper also links the PRFS experience with the public management literature, particularly new public management, and understanding of public sector performance evaluation systems. PRFSs were found to be complex, dynamic systems, balancing peer review and metrics, accommodating differences between fields, and involving lengthy consultation with the academic community and transparency in data and results. Although the importance of PRFSs seems based on their distribution of universities’ research funding, this is something of an illusion, and the literature agrees that it is the competition for prestige created by a PRSF that creates powerful incentives within university systems. The literature suggests that under the right circumstances a PRFS will enhance control by professional elites. PRFSs since they aim for excellence, may compromise other important values such as equity or diversity. They will not serve the goal of enhancing the economic relevance of research.
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to discuss how funding systems influence higher education institutions and their strategies and core tasks.
Design/methodology/approach
– Taking the results of a comparative study between Denmark, Norway and Portugal as a point of departure, the paper identifies and analyses the main features of these state funding systems, their strengths and weaknesses, and their impact on academia.
Findings
– The system‐level analysis offers an illustration of a trend across Europe. The paper shows that mixed funding models have been implemented in all three countries.
Originality/value
– Funding systems and their impacts do not come in neat packages. The systems demonstrate a mixed pattern of strengths and weaknesses. The impacts of the funding systems converge, although different mechanisms are employed. There are no clear cut differences in the perceived strengths, weaknesses and impacts of the two main types of funding systems – input‐based funding and output‐based funding – presented and discussed in the paper.
This essay focuses on the use of ideal types within different theoretical frameworks for the comparative analysis of culture and values. It emphasizes the importance of cultural agency, and the potential for enhanced understanding and the anticipation of future developments through exploring deep‐level cultural patterns. The essay is written as a personal narrative, illustrating the way the author has used ideal types in three distinct phases of her work, and the insights that have resulted. It closes with an example of the use of ideal types for envisaging preferred futures in the context of globalization.
The relationship between ownership structure and the quality of academic inventions has not been deeply analysed, despite its relevance for the literature on IPR and university–industry knowledge transfer. This paper fills the gap by using a novel dataset of academic patents in the UK, both university-owned and corporate-owned for the period 1990–2001.
The main results may be summarized as follows. (1) Controlling for observable inventor and patent characteristics, academic patents owned by business companies receive more citations in the first years after the filing date than those owned by universities or other public research organizations, but this difference diminishes when considering a longer time window, and it disappears when considering only later citations. Interestingly, (2) change of ownership is an indicator of patent quality: academic patents owned by companies but originally assigned to universities or other public research organizations show a noticebly higher quality premium. Finally, (3) professor's scientific quality appears slightly correlated with patent quality.
All Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries have experienced an unprecedented expansion in higher education during the second half of the twentieth century. This was only possible because higher education became part of national welfare policies. OECD countries differ, however, with respect to the significance of education, and more specifically, higher-education policies within their overall framework of welfare policies. We employ the concept of the `welfare regime' and a `trade-off' hypothesis to understand the different national approaches to higher-education participation, funding, tuition, and student financial aid. Through a comparative analysis of data from international databases, we examine how different countries accomplish the goal of enhancing participation as part of their welfare policies. Overall, our hypotheses are confirmed in that we demonstrate that there is a convincing relationship between higher-education policies and given welfare regimes. We conclude that when adopting policy strategies from other contexts, careful consideration of the underlying societal structures and traditions is required.