Abstract
Increasingly, funding of academic research is carried out through the support of collaboration, rather than through single awards to a sole grant holder. The practice is well supported by evidence that larger, network-based research achieves high quality while leading to a number of capacity building benefits for the research system, although with significant transaction costs. However, the question of what kind of funding schemes should be made available to researchers is not a simple dichotomy between single grant-holder projects and networks. A key question is how to achieve a balance in each subject field between different forms of funding instrument employed while ensuring different forms of funding retain a reputation for generating research of high scientific quality. This paper reports the results of a systematic comparison of the scientific quality of 1010 scientific papers from the ISI database produced under two contrasting forms of funding instrument for a single year in the Austrian science system. Comparison of the arcsinh transformed citation counts of papers from the two main forms of funding for basic science at the level of main scientific field shows there is no statistically significant difference in the quality achieved by the two forms of funding. This may suggest that funders and research performers have succeeded in ensuring that different research instruments nevertheless achieve very similar levels of scientific excellence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., Stephan, P. E. (2005), Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from US universities, 1981–1999, Research Policy, 34: 259–285.
Austrian Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (2004), Austrian Science Fund Yearbook, 2003, Vienna.
Banchoff, T. (2002), Institutions, inertia and European Union research policy, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40: 1–21.
Bonaccorsi A., Daraio, C. (2005), Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity, Scientometrics, 63: 87–120.
Corley, E. A., Boardman, P. C., Bozeman. B. (2006), Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies, Research Policy, 35: 975–993.
Dundar, H., Lewis D. R. (1998), Determinants of research productivity in higher education, Research in Higher Education, 39: 607–631.
Elliott, J. M. (1977), Some Methods for the Statistical Analysis of Samples of Benthic Invertebrates (2nd ed.). Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publication: 25, Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, England.
Etzkowitz, E., Leydesdorff, L. (2000), The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations, Research Policy, 29: 109–123.
Frenken, K. (2002), A new indicator of European integration and an application to collaboration in scientific research, Economic Systems Research, 14: 345–361.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.
Golden, J., Carstensen, F. V. (1992), Academic research, productivity, department size and organization: further results, rejoinder, Economics of Education Review, 11: 169–171.
Hackett, E. (2005), Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research, Social Studies of Science, 35: 787–826.
Hakala, J., Kutinlahti, P., Kaukonen, E. (2002), Becoming international, becoming European: EU research collaboration at Finnish universities, The European Journal of Social Science Research, 15: 357–379.
Jeffrey, P. (2003), Smoothing the waters: observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration, Social Studies of Science, 25: 539–562.
Katz, J. S., Martin, B. R. (1997), What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26: 1–18.
Kyvik, S. (1995), Are big university departments better than small ones? Higher Education, 30: 295–304.
Lee, S., Bozeman, B. (2005), The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity, Social Studies of Science, 35: 673–702.
Leydesdorff, L., Bensman, S. (2006), Classification and power laws: The logarithmic transformation, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57: 1470–1486.
May, R. M. (1997), The scientific wealth of nations, Science, 275: 793–796.
Melin, G. (2000), Pragmatism and self-organisation: Research collaboration on the individual level, Research Policy, 29: 31–40.
Milligan, G. W. (1987), The use of the Arc-Sine Transformation in Analysis of Variance, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47: 563–573.
Narin, F., Whitlow, E. S. (1990), Measurement of Scientific Cooperation and Co-authorship in EC-related Areas of Science. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. EC-Report EUR 12900.
Price, D. DE Solla, Beaver, D. D. (1966), Collaboration in an invisible college, American Psychologist, 21: 1011–1018.
Quenouille, M. H. (1953), The Design and Analysis of Experiments, Griffin, London.
Rigby, J., Edler, J. E. (2005), Peering inside research networks: Some observations on the effect of the intensity of collaboration on the variability of research quality, Research Policy, 34: 784–794.
Schatz, G. (2003), Networks, fretworks, Febs Letters, 553: 1–2.
Schatz, G. (2004), Letting go, FEBS Letters, 576: 285–286.
Schatz, G. (2005), The risks of playing safe, FEBS Letters, 579: 569–570.
Scientific Council of the European Research Council (2006 a), European Research Council — Work Programme 2007 Draft Version, 13 October 2006.
Scientific Council of the European Research Council (2006 b), The ERC Launch Strategy.
Sheffe, H. (1959), The Analysis of Variance, John Wiley, London.
Stankiewicz, R. (1979), The size and age of Swedish academic research groups and their scientific performance, In: Andrews, F. M. (Ed.). Scientific Productivity. The Effectiveness of Research Groups in Six Countries. Cambridge/Paris, Cambridge University Press/UNESCO.
Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998), The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results Some simple mathematical considerations concerning. The role of self-citations, Scientometrics, 42: 423–428.
Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004), Sleeping Beauties in science, Scientometrics, 59: 467–472.
Wagner, C. S. (2005), Six case studies of international collaboration in science, Scientometrics, 62: 3–26.
Welsh, E., Jirotka, M., Gavaghan, D. (2006), Post-genomic science: cross-disciplinary and large-scale collaborative research and its organizational and technological challenges for the scientific research process, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A — Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 364: 1533–1549.
Whitley, R. (2000), The Intellectual and Social Organisation of the Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition.
Ziman, J. M. (1994), Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady State, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Zuckerman, H. (1967), Nobel laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration and authorship, American Sociological Review, 32: 391–403.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rigby, J. Comparing the scientific quality achieved by funding instruments for single grant holders and for collaborative networks within a research system: Some observations. Scientometrics 78, 145–164 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1970-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1970-y