The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 489-504

  Laudel, Grit ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; FINANCE; RESEARCH INSTITUTION; UNIVERSITY SECTOR;

EID: 33749188640     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154306781778777     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. ARC, Australian Research Council 2002. Annual Report 2001-2002. Canberra: Australian Research Council.
2. Berezin, Alexander 1998. The perils of centralized research funding system. Knowledge, Technology and Policy, 11(3), 5-26.
3. Blumenthal, David, Eric G Campbell, Melissa S Anderson, Nancyanne Causino and Karen Seashore Louis 1997. Withholding research results in academic life science - evidence from a national survey of faculty. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(15), 1224-1228.
4. Chubin, Daryl E and Edward J Hackett 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
5. Commission of the European Communities 2000. Research and Technological Development Activities of the European Union: 2000 Annual Report. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
6. Commission of the European Communities 2001. Research and Technological Development Activities of the European Union: 2001 Annual Report. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
7. Commission of the European Communities 2003. Research and Technological Development Activities of the European Union: 2002 Annual Report. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
8. Cozzens, Susan E 1986. Theme section 'funding and knowledge growth': Editor's introduction. Social Studies of Science, 19, 9-21.
9. Croissant, Jennifer and Sal Restivo eds. 2001. Degrees of Compromise: Industrial Interests and Academic Values. Albany NY: SUNY Press.
10. DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 2002. Jahresbericht 2002: Aufgaben und Ergebnisse. Bonn: DFG.
11. DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 2004. Jahresbericht 2004: Aufgaben und Ergebnisse. Bonn: DFG.
12. Etzkowitz, Henry 1989. Entrepreneurial science in the academy: a case of the transformation of norms. Social Problems, 36(1), 14-29.
13. Etzkowitz, Henry 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university - industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823-833.
14. Gläser, Jochen forthcoming. Wissenschaftliche Produktionsgemeinschaften. Die Soziale Ordnung der Forschung. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
15. Gläser, Jochen and Grit Laudel 2004. Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
16. Gläser, Jochen, Grit Laudel, Sybille Hinze and Linda Butler 2002. Impact of evaluation-based funding on the production of scientific knowledge: what to worry about, and how to find out (Expertise für das BMBF). Available at , last accessed 25 July 2006.
17. Hackett, Edward J 1987. Funding and academic research in the life sciences: results of an exploratory study. Science and Technology Studies, 5(3/4), 134-147.
18. Henkel, Mary 2000. Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
19. Horrobin, David F 1996. Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research?. Lancet, 348(9037), 1293-1295.
20. Knorr-Cetina, Karin 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
21. Laudel, Grit and Jochen Gläser 2004. Interviewing scientists. REPP discussion paper 04/1. Canberra: The Australian National University.
22. Lederman, Leon M 1993. What can we learn from the supercolliders demise? Scientist, 7(23), 12.
23. Marginson, Simon and Mark Considine 2000. The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Morris, Norma 2000. Science policy in action: policy and the researcher. Minerva, 38(4), 425-451.
25. Morris, Norma 2003. Academic researchers as 'agents' of science policy. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), October, 359-370.
26. Mukerji, Chandra 1989. A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
27. Myers, Greg 1990. Writing Biology: Texts and The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
28. Nature 2002. Peer review reviewed: a controversial change to the peer-review process of Germany's principal funding agency is long overdue. Nature, 417(6885), 103.
29. Neidhardt, Friedhelm 1988. Selbsteuerung in der Forschungsförderung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
30. Noll, Roger, Carlos Kruytbosch and Stuart S Blume 1986. Workshop on federal funding and knowledge growth in subfields and specialties of science - discussants' comments. Social Studies of Science, 16(1), 135-150.
31. Porter, Alan L and Frederick A Rossini 1985. Peer-review of interdisciplinary research proposals. Science, Technology and Human Values, 10, 33-38.
32. Schimank, Uwe 1995. Probleme der westdeutschen Hochschulforschung seit den siebziger Jahren. Leviathan, 23(1), 56-77.
33. Slaughter, Sheila and Larry L Leslie 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepeneurial University. Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
34. Travis, G D L and H M Collins 1991. New light on old boys: cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(3), 322-341.
35. VolkswagenStiftung 2001. 192 Millionen Mark für die Wissenschaft im Jahr 2000. BerliNews, 11 July.
36. Wessely, Simon 1998. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet, 352(9124), 301-305.
37. Wissenschaftsrat 2000. Drittmittel und Grundmittel der Hochschulen 1993 bis 1998. Köln: Wissenschaftsrat.
38. Wood, Fiona Q 1992. The commercialisation of university research in Australia: issues and problems. Comparative Education, 28(3), 293-313.