Liv Langfeldt, Ingvild Reymert, Silje Marie Svartefoss
Abstract With the increasing reliance on competitive grants to fund research, we see a review system under pressure. While peer review has long been perceived as the cornerstone of self-governance in science, researchers have expressed distrust in the peer review procedures of funding agencies. This paper draws on literature pointing out ability, benevolence, and integrity as important for trustworthiness and explores the conditions under which researchers have confidence in grant review. Based on rich survey material, we find that researchers trust grant reviewers far less than they trust journal peer reviewers or their colleagues’ ability to assess their research. Yet, scholars who have success with grant proposals or serve on grant review panels appear to have more trust in grant reviewers. We conclude that transparency and reviewers with field competencies are crucial for trust in grant review and discuss how this can be ensured.
{"title":"Distrust in grant peer review—reasons and remedies","authors":"Liv Langfeldt, Ingvild Reymert, Silje Marie Svartefoss","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad051","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With the increasing reliance on competitive grants to fund research, we see a review system under pressure. While peer review has long been perceived as the cornerstone of self-governance in science, researchers have expressed distrust in the peer review procedures of funding agencies. This paper draws on literature pointing out ability, benevolence, and integrity as important for trustworthiness and explores the conditions under which researchers have confidence in grant review. Based on rich survey material, we find that researchers trust grant reviewers far less than they trust journal peer reviewers or their colleagues’ ability to assess their research. Yet, scholars who have success with grant proposals or serve on grant review panels appear to have more trust in grant reviewers. We conclude that transparency and reviewers with field competencies are crucial for trust in grant review and discuss how this can be ensured.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135671385","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 European universities of applied sciences (UASs), the intensity of research activities and the level of differentiation from universities vary across countries. We investigate whether the differentiation in the research function of UASs is reflected in their participation in the European Union Framework Programs for Research and Innovation (EU-FPs). We focus on the current and former UASs in four higher education systems with distinct levels of differentiation—the UK, Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Our results show significant cross-country differences in the intensity and type of EU-FP projects acquired. The former UASs in the UK and Norway had a participation profile similar to that of universities. In more differentiated higher education systems, Swiss and Dutch UASs were more geared toward applied projects. Variations both across and within countries emphasize the importance of research capacities. Our results carry implications for how national and European authorities can foster UAS participation in EU-FPs.
{"title":"Universities of applied sciences’ EU research project participation through the lens of differentiation","authors":"Marco Cavallaro","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad048","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In European universities of applied sciences (UASs), the intensity of research activities and the level of differentiation from universities vary across countries. We investigate whether the differentiation in the research function of UASs is reflected in their participation in the European Union Framework Programs for Research and Innovation (EU-FPs). We focus on the current and former UASs in four higher education systems with distinct levels of differentiation—the UK, Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Our results show significant cross-country differences in the intensity and type of EU-FP projects acquired. The former UASs in the UK and Norway had a participation profile similar to that of universities. In more differentiated higher education systems, Swiss and Dutch UASs were more geared toward applied projects. Variations both across and within countries emphasize the importance of research capacities. Our results carry implications for how national and European authorities can foster UAS participation in EU-FPs.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49030365","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 The conditions of mainstream research funding constrain risky, novel research. However, alternative grants are emerging. We study grantees of a double-blinded funding scheme targeting risky, novel research: The Villum Experiment (VE). Without prompting, scientists juxtaposed the experience of performing research under these conditions with that of performing research funded by mainstream grants: fun and less fun. The conditions of VE felt less intrusive and appealed to their self-perceptions and idealized views of scientific work, which shaped how they conducted the funded research. This paper makes three contributions: (1) it reaffirms that how researchers experience grant conditions affects whether a scheme affords what it intends, (2) it highlights that the affordances of research funding are relative to other concurrent funding options, and (3) it shows that small, more broadly allocatable grants can afford scientists a protected space for autonomous research, usually associated with elusive tenure positions or European Research Council (ERC) grants.
{"title":"Fun and less fun funding: the experiential affordances of research grant conditions","authors":"Andreas Kjær Stage, Ea Høg Utoft","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad047","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The conditions of mainstream research funding constrain risky, novel research. However, alternative grants are emerging. We study grantees of a double-blinded funding scheme targeting risky, novel research: The Villum Experiment (VE). Without prompting, scientists juxtaposed the experience of performing research under these conditions with that of performing research funded by mainstream grants: fun and less fun. The conditions of VE felt less intrusive and appealed to their self-perceptions and idealized views of scientific work, which shaped how they conducted the funded research. This paper makes three contributions: (1) it reaffirms that how researchers experience grant conditions affects whether a scheme affords what it intends, (2) it highlights that the affordances of research funding are relative to other concurrent funding options, and (3) it shows that small, more broadly allocatable grants can afford scientists a protected space for autonomous research, usually associated with elusive tenure positions or European Research Council (ERC) grants.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135444619","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 homegrown strategy (i.e. supporting domestic enterprises) in the high-tech manufacturing sector is very important for developing countries’ sustainable growth and economic security. In reality, only some local governments adopt the homegrown strategy in high-tech industries while others not. This paper attempts to explore factors affecting local governments’ adoption of the homegrown strategy in the high-tech sector. It argues that under the decentralized fiscal system and relative performance–based cadre evaluation system, local development strategy choices in a high-tech industry are significantly shaped by two factors: (1) the size of the local high-tech product market in the early stage of this industry’s development and (2) the support for domestic enterprises from the central government. Localities with a large local high-tech product market and support from the center are more likely to adopt the homegrown strategy. Case studies on eight Chinese sub-provincial localities’ chipmaking industries confirm these hypotheses.
{"title":"Local market, central government support, and local governments’ homegrown development strategy in high-tech industries","authors":"Huidong Peng","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad046","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The homegrown strategy (i.e. supporting domestic enterprises) in the high-tech manufacturing sector is very important for developing countries’ sustainable growth and economic security. In reality, only some local governments adopt the homegrown strategy in high-tech industries while others not. This paper attempts to explore factors affecting local governments’ adoption of the homegrown strategy in the high-tech sector. It argues that under the decentralized fiscal system and relative performance–based cadre evaluation system, local development strategy choices in a high-tech industry are significantly shaped by two factors: (1) the size of the local high-tech product market in the early stage of this industry’s development and (2) the support for domestic enterprises from the central government. Localities with a large local high-tech product market and support from the center are more likely to adopt the homegrown strategy. Case studies on eight Chinese sub-provincial localities’ chipmaking industries confirm these hypotheses.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46537377","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}
There has been a significantly increased amount of literature on various aspects of artificial intelligence (AI), but research on AI governance has been a considerably underdeveloped area. This study proposes a comprehensive framework for designing AI governance in the public sector to overcome the limitations of previous studies that primarily dealt with the fragmentary aspect of AI. Also, we applied the developed framework to the case of Korea by combining it with the rank-order survey questions that target experts. This case study presents how to use the framework and provides insight for other countries.
{"title":"To govern or be governed: an integrated framework for AI governance in the public sector","authors":"Hyeri Choi, M. Park","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad045","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 There has been a significantly increased amount of literature on various aspects of artificial intelligence (AI), but research on AI governance has been a considerably underdeveloped area. This study proposes a comprehensive framework for designing AI governance in the public sector to overcome the limitations of previous studies that primarily dealt with the fragmentary aspect of AI. Also, we applied the developed framework to the case of Korea by combining it with the rank-order survey questions that target experts. This case study presents how to use the framework and provides insight for other countries.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45581247","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}
Chinese governments at all levels have been using various policies to encourage innovation by firms. However, few studies considered the superimposed effects of multilevel innovation policies. Based on the panel data of 443 Chinese innovation–oriented firms from 2008 to 2011, this study investigates the complementarities between national and local science and technology programmes. The heterogeneous effects across stages of the innovation process are also considered. Results show that the national science and technology (S&T) programmes significantly increase firms’ external research and development (R&D) expenditure but inhibit the commercialisation. In addition, the national and local S&T programmes complement each other in promoting external R&D expenditure while presenting substitutive in increasing patent outputs. This paper further finds that national and local programmes are more likely to be complementary at high subsidy intensity. This study contributes to the development of policy mix theory and has manifold implications for designing pertinent innovation policy systems
{"title":"Multilevel innovation policy mix in China: do local programmes complement national programmes?","authors":"Xing Shi, Yating Guo, Huiping Dong, Shuai Wang","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad044","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Chinese governments at all levels have been using various policies to encourage innovation by firms. However, few studies considered the superimposed effects of multilevel innovation policies. Based on the panel data of 443 Chinese innovation–oriented firms from 2008 to 2011, this study investigates the complementarities between national and local science and technology programmes. The heterogeneous effects across stages of the innovation process are also considered. Results show that the national science and technology (S&T) programmes significantly increase firms’ external research and development (R&D) expenditure but inhibit the commercialisation. In addition, the national and local S&T programmes complement each other in promoting external R&D expenditure while presenting substitutive in increasing patent outputs. This paper further finds that national and local programmes are more likely to be complementary at high subsidy intensity. This study contributes to the development of policy mix theory and has manifold implications for designing pertinent innovation policy systems","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47209265","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}
Scientific advisory boards are frequently established to provide scientific insights and advice to policymakers. Advisory board appointing bodies often state that research excellence and scientific seniority are the main grounds on which advisory board members are selected. Many authors have pointed out that there is more to giving good scientific advice than just being an expert for a specific research field. The aim of this study is to analyse if and how research excellence correlates with the probability of being appointed as a scientific advisory board member. We collected data for scientific advisory boards from both the USA and Germany. We use logit regression models to analyse how research excellence correlates with the probability of appointment to a scientific advisory board. Our results suggest that research excellence is insignificant or even correlates negatively with the probability of being appointed to a scientific advisory board.
{"title":"Research excellence and scientific advisory boards","authors":"Maya Göser, S. Wimmer, Johannes Sauer","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad041","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Scientific advisory boards are frequently established to provide scientific insights and advice to policymakers. Advisory board appointing bodies often state that research excellence and scientific seniority are the main grounds on which advisory board members are selected. Many authors have pointed out that there is more to giving good scientific advice than just being an expert for a specific research field. The aim of this study is to analyse if and how research excellence correlates with the probability of being appointed as a scientific advisory board member. We collected data for scientific advisory boards from both the USA and Germany. We use logit regression models to analyse how research excellence correlates with the probability of appointment to a scientific advisory board. Our results suggest that research excellence is insignificant or even correlates negatively with the probability of being appointed to a scientific advisory board.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46287534","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}
Callum J Gunn, Sevgi E Fruytier, Teresa Finlay, Lidewij Eva Vat, Teun Zuiderent-Jerak, Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar
Abstract Whilst patient engagement (PE) activities have become increasingly prevalent in development of medicines, collaborating actors have different perspectives on the goals of PE and its added value. In the production of PE standards and frameworks, the significance of these differences tends to be minimised. Boundary objects have been shown to mediate knowledge exchange between multiple social worlds, thereby playing an important role in participatory technology governance processes. In this article, we draw on boundary objects to learn from the process of co-designing a PE monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework within the Innovative Medicines Initiative–Patients Active in Research and Dialogues for an Improved Generation of Medicines (IMI-PARADIGM) consortium (2018–20). As facilitators of PARADIGM’s co-design process, we report on the challenges encountered in developing a practicable M&E framework that serves a variety of needs and interests. We argue these challenges of co-design reflect a negotiation of different frames throughout, thereby providing insight into how such work may contribute to addressing the challenge of knowledge integration in institutional medicines development settings.
{"title":"Co-design and its consequences: developing a shared patient engagement framework in the IMI-PARADIGM project","authors":"Callum J Gunn, Sevgi E Fruytier, Teresa Finlay, Lidewij Eva Vat, Teun Zuiderent-Jerak, Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad040","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Whilst patient engagement (PE) activities have become increasingly prevalent in development of medicines, collaborating actors have different perspectives on the goals of PE and its added value. In the production of PE standards and frameworks, the significance of these differences tends to be minimised. Boundary objects have been shown to mediate knowledge exchange between multiple social worlds, thereby playing an important role in participatory technology governance processes. In this article, we draw on boundary objects to learn from the process of co-designing a PE monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework within the Innovative Medicines Initiative–Patients Active in Research and Dialogues for an Improved Generation of Medicines (IMI-PARADIGM) consortium (2018–20). As facilitators of PARADIGM’s co-design process, we report on the challenges encountered in developing a practicable M&E framework that serves a variety of needs and interests. We argue these challenges of co-design reflect a negotiation of different frames throughout, thereby providing insight into how such work may contribute to addressing the challenge of knowledge integration in institutional medicines development settings.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"187 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135016315","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 This paper aims to improve the Regional Innovation Scoreboard as an instrument for policy-making. Dynamic slack–based models of data envelopment analysis to measure innovation output efficiency in 207 European regions demonstrate that the scale-based performance classification of the Scoreboard into ‘leader’, ‘strong’, ‘moderate’, and ‘modest’ innovator regions inadequately reflects differences in efficiency in transforming knowledge inputs into innovation outputs. We reveal a non-monotonic relation between scale-based and efficiency-based performance and substantial heterogeneity among the reasons for inefficiency among regions within each of the four scale-based performance classes of regions. Our findings argue for an extension of the current scale-based use of the Scoreboard by adding an efficiency-based measurement of the innovation process. Doing so addresses the tendency in policy design towards an increased focus on the efficient use of scarce resources in place-based policy approaches and strengthens the application of the Scoreboard as an informative decision-making tool.
{"title":"Improving the Regional Innovation Scoreboard for policy: how about innovation efficiency?","authors":"Peter Teirlinck, André Spithoven","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad043","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper aims to improve the Regional Innovation Scoreboard as an instrument for policy-making. Dynamic slack–based models of data envelopment analysis to measure innovation output efficiency in 207 European regions demonstrate that the scale-based performance classification of the Scoreboard into ‘leader’, ‘strong’, ‘moderate’, and ‘modest’ innovator regions inadequately reflects differences in efficiency in transforming knowledge inputs into innovation outputs. We reveal a non-monotonic relation between scale-based and efficiency-based performance and substantial heterogeneity among the reasons for inefficiency among regions within each of the four scale-based performance classes of regions. Our findings argue for an extension of the current scale-based use of the Scoreboard by adding an efficiency-based measurement of the innovation process. Doing so addresses the tendency in policy design towards an increased focus on the efficient use of scarce resources in place-based policy approaches and strengthens the application of the Scoreboard as an informative decision-making tool.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135444754","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 purpose of this study is to examine the effects of government subsidies and private research and development (R&D) on global value chains position (GVCP) and the moderating role of task complexity in China. It utilizes regional data from official Chinese statistics and the Trade in Value Added 2018 database from the period of 2005–2016. The results indicate that different sources of R&D funds have different effects on GVCP. In particular, government subsidies promote GVCP, while private R&D impedes GVCP. Furthermore, the results indicate that task complexity positively moderates the relationship between private R&D and GVCP, and it negatively moderates the relationship between government subsidies and GVCP. Therefore, this study highlights the importance of task complexity for regional enterprises seeking to enhance their GVCP and provides policymakers with new insights into their subsidy policies.
{"title":"Government subsidies, private R&D, and global value chains position: the moderating role of task complexity","authors":"Furong Qian","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad042","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of government subsidies and private research and development (R&D) on global value chains position (GVCP) and the moderating role of task complexity in China. It utilizes regional data from official Chinese statistics and the Trade in Value Added 2018 database from the period of 2005–2016. The results indicate that different sources of R&D funds have different effects on GVCP. In particular, government subsidies promote GVCP, while private R&D impedes GVCP. Furthermore, the results indicate that task complexity positively moderates the relationship between private R&D and GVCP, and it negatively moderates the relationship between government subsidies and GVCP. Therefore, this study highlights the importance of task complexity for regional enterprises seeking to enhance their GVCP and provides policymakers with new insights into their subsidy policies.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139355287","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：