Caetano C. R. Penna, Oscar Y. Romero Goyeneche, C. Matti
In this paper, we propose a method for tracking the evolution of sociotechnical niches supported by sustainability-focused project portfolios. Based on social network analysis (SNA), this method can be used to evaluate and monitor funding initiatives that seek to advance sociotechnical transitions. It is an important area of study because there is currently a lack of tools for measuring the success of efforts to promote transformative innovation. Conceptually, our approach is based on existing sociotechnical transition research and offers insights into how project networks evolve. We applied this method to a specific portfolio of food system projects that the European Institute for Innovation and Technology Climate-KIC supported. Our results show that SNA can provide a proper visual representation of the infrastructure that supports programme-based investment and can help us understand how specific network structures can support niche development and protect it from external pressures.
{"title":"Exploring indicators for monitoring sociotechnical system transitions through portfolio networks","authors":"Caetano C. R. Penna, Oscar Y. Romero Goyeneche, C. Matti","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this paper, we propose a method for tracking the evolution of sociotechnical niches supported by sustainability-focused project portfolios. Based on social network analysis (SNA), this method can be used to evaluate and monitor funding initiatives that seek to advance sociotechnical transitions. It is an important area of study because there is currently a lack of tools for measuring the success of efforts to promote transformative innovation. Conceptually, our approach is based on existing sociotechnical transition research and offers insights into how project networks evolve. We applied this method to a specific portfolio of food system projects that the European Institute for Innovation and Technology Climate-KIC supported. Our results show that SNA can provide a proper visual representation of the infrastructure that supports programme-based investment and can help us understand how specific network structures can support niche development and protect it from external pressures.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46293706","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the USA, politics often dominates the conversation surrounding science and related technologies. We also live in times of high political polarization, leading to political debate over scientific discoveries and subsequent policy implications. Given these dynamics, there is much to be learned about the politicization of science, individuals’ policy views, and the public’s relationship with the communication and interpretation of scientific findings. Agencies are often responsible for facilitating scientific research and framing its policy relevance for decision makers and the public. This paper uses data from a large national public opinion survey to investigate citizen attitudes about government science agencies. We theorize that disparities between objective and self-assessed scientific knowledge coupled with ideological cues help frame citizen evaluations of agencies. We find that individuals’ political ideologies and disparities between knowledge types shape citizen assessments of energy-related scientific agencies. These findings have important implications for our understanding of public acceptance of the work of government science agencies.
{"title":"Ideology, knowledge, and the assessment of science policy agencies","authors":"Kathryn Haglin, A. Vedlitz","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the USA, politics often dominates the conversation surrounding science and related technologies. We also live in times of high political polarization, leading to political debate over scientific discoveries and subsequent policy implications. Given these dynamics, there is much to be learned about the politicization of science, individuals’ policy views, and the public’s relationship with the communication and interpretation of scientific findings. Agencies are often responsible for facilitating scientific research and framing its policy relevance for decision makers and the public. This paper uses data from a large national public opinion survey to investigate citizen attitudes about government science agencies. We theorize that disparities between objective and self-assessed scientific knowledge coupled with ideological cues help frame citizen evaluations of agencies. We find that individuals’ political ideologies and disparities between knowledge types shape citizen assessments of energy-related scientific agencies. These findings have important implications for our understanding of public acceptance of the work of government science agencies.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41763339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Ocean science diplomacy stands for the social phenomena resulting from the interaction of science and diplomacy in ocean affairs. It refers, inter alia, to the provision of scientific evidence in support of international decision-making, the building of alliances through scientific cooperation, and the enhancement of international collaborative marine research. Despite this generalization, we still lack an understanding of the sense practitioners make of ocean science diplomacy. This paper reports on perceptions of ocean science diplomacy collected through twenty in-depth interviews with South and North Atlantic government officials and researchers involved in the All-Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance. In principle, interviewees perceive ocean science diplomacy as a positive and critically important phenomenon that combines the best of science and diplomacy. However, below this generally positive perception, there seems to be a polarization of power between science and policy and also between South and North Atlantic perspectives. Scientists have reported feeling suspicious of policymaking processes, while officials portray science as unaccountable and segregated from policy. South Atlantic researchers expressed concern over limited research capabilities, and officials reported an openness to the scientific evidence presented by scientists. Northern interviewees, with reported enhanced research capabilities, seem more inclined to search for the right scientific evidence in support of national political goals. A preconceived sense of the other is what seems to permeate South–North Atlantic relationships. Northern subjects make sense of their Southern peers as those in need of assistance, while Southern interviewees claimed being unheard and victims of tokenism. I discuss these findings in light of postcolonial and decolonial theories, advocating for the need to decolonize ocean science diplomacy in the Atlantic Ocean if we are to achieve its alluded benefits.
{"title":"Coloniality in science diplomacy—evidence from the Atlantic Ocean","authors":"Andrei Polejack","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad027","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ocean science diplomacy stands for the social phenomena resulting from the interaction of science and diplomacy in ocean affairs. It refers, inter alia, to the provision of scientific evidence in support of international decision-making, the building of alliances through scientific cooperation, and the enhancement of international collaborative marine research. Despite this generalization, we still lack an understanding of the sense practitioners make of ocean science diplomacy. This paper reports on perceptions of ocean science diplomacy collected through twenty in-depth interviews with South and North Atlantic government officials and researchers involved in the All-Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance. In principle, interviewees perceive ocean science diplomacy as a positive and critically important phenomenon that combines the best of science and diplomacy. However, below this generally positive perception, there seems to be a polarization of power between science and policy and also between South and North Atlantic perspectives. Scientists have reported feeling suspicious of policymaking processes, while officials portray science as unaccountable and segregated from policy. South Atlantic researchers expressed concern over limited research capabilities, and officials reported an openness to the scientific evidence presented by scientists. Northern interviewees, with reported enhanced research capabilities, seem more inclined to search for the right scientific evidence in support of national political goals. A preconceived sense of the other is what seems to permeate South–North Atlantic relationships. Northern subjects make sense of their Southern peers as those in need of assistance, while Southern interviewees claimed being unheard and victims of tokenism. I discuss these findings in light of postcolonial and decolonial theories, advocating for the need to decolonize ocean science diplomacy in the Atlantic Ocean if we are to achieve its alluded benefits.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135249800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. Feitosa, S. Salles-Filho, Adriana Bin, Yohanna Juk, F. Colugnati
Funding agencies (FAs) have increasingly engaged in international cooperation agreements (ICAs) to encourage world-class research and achieve more promising outcomes in the context of increasing competition for research resources. While the benefits of International Research Collaboration are largely supported by literature, less attention was paid to the influence of ICA on scientific and technological outputs. We employed a quasi-experimental evaluation with a comparison between funding for international collaboration carried under ICA (treatment) and funding for international collaboration not carried under ICA (control). The sample was collected from the database of the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) between 1990 and 2018. We have found that ICA has a positive and significant impact on the quality of scientific production measured by the number of citations, h-index, and the number of national and international papers co-authorship. However, no significant difference was found in terms of scholarly and technological outputs.
{"title":"Does international R&D cooperation under institutional agreements have a greater impact than those without agreements?","authors":"P. Feitosa, S. Salles-Filho, Adriana Bin, Yohanna Juk, F. Colugnati","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Funding agencies (FAs) have increasingly engaged in international cooperation agreements (ICAs) to encourage world-class research and achieve more promising outcomes in the context of increasing competition for research resources. While the benefits of International Research Collaboration are largely supported by literature, less attention was paid to the influence of ICA on scientific and technological outputs. We employed a quasi-experimental evaluation with a comparison between funding for international collaboration carried under ICA (treatment) and funding for international collaboration not carried under ICA (control). The sample was collected from the database of the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) between 1990 and 2018. We have found that ICA has a positive and significant impact on the quality of scientific production measured by the number of citations, h-index, and the number of national and international papers co-authorship. However, no significant difference was found in terms of scholarly and technological outputs.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41989270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Transformative innovation policy (TIP) implies not only new directionality for innovation policy but also rethinking its means and scope. This requires further investigation into the role of horizontal and cross-sectoral policy programmes that may be relevant for upscaling innovation and destabilising regimes. This paper studies the national implementation, in Finland, of the European Union (EU) programme for COVID-19 recovery, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), as an example of a cross-sectoral policy programme. It is of interest, because the EU has set certain conditions related to sustainability transitions for the RRF. Using a transformative policy mix approach, the paper finds that the Finnish RRF Programme lists many policy measures that can be regarded as having a transformative intent. These include upscaling innovative sustainability niches and destabilising existing practices. Yet, we also found that there is a risk that cross-sectoral programmes fail to find overall transformative visions and fund multiple potentially competing technological pathways instead.
{"title":"Analysis of COVID-19 recovery and resilience policy in Finland: a transformative policy mix approach","authors":"Paula Kivimaa, J. Lukkarinen, D. Lazarevic","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Transformative innovation policy (TIP) implies not only new directionality for innovation policy but also rethinking its means and scope. This requires further investigation into the role of horizontal and cross-sectoral policy programmes that may be relevant for upscaling innovation and destabilising regimes. This paper studies the national implementation, in Finland, of the European Union (EU) programme for COVID-19 recovery, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), as an example of a cross-sectoral policy programme. It is of interest, because the EU has set certain conditions related to sustainability transitions for the RRF. Using a transformative policy mix approach, the paper finds that the Finnish RRF Programme lists many policy measures that can be regarded as having a transformative intent. These include upscaling innovative sustainability niches and destabilising existing practices. Yet, we also found that there is a risk that cross-sectoral programmes fail to find overall transformative visions and fund multiple potentially competing technological pathways instead.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43726451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is generally agreed that researchers’ ‘local context’ matters to the successful implementation of research integrity policies. However, it often remains unclear what the relevant local context is. Is it the institutions and immediate working surroundings of researchers? Or, do we need to pay more attention to researchers’ epistemic communities if we want to understand their ‘local context’? In this paper, we examine this question by using the International Research Integrity Survey with more than 60,000 respondents. Survey responses indicate that academics identify with both their geographical local units (‘polis’) and their more transnational epistemic or scholarly communities (‘cosmos’). Identification with scholarly communities tends to be strongest. We embed the survey results in the academic literature by proposing a theoretical understanding of academics’ ‘local context’ based on Beck’s notion of cosmopolitanism and Durkheim’s concept of solidarity. We conclude with considerations on how to successfully implement research integrity policies.
{"title":"Disentangling the local context—imagined communities and researchers’ sense of belonging","authors":"Serge Horbach, M. P. Sørensen, N. Allum, A. Reid","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 It is generally agreed that researchers’ ‘local context’ matters to the successful implementation of research integrity policies. However, it often remains unclear what the relevant local context is. Is it the institutions and immediate working surroundings of researchers? Or, do we need to pay more attention to researchers’ epistemic communities if we want to understand their ‘local context’? In this paper, we examine this question by using the International Research Integrity Survey with more than 60,000 respondents. Survey responses indicate that academics identify with both their geographical local units (‘polis’) and their more transnational epistemic or scholarly communities (‘cosmos’). Identification with scholarly communities tends to be strongest. We embed the survey results in the academic literature by proposing a theoretical understanding of academics’ ‘local context’ based on Beck’s notion of cosmopolitanism and Durkheim’s concept of solidarity. We conclude with considerations on how to successfully implement research integrity policies.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49011146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In their efforts to affect policy change, policy entrepreneurs employ a series of strategies, which have been well documented in the literature. However, little is known regarding the relationship between the types of strategies policy entrepreneurs use and the institutional contexts in which they operate. The Interreg Europe programme aims to promote policy changes and thus offers a space for policy learning and experimentation to policy entrepreneurs. Using a mixed methodology that includes a survey addressed to the sixty-five Interreg Europe projects in research and innovation during the programming period 2014–20 and twelve follow-up semi-structured interviews, this article explores the strategies used by policy entrepreneurs in different institutional contexts. The study, rare in the policy entrepreneurship scholarship with its quantitative aspects, highlights the most widely-used strategies by policy entrepreneurs in research and innovation policy changes. Findings suggest that the strategy of storytelling is more widely used in high-innovator regions than in low-innovator regions and in Northern European regions compared to Southern European regions. Moreover, policy entrepreneurs who employ the storytelling strategy find it easier to introduce a policy change.
{"title":"Policy entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial strategies, and institutional contexts in Interreg Europe","authors":"Arnault Morisson, E. Petridou","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In their efforts to affect policy change, policy entrepreneurs employ a series of strategies, which have been well documented in the literature. However, little is known regarding the relationship between the types of strategies policy entrepreneurs use and the institutional contexts in which they operate. The Interreg Europe programme aims to promote policy changes and thus offers a space for policy learning and experimentation to policy entrepreneurs. Using a mixed methodology that includes a survey addressed to the sixty-five Interreg Europe projects in research and innovation during the programming period 2014–20 and twelve follow-up semi-structured interviews, this article explores the strategies used by policy entrepreneurs in different institutional contexts. The study, rare in the policy entrepreneurship scholarship with its quantitative aspects, highlights the most widely-used strategies by policy entrepreneurs in research and innovation policy changes. Findings suggest that the strategy of storytelling is more widely used in high-innovator regions than in low-innovator regions and in Northern European regions compared to Southern European regions. Moreover, policy entrepreneurs who employ the storytelling strategy find it easier to introduce a policy change.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43674729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The exact nature of industrial/innovation (I/I) policy challenges and the best way to address them are unknown ex ante. This requires a degree of experimentation, which can be problematic in the context of an accountable public administration and leaves the question of how to reconcile the experimental nature of I/I policy with the need for public accountability, a crucial but unresolved issue. The trade-off between experimentation and accountability requires a governance model that will allow continuous feedback loops among the various stakeholders and ongoing evaluation of and adjustments to activities as programmes are implemented. We propose an ‘action learning’ approach, incorporating the governance mechanism of ‘learning networks’ to handle the problems of implementing experimental governance of new and untried I/I policies. We resolve the issue of accountability by drawing on the literature on network governance in public policy. By integrating control and learning dimensions of accountability, this approach enables us to resolve conceptually and empirically trade-offs between the need for experimentation and accountability in I/I policy.
{"title":"The experimentation–accountability trade-off in innovation and industrial policy: are learning networks the solution?","authors":"S. Radosevic, Despina Kanellou, G. Tsekouras","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The exact nature of industrial/innovation (I/I) policy challenges and the best way to address them are unknown ex ante. This requires a degree of experimentation, which can be problematic in the context of an accountable public administration and leaves the question of how to reconcile the experimental nature of I/I policy with the need for public accountability, a crucial but unresolved issue. The trade-off between experimentation and accountability requires a governance model that will allow continuous feedback loops among the various stakeholders and ongoing evaluation of and adjustments to activities as programmes are implemented. We propose an ‘action learning’ approach, incorporating the governance mechanism of ‘learning networks’ to handle the problems of implementing experimental governance of new and untried I/I policies. We resolve the issue of accountability by drawing on the literature on network governance in public policy. By integrating control and learning dimensions of accountability, this approach enables us to resolve conceptually and empirically trade-offs between the need for experimentation and accountability in I/I policy.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47800166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Diego R. de Moraes Silva, Nicholas S. Vonortas, A. Furtado
This article investigates the effect of financial and non-financial barriers on innovativeness. Using microdata from Brazil, it provides a rare detailed empirical investigation of this type in developing countries. The analysis is based on a novel conceptual framework of the moderating role of barriers to innovation. Research and development expenditure and informal methods of intellectual property protection are the innovation determinants least affected by obstacles to innovation. This is in sharp contrast to company size, whose effect appeared quite sensitive to barriers of all kinds. Disembodied and embodied knowledge outsourcing interact differently with different constraints: while the former appeared helpful in working around different types of barriers in low-tech sectors, the latter was more useful in addressing financial constraints in high-tech sectors. Finally, cooperation with other firms was negatively affected by obstacles when firms seek more radical innovations, whereas cooperation with research and education organizations proved attractive for companies facing organizational constraints.
{"title":"Barriers as moderators in the innovation process","authors":"Diego R. de Moraes Silva, Nicholas S. Vonortas, A. Furtado","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article investigates the effect of financial and non-financial barriers on innovativeness. Using microdata from Brazil, it provides a rare detailed empirical investigation of this type in developing countries. The analysis is based on a novel conceptual framework of the moderating role of barriers to innovation. Research and development expenditure and informal methods of intellectual property protection are the innovation determinants least affected by obstacles to innovation. This is in sharp contrast to company size, whose effect appeared quite sensitive to barriers of all kinds. Disembodied and embodied knowledge outsourcing interact differently with different constraints: while the former appeared helpful in working around different types of barriers in low-tech sectors, the latter was more useful in addressing financial constraints in high-tech sectors. Finally, cooperation with other firms was negatively affected by obstacles when firms seek more radical innovations, whereas cooperation with research and education organizations proved attractive for companies facing organizational constraints.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48351670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rebecca Abma-Schouten, Joey Gijbels, W. Reijmerink, I. Meijer
Panel peer review is widely used to decide which research proposals receive funding. Through this exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands, we gain insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings. We explore, in ten review panel meetings of biomedical and health funding programmes, how panel composition and formal assessment criteria affect the arguments used. We observe that more scientific arguments are used than arguments related to societal relevance and expected impact. Also, more diverse panels result in a wider range of arguments, largely for the benefit of arguments related to societal relevance and impact. We discuss how funders can contribute to the quality of peer review by creating a shared conceptual framework that better defines research quality and societal relevance. We also contribute to a further understanding of the role of diverse peer review panels.
{"title":"Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?","authors":"Rebecca Abma-Schouten, Joey Gijbels, W. Reijmerink, I. Meijer","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Panel peer review is widely used to decide which research proposals receive funding. Through this exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands, we gain insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings. We explore, in ten review panel meetings of biomedical and health funding programmes, how panel composition and formal assessment criteria affect the arguments used. We observe that more scientific arguments are used than arguments related to societal relevance and expected impact. Also, more diverse panels result in a wider range of arguments, largely for the benefit of arguments related to societal relevance and impact. We discuss how funders can contribute to the quality of peer review by creating a shared conceptual framework that better defines research quality and societal relevance. We also contribute to a further understanding of the role of diverse peer review panels.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47456661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：