Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects

Published on Jul 1, 2018in Research Policy5.42
· DOI :10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.014
Jian Wang11
Estimated H-index: 11
(LEI: Leiden University),
You-Na Lee6
Estimated H-index: 6
(NUS: National University of Singapore),
John Walsii28
Estimated H-index: 28
(Georgia Institute of Technology)
In many countries the scientific funding system is shifting from an internal block funding model toward a competitive project funding model. However, there is growing concern that the competitive project funding system favors relatively safe, conventional projects at the expense of risky, novel research. It is important to assess different funding models in order to design better funding systems for science. This paper empirically tests for differences in the novelty of funded outputs between internal block funding and competitive project funding, in the setting of Japan, where both funding models play a significant role. Combining survey data from a large sample of research projects in Japan and bibliometric information about the publications produced from these projects, we find that projects funded by competitive funds on average have higher novelty compared to those funded by internal block funds. However, such positive effects only hold for researchers with high status, such as senior and male researchers. In contrast, compared to internal block funding, competitive project funding has a negative relation to novelty for low status scientists (especially junior and female researchers). The findings suggest that the competitive project selection procedure is less receptive to novel ideas from researchers with low academic status and therefore discourages their novel research. These findings can serve as a warning about potential biases in competitive funding allocation procedures and suggest the importance of secure stable funding for allowing researchers with low status to pursue their novel ideas.
  • References (59)
  • Citations (3)
#1Diego Chavarro (University of Sussex)H-Index: 5
#2Puay Tang (University of Sussex)H-Index: 12
Last.Ismael Rafols (Polytechnic University of Valencia)H-Index: 27
view all 3 authors...
#1Jian Wang (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)H-Index: 11
#2Reinhilde Veugelers (Bruegel)H-Index: 28
Last.Paula E. Stephan (GSU: Georgia State University)H-Index: 36
view all 3 authors...
#1Albert Banal-Estañol (UPF: Pompeu Fabra University)H-Index: 11
#2Inés Macho Stadler (Autonomous University of Barcelona)H-Index: 20
Last.David Pérez-Castrillo (Autonomous University of Barcelona)H-Index: 23
view all 3 authors...
#1Julia LaneH-Index: 31
#2Jason Owen-Smith (UM: University of Michigan)H-Index: 25
Last.Bruce A. Weinberg (OSU: Ohio State University)H-Index: 25
view all 4 authors...
#1Masatsura Igami (NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology)H-Index: 3
#2Sadao Nagaoka (Hitotsubashi University)H-Index: 11
Last.John Walsii (Georgia Institute of Technology)H-Index: 28
view all 3 authors...
#1Hyunwoo Park (Georgia Institute of Technology)H-Index: 7
#2Jeongsik Lee (Drexel University)H-Index: 7
Last.Byung-Cheol Kim (Georgia Institute of Technology)H-Index: 6
view all 3 authors...
Cited By3
#1Henrik Dimke (University of Southern Denmark)H-Index: 17
#2Maria Theresa Norn (AU: Aarhus University)
Last.N. T. Zinner (AU: Aarhus University)H-Index: 18
view all 5 authors...
View next paperResearch on Relationship Between Research Funding Allocation Mechanism and Scientific Achievements: Case Study on Public Research Institutions