Research excellence instruments (REIs) are among the most popular types of research funding in several research systems, including the Global South. A significant proportion of REIs is intended to promote pathbreaking or groundbreaking contributions. Specific research outcomes can often be traced back to a given project’s scientific objectives, but projections about the impact on the field and the broader scientific community require the researcher to engage in more speculative estimates. This paper takes its rationale from the assumption that such projections are sources of insight into researchers’ perspectives on the field significance of their research agenda. Consequently, they reveal the broader impact landscape of scientists who receive such funding, and hint at potential social implications, a concern that dominates extant research on impact. This study focused on the ‘value-added’ to the field projections in successful applications for the Swedish distinguished professor’s grant (DPG), a unique variant of REIs that targets individuals rather than the more commonly studied Centers of Excellence (CoEs). We categorize the value-added statements made in these applications into a typology based on their logical structure, distinguishing between intermediate and final values. We use a logic model analysis of these statements to uncover a series of cause-and-effect projections tied to research funding. Our study also sheds light on accepted preconceived notions of field impact and the pathways to achieving them. It adds a crucial dimension to the numerous studies on the after-the-fact social impacts of research.

This article addresses the issue of how Social Science and Humanities (SSH) researchers frame and argue relevance, where there are no explicit expectations to do so. It uses research project reports submitted to a Swedish research council, to distil and further analyze ‘relevance expressions’. These expressions illustrate some methodological differences along the lines of the long-standing distinction between nomothetic (generalization oriented) and idiographic (case /description oriented). We extracted relevance claims from a database of project abstracts and reports from the following fields: History, Linguistics, Political Science and Psychology. We interrogated these statements for possible differences with respect to how relevance is expressed. The study finds differences in the way that nomothetic and idiographic expressions imply, argue or derive support for relevance, and that these may be somewhat associated with fields, although with certain qualifications. Importantly, relevance expressions can be viewed as epistemic operations that occur in degrees of concretization, broadly or narrowly formulated, and in different levels of everyday and technical expressions. A key insight is that relevance in SSH appears to be closely associated with the way subjects relate to the empirical. This ultimately lends support for the application of the nomothetic/idiographic as a conceptual, albeit not exhaustive, analytical approach to understanding the relevance of SSH.

The ambitions to fund excellent researchers and path-breaking research unite a whole family of funding instruments ranging from Centres of Excellence to individual grants. While instruments aimed at funding excellence share a number of commonalities, there are important subsidiary features which determine their overall efficacy. The paper uses a case study of the Swedish Distinguished Professor Grant (DPG) to investigate the role of subsidiary features in enabling conditions associated with path-breaking research. Interviews were conducted with DPG recipients, to develop an “affordance analysis” identifying how features of the instrument enabled certain researcher actions and opportunities. Results suggest that while long duration and large funds are central to research excellence, the way in which subsidiary features such as reporting, planning and content requirements are structured affect the level of risk-taking. In terms of policy, the paper offers specific and general suggestions for the design of excellence funding instruments.

This paper focuses on how contributions are argued in research proposals in the humanities. Due to standardizing tendencies in research funding towards formats characteristic of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects, there has been concern that the humanities are marginalized. In this study, ‘contribution statements’ were identified in proposals funded by the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation across the humanistic disciplines. These statements were systematically analyzed in terms of type and structure of contributions advanced. The results suggest that the humanities differ from the sciences in terms of specificity of focus, a high level of ‘acceptable serendipity’ in proposed outcomes, but that these disciplines structurally tend to adhere to the same types of research contribution arguments as STEM. A better understanding of the way in which humanities scholars frame contributions offers insight into how these fields change and how they relate to developments in the science policy and funding landscape.

This article focuses on how academic and industrial leaders view central aspects of the initiation, collaboration process, and the outcomes in government-funded R&D projects. In much previous work on university-industry collaborations (UICs), universities or researchers and/or firms have been studied without any direct reference to the other party, thus neglecting the fact that the motivations, perceptions, and actions involved in UICs are two-sided at least. In contrast, this study builds on interviews with academic-industry project leader pairs to identify how both sides perceive the initiation, interaction, conditions, and outcomes of the collaborative project. While there is unexpected overlap in both parties' perceptions of goals and utilities of the collaboration, there is also a clear tendency for academics to stress the less tangible or distant factors (e.g., 'a culture', 'priorities', or general university support), while industry actors emphasize more tangible operative factors (e.g., collaborative networks, timing issues, having project owners and conflict resolution procedures). This might illustrate different cultural or professional mores as well as different notions of what types of efficiencies to seek collaborative R&D in general.

Project funding rarely demands much change on behalf of the recipient. In contrast, cross-sectoral mobility funding requires recipients to change their environment and often some aspects of their research. There is a need to understand the impact on the researchers’ experiences as knowledge producers within such programs, as part of the broader potential and significance of cross-sectoral mobility funding. This study draws on interviews with participants of the Swedish ‘Flexit’ program in order to develop a framework for assessing the dynamics and efficacy of such funding instruments. To do this, we develop a framework for understanding their cognitive effects; especially their ‘immersive’ potential, i.e., their ability to naturally involve the participant in their new setting. It proposes two dimensions along which such an assessment can take place: how the instrument challenges participants’ knowledge production practices, and the level of immersion that participants are subject to as part of the program.

This study applies a systematic literature review and qualitative content analysis to identify and synthesize key factors that enable collaborative innovation between industry and universities. Using a keyword search in the Web of Science database, the review identified 40 papers that were frequently cited on the topic. Results were summarized into seven main themes or central factors stimulating collaborative innovation: resources, university organization, boundary-spanning functions, collaborative experience, culture, status centrality and environmental context. This article elaborates on these ‘enabling factors’ and uses them to summarize a number of results from the reviewed studies regarding facilitators of collaborative innovation. The discussion focuses on how these factors relate and the extent to which they are amenable to policy intervention.

This study applies a systematic literature review and qualitative content analysis to identify and synthesize key factors that enable collaborative innovation between industry and universities. Using a keyword search in the Web of Science database, the review identified 40 papers that were frequently cited on the topic. Results were summarized into seven main themes or central factors stimulating collaborative innovation: resources, university organization, boundary-spanning functions, collaborative experience, culture, status centrality and environmental context. This article elaborates on these 'enabling factors' and uses them to summarize a number of results from the reviewed studies regarding facilitators of collaborative innovation. The discussion focuses on how these factors relate and the extent to which they are amenable to policy intervention.

In the past years Centers of Excellence (CoE) has risen to prominence as a funding instrument in science. The idea is that by focusing resources, people and attention within a center environment, and over a substantial time span, excellence in science can be promoted. Similarly, interdisciplinarity is often seen as an enabling condition or even necessary for frontier research. This article builds on a qualitative interview study with Swedish Centers of Excellence (CoE) directors, and asks the question: - how is interdisciplinarity governed and developed within a CoE environment, and what is its effects in terms of research processes and organization. The study presents a detailed account of a number of aspects of interdisciplinary governance, conditions and outcomes, and describes how these relate via specific mechanisms. Together the results illuminate how CoE governance creates pathways to interdisciplinarity, that allow collaboration to go beyond mere interaction, and towards integration of specialisms.

This study investigates the relationship between resource concentration/stability and new results/breakthroughs in the context of a Swedish Center of Excellence (CoE) scheme. A common assumption in using the CoE instrument is that there is a scale return to research on concentration of funds. However, the details of how funding connects to such returns are typically assumed rather than empirically investigated. The present qualitative study sets out to identify the mediating mechanisms connecting organizational capacities made possible through the CoE grant (e.g. recruitment/human capital, data/infrastructure and various collaborative arrangements), and epistemic effects such as extension into new problem areas and higher degrees of risk taking in research generally. We conclude that a CoE program theory can be conceived in terms of resource stability yielding research flexibility, and that the common mechanisms connecting the two may be found in organizational arrangements facilitating slack (autonomy), availability of cooperative partners (critical mass) and concomitant cooperation between specialisms. It is our belief that by explicating such mechanisms CoE program theory can be greatly improved.

Research on priority-setting for research, development, and innovation (RDI) often does not take into account the many challenges associated with translating priorities into RDI programs and projects. Such implementation challenges are typically handled by RDI program officers at funding agencies i.e. those officers that manage RDI programs and projects. To address this challenge, this paper utilizes a ‘street-level bureaucracy’ approach to understanding how RDI priority-setting is enacted by program officers in the course of translating general RDI priorities into actual funding. This is done through a study of how program officers at the Swedish Energy Agency exercise discretion in the course of implementing RDI priorities. The results suggest four general dimensions of program officer discretion in priority implementation, viz. (i) regulating inflow of new knowledge and ideas, (ii) interpreting the relationship between strategy and program design, (iii) tweaking and applying selection criteria, and (iv) determining the portfolio's balance between basic research and application/innovation. The results suggest that discretion can act as an important mechanism mediating between the formulation of RDI priorities and de facto RDI investments by funding agencies. By explicating some variations of this mechanism, the study contributes new insights into the governance of RDI funding processes.

This special issue focuses on how changes in the Higher Education and Research (HER) landscape, such as new funding instruments and the increasing use of ranking schemes, come to influence the info...

The present study uses the concept of technological efficacy derived from ecological psychology and design studies to offer an alternative way of analyzing how policy instruments affect change. Reasoning from this, the paper outlines a framework for analyzing policy instruments in terms of their affordances. We define affordances as the means through which an instrument exerts influence on its intended target audience. Using this approach, we contend that policy instruments may be analyzed as interfaces that organize social relations and create structures of opportunity and/or restrict possibilities for action. We argue that explicating the pathways through which instruments afford or constrain action is a central task for policy analysis. Our proposed framework of analysis builds on the idea that instruments yield effects by facilitating action and learning. We further contend that the actions that an instrument can facilitate or inhibit are determined by specific affordance modalities of the instrument in conjunction with contingencies of the actor and the policy environment. Examples from research policy are used to illustrate some of these effects.

ABSTRACT This study is concerned with how impact from research and innovation (R&I) programmes is accounted for in impact evaluation reports. Establishing causal links between a research funding instrument and different effects, poses well known methodological difficulties. In the light of such challenges, textual accounts about causal links ought to be carefully written. Nevertheless, impact evaluation reports have a tendency towards unwarranted simplification as far as impact inferences are concerned. In this study, we illustrate how such simplifications – versions of the narrative device ellipsis – are accomplished. Using examples from three Swedish impact evaluation reports, we focus on the constituent components of longer impact accounts, that of the impact argument, to analyze the various ways that impact is narratively achieved through simplification. We believe this analysis can contribute to the methodology of impact evaluation, as well as spread light on some the difficulties in the historiography of innovation in general.

This article reports on a Small-N study of Centre of Excellence (CoE) schemes that cover a wide variety of such schemes. The purpose is to map the ways in which strategic aims of CoE schemes relate to impacts and capacity development, and the role played by institutional arrangements such as selection, funding, evaluation, and governance in translating strategy into capacity development and other impacts. Altogether 12 CoE schemes from six countries were analysed in terms of strategy, governance, and impact or capacity building. Findings suggest that while CoE schemes tend to focus on capacity outcomes viz. network stimulation, skills development, and transfer of expertise, the most important outcome is the ‘meta-capacity’ involved in formulating and carrying out policy and research in new ways, developing professionalization in the academic workforce and enabling organizations such as universities to set their own priorities and engage in professional research governance.

While priority setting for research, development and innovation (RDI) traditionally focuses on which thematic areas should be supported, less is known about how such goals are implemented on the agency level. Key challenges are how to translate broad priorities into programs and projects, how to govern the knowledge base, and how to handle organizational tensions during implementation. Many of these challenges must be addressed by ‘street-level’ administrators and agency experts during implementation. We take these agency challenges to be of central concern for RDI policy implementation, and propose a process perspective on priority setting. We apply this perspective to a case study of the Swedish Energy Agency and highlight a number of insights such as the tension between existing organizational capabilities and new goals for research and innovation. We argue that these insights are particularly relevant to other research funders with a sectoral mandate, for example, health, defense, or agriculture.

This chapter outlines some of the challenges involved in managing and evaluating quality at a transdisciplinary research center such as Mistra Urban Futures, and sets out to delineate a number of principles for handling the challenges that emerged during the course of initiating and running the Mistra Urban Futures center. It identifies some relevant previous research on quality and evaluation in inter- and transdisciplinary research as well as previous work on the quality of research centers and Centers of Excellence. The chapter gives a concrete suggestion for how to continue to develop an evaluation framework for complex and diffuse research based on eliciting actors' own understandings of how their actions transform into valued effects. The evaluation of transdisciplinary or co-produced research poses a great many challenges to traditional evaluation. The complexity of the functions and goals outlined suggests that formative evaluation should evolve continuously with the development of the center.

This paper makes a plea for the construction of a common agenda for higher education and science, technology and innovation (STI) policy research. The public higher education and research sector in all countries is currently in the grip of several challenges arising from increased accountability, internationalization and in some cases dwindling resources. Even as the sector is struggling to come to grips with these new developments, policy-makers the world over are being exhorted that their best route to sustainable economic development is investment in higher education and research. Scholars in STI policy and higher education research currently address these issues separately. This paper argues that a joint research effort from both these communities would push the research frontier further for each respective field and improve the evidence base for policy.

Syftet med denna rapport ar att illustrera hur ett praktiskt inriktat ramverk, tekno- logiska innovationssystem (TIS), kan anvandas av analytiker och beslutsfattare vid departement och myndigheter for att analysera strategiskt viktiga teknikomraden 􏰑􏰅􏰇􏰆􏰄􏰊􏰕􏰎􏰌􏰆􏰊􏰟􏰎􏰃􏰅􏰄􏰑􏰢􏰑􏰆􏰎􏰇􏰑􏰐􏰅􏰍􏰔􏰎􏰆􏰎􏰃􏰄􏰑􏰙􏰇􏰄􏰇􏰙􏰆􏰊􏰐􏰎􏰃􏰅􏰃􏰄􏰑􏰏􏰃􏰑􏰈􏰊􏰉􏰕􏰅􏰄􏰒􏰙􏰉􏰊􏰆􏰊􏰑􏰈􏰅􏰄􏰘􏰆􏰅􏰍􏰅􏰌􏰕􏰎􏰌􏰥􏰄 I rapporten analyseras fem TIS centrerade kring havsbaserad vindkraft, marin energi, 􏰑􏰙􏰉􏰞􏰎􏰉􏰉􏰎􏰃􏰤􏰄􏰎􏰉􏰎􏰈􏰆􏰃􏰊􏰟􏰎􏰃􏰅􏰕􏰎􏰄􏰆􏰋􏰌􏰍􏰅􏰄􏰚􏰙􏰃􏰕􏰙􏰌􏰄􏰙􏰞􏰔􏰄􏰯􏰊􏰙􏰃􏰅􏰚􏰟􏰌􏰅􏰕􏰎􏰃􏰊􏰎􏰃􏰥􏰄􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰄􏰐􏰅􏰃􏰣􏰎􏰄􏰮􏰖􏰗􏰄􏰊􏰕􏰎􏰌􏰆􏰊􏰟􏰎􏰃􏰅􏰑􏰄 systemsvagheter som bromsar omradets vidare utveckling, vilka som kan atgardas av systemets aktorer och vilka som motiverar sarskilda politiska ataganden. Rapporten utgor darmed ett underlag for att formulera atgarder for att astadkomma okad innova- tion, teknikspridning och industrialisering inom ovan namnda teknikomraden. Studien har aven mojliggjort en jamforande analys av likheter och skillnader 􏰇􏰎􏰉􏰉􏰅􏰌􏰄􏰠􏰎􏰃􏰅􏰄􏰆􏰎􏰈􏰌􏰊􏰈􏰙􏰇􏰃􏰘􏰕􏰎􏰌􏰤􏰄􏰙􏰞􏰔􏰄􏰕􏰏􏰃􏰇􏰎􏰕􏰄􏰑􏰆􏰏􏰃􏰈􏰆􏰄􏰇􏰂􏰣􏰉􏰊􏰍􏰔􏰎􏰆􏰎􏰌􏰄􏰅􏰆􏰆􏰄􏰕􏰃􏰅􏰄􏰑􏰉􏰋􏰆􏰑􏰅􏰆􏰑􏰎􏰃􏰄􏰚􏰂􏰃􏰄 􏰯􏰘􏰕􏰎􏰄􏰅􏰌􏰅􏰉􏰢􏰆􏰊􏰈􏰎􏰃􏰄􏰙􏰞􏰔􏰄􏰯􏰎􏰑􏰉􏰋􏰆􏰑􏰚􏰅􏰆􏰆􏰅􏰃􏰎􏰥􏰄􏰴􏰎􏰆􏰄􏰚􏰃􏰅􏰇􏰍􏰘􏰃􏰄􏰆􏰢􏰕􏰉􏰊􏰍􏰆􏰄􏰅􏰆􏰆􏰄􏰕􏰎􏰆􏰄􏰟􏰌􏰌􏰑􏰄􏰑􏰆􏰙􏰃􏰅􏰄􏰑􏰈􏰊􏰉􏰉􏰌􏰅􏰕􏰎􏰃􏰄 mellan omradena – de ar starka respektive svaga av olika orsaker. Detta visar att 􏰆􏰎􏰈􏰌􏰊􏰈􏰑􏰒􏰎􏰞􏰊􏰟􏰈􏰅􏰄􏰅􏰌􏰅􏰉􏰢􏰑􏰎􏰃􏰤􏰄􏰉􏰊􏰈􏰑􏰙􏰇􏰄􏰆􏰎􏰈􏰌􏰊􏰈􏰑􏰒􏰎􏰞􏰊􏰟􏰈􏰅􏰄􏰘􏰆􏰍􏰏􏰃􏰕􏰎􏰃􏰤􏰄􏰏􏰃􏰄􏰇􏰙􏰆􏰊􏰐􏰎􏰃􏰅􏰕􏰎􏰥 Samtidigt har omradena gemensamma drag. Systemets aktorer, dar aven politiska 􏰯􏰎􏰑􏰉􏰋􏰆􏰑􏰚􏰅􏰆􏰆􏰅􏰃􏰎􏰄􏰊􏰌􏰍􏰘􏰃􏰤􏰄􏰔􏰅􏰃􏰄􏰆􏰥􏰎􏰓􏰥􏰄􏰐􏰅􏰃􏰊􏰆􏰄􏰯􏰃􏰅􏰄􏰒􏰘􏰄􏰅􏰆􏰆􏰄􏰆􏰅􏰄􏰚􏰃􏰅􏰇􏰄􏰌􏰢􏰄􏰈􏰋􏰌􏰑􏰈􏰅􏰒􏰄􏰍􏰎􏰌􏰙􏰇􏰄􏰚􏰙􏰃􏰑􏰈􏰌􏰊􏰌􏰍􏰄 􏰙􏰞􏰔􏰄􏰎􏰓􏰒􏰎􏰃􏰊􏰇􏰎􏰌􏰆􏰎􏰉􏰉􏰄􏰋􏰆􏰐􏰎􏰞􏰈􏰉􏰊􏰌􏰍􏰤􏰄􏰐􏰊􏰉􏰈􏰎􏰆􏰄􏰃􏰎􏰑􏰋􏰉􏰆􏰎􏰃􏰅􏰆􏰄􏰊􏰄􏰌􏰢􏰅􏰄􏰆􏰎􏰈􏰌􏰊􏰈􏰉􏰂􏰑􏰌􏰊􏰌􏰍􏰅􏰃􏰄􏰙􏰞􏰔􏰄􏰈􏰋􏰌- skapsnatverk. Men de har varit samre pa att skapa tidiga nischmarknader som ger utrymme for fortsatt larande och kostnadsreduktion. Sadana nischer kan ibland skapas av marknadens aktorer, men ofta kravs politiska styrmedel. De behovs for att investeringar i kunskapsutveckling ska kunna nyttiggoras och for att en bred industriell utveckling inom nya omraden skall goras mojlig i Sverige. Vidare presenteras lardomar kring vad en aktiv teknikpolitik innebar. Tva huvud- 􏰅􏰃􏰍􏰋􏰇􏰎􏰌􏰆􏰄􏰑􏰙􏰇􏰄􏰚􏰂􏰃􏰑􏰄􏰚􏰃􏰅􏰇􏰄􏰏􏰃􏰄􏰅􏰆􏰆􏰄􏰚􏰃􏰅􏰇􏰐􏰏􏰓􏰆􏰎􏰌􏰄􏰅􏰐􏰄􏰌􏰢􏰄􏰆􏰎􏰈􏰌􏰊􏰈􏰄􏰏􏰃􏰄􏰎􏰌􏰄􏰞􏰎􏰌􏰆􏰃􏰅􏰉􏰄􏰕􏰎􏰉􏰄􏰅􏰐􏰄􏰑􏰅􏰇- hallsbygget och darfor bor vara ett politikomrade bland manga samt att den skarpa 􏰋􏰒􏰒􏰕􏰎􏰉􏰌􏰊􏰌􏰍􏰎􏰌􏰄􏰑􏰙􏰇􏰄􏰊􏰯􏰉􏰅􏰌􏰕􏰄􏰍􏰂􏰃􏰑􏰄􏰇􏰎􏰉􏰉􏰅􏰌􏰄􏱃􏰆􏰎􏰈􏰌􏰊􏰈􏰑􏰒􏰎􏰞􏰊􏰟􏰈􏰅􏱃􏰄􏰙􏰞􏰔􏰄􏱃􏰆􏰎􏰈􏰌􏰊􏰈􏰌􏰎􏰋􏰆􏰃􏰅􏰉􏰅􏱃􏰄􏰑􏰆􏰢􏰃- 􏰇􏰎􏰕􏰎􏰉􏰄􏰯􏰂􏰃􏰄􏰅􏰐􏰕􏰃􏰅􏰇􏰅􏰆􏰊􏰑􏰎􏰃􏰅􏰑􏰥􏰄􏰖􏰄􏰑􏰆􏰏􏰉􏰉􏰎􏰆􏰄􏰯􏰎􏰟􏰌􏰌􏰎􏰃􏰄􏰑􏰊􏰍􏰄􏰅􏰉􏰉􏰅􏰄􏰑􏰆􏰢􏰃􏰇􏰎􏰕􏰎􏰉􏰄􏰒􏰘􏰄􏰎􏰌􏰄􏰑􏰈􏰅􏰉􏰅􏰄􏰇􏰎􏰉􏰉􏰅􏰌􏰄 􏰕􏰎􏰑􏰑􏰅􏰄􏰆􏰐􏰘􏰄􏰎􏰓􏰆􏰃􏰎􏰇􏰎􏰃􏰄􏰙􏰞􏰔􏰄􏰙􏰉􏰊􏰈􏰅􏰄􏰆􏰢􏰒􏰎􏰃􏰄􏰅􏰐􏰄􏰇􏰎􏰃􏰄􏰑􏰒􏰎􏰞􏰊􏰟􏰈􏰅􏰄􏰙􏰞􏰔􏰄􏰇􏰎􏰃􏰄􏰌􏰎􏰋􏰆􏰃􏰅􏰉􏰅􏰄􏰑􏰆􏰂􏰕􏰄􏰯􏰎􏰔􏰂􏰐􏰑􏰄􏰊􏰄 olika faser av innovationssystemets utveckling. For att lyckas med en aktiv teknikpolitik behovs en hog grad av koordinering 􏰇􏰎􏰉􏰉􏰅􏰌􏰄􏰇􏰢􏰌􏰕􏰊􏰍􏰔􏰎􏰆􏰎􏰃􏰄􏰙􏰞􏰔􏰄􏰕􏰎􏰒􏰅􏰃􏰆􏰎􏰇􏰎􏰌􏰆􏰄􏰑􏰅􏰇􏰆􏰄􏰑􏰒􏰎􏰞􏰊􏰟􏰈􏰄􏰈􏰋􏰌􏰑􏰈􏰅􏰒􏰄􏰙􏰇􏰄􏰚􏰃􏰅􏰇􏰐􏰏􏰓􏰅􏰌􏰕􏰎􏰄 teknikomraden sa att ”ratt” typ av atgarder kan sattas in vid ”ratt” tidpunkt av ”ratt” aktor. TIS-ramverket lyfts har fram som en metod for att skapa ett sadant underlag. Slutligen presenteras en metod for projektbedomningar som syftar till att stotta handlaggare i utvarderingar av projekt inom nya teknikomraden. Rapporten i sin helhet riktar sig sarskilt till beslutsfattare och handlaggare vid myndigheter, departement och politiker, men aven andra organisationer och indi- vider med intresse av att hogt stallda klimatmal ska kunna nas samtidigt som en positiv naringslivsutveckling mojliggors.