Skip to main content
Log in

Competitive Research Grants and Their Impact on Career Performance

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The role of competitive funds as a source of funding for academic research has increased in many countries. For the individual researcher, the receipt of a grant can influence both scientific production and career paths. This paper focuses on the importance of the receipt of a research grant for researchers’ academic career paths utilizing a mixed methods approach that combines econometric analysis with in-depth qualitative interviews. The analysis has novel elements both in terms of its subject (impact of funding grants on individuals’ academic career paths) and approach. The results of this study indicate that while research grants have a positive impact on the research performed under the grant itself, there are very important secondary effects on research performance through positive effects on academic career advancement. The probability of obtaining a full professorship for grant recipients is almost double that for rejected applicants, 16 percent compared to 9 percent. The probability for career advancement in general is about 9 percentage points higher for grant recipients. Qualitative interviews support these quantitative results by providing insights into how grants impact research careers, through heightened status, recognition, networking and other factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. E.g. Langberg et al. (2004) and Graversen (2004).

  2. The analysis builds on a mixed methods evaluation of research grant based projects of the Danish Council for Independent Research, which was conducted by CFA on behalf of the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation. See Bloch et al. (2011).

  3. Foreign or Danish researchers abroad can also receive grants if their proposed research clearly benefits Danish research.

  4. The exchange rate between DKK and Euro is 7.45. (1 Euro=7.45 DKK).

  5. See Degn et al. (2011).

  6. A number of researchers may have applied for grants more than once during the period. For grant recipients, the statistics refer to the first research grant that they have received during the period. Rejected applicants have not received a grant during the entire period, and in line with grant recipients, the statistics refer to the first application in the period.

  7. This section draws on the analysis in Degn et al. (2011).

  8. http://www.researchersmobility.eu/.

  9. http://www.oecd.org/innovation/innovationinsciencetechnologyandindustry/oecdunescoinstituteforstatisticseurostatcareersofdoctorateholderscdhproject.htm.

  10. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/research-and-innovation/iiser.cfm.

  11. http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2012/pdf/07_fy2012.pdf.

References

  • Aerts, Kris, and Tobias Schmidt. 2008. Two for the price of one? Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: A comparison between Flanders and Germany. Research Policy 37(5): 806–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auranen, Otto, and Mika Nieminen. 2010. University research funding and publication performance—An international comparison. Research Policy 39(6): 822–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, Carter, Mads P. Sørensen, Tine Ravn, Ebbe K. Graversen, Heidi S. Pedersen, Stine T. Faber, Lise Degn, Peter S. Mortensen, Kaare Aagaard, and Per S. Lauridsen. 2011. An Evaluation of Research Project Grants of the Danish Council for Independent Research, Main report and sub-reports. Copenhagen: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation. (in Danish).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, Richard, and Monica Costa Dias. 2000. Evaluation methods for non-experimental data. Fiscal Studies 21(4): 427–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, Richard, and Monica Costa Dias. 2002. Alternative approaches to empirical evaluations in microeconomics. Portuguese Economic Journal 1(2): 91–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolli, Thomas, and Frank Somogyi. 2011. Do competitively acquired funds induce universities to increase productivity? Research Policy 40: 136–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caliendo, Marco, and Sabine Kopeinig. 2008. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys 22(1): 31–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, Nicolas, and Mireille Matt. 2006. Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy 18(1): 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, Dirk, Bernd Ebersberger, and Andreas Fier. 2007. The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: Empirical evidence from Finland and Germany. Journal of Applied Econometrics 22: 1347–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defazio, Daniela, Andy Lockett, and Mike Wright. 2009. Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy 38(2): 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degn, Lise, Stine T. Faber, and Tine Ravn. 2011. Sub-report 3: Case and interview analysis. Evaluation of Research Project Grants of the Danish Council for Independent Research. Copenhagen: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (in Danish).

  • Dehejia, Rajeev H., and Sadek Wahba. 1999. Casual effects in non-experimental studies: Re-evaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94(448): 1053–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehejia, Rajeev H., and Sadek Wahba. 2002. Propensity score-matching for non-experimental studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics 84(1): 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faber, Stine T., Ebbe K. Graversen, Sanne Haase, Niels Mejlgaard, Peter S. Mortensen, Karen Siune, Kaare Aagaard, and Per S. Lauridsen. 2010. The Danish Research Council’s support of female researchers and researchers at an early stage of their career. Copenhagen: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation. (in Danish).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaughan, Monica, and Barry Bozeman. 2002. Using curriculum vitae to compare some impacts of NSF research grants with research center funding. Research Evaluation 11(1): 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, Aldo, and Ben Martin. 2003. University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva 41(4): 277–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girma, Sourafel, and Holger Görg. 2007. Evaluating the foreign ownership wage premium using a difference-in-differences matching approach. Journal of International Economics 72(1): 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, Wolfgang. 2001. National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics 50(1): 69–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, Wolfgang. 2002. Co-authorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998). A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends 50(3): 461–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graversen, Ebbe K. 2004. The interplay and interfaces between private firms and public research organisations—Why personnel mobility is an important indicator. Working paper 2004/5. The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Aarhus.

  • Greenaway, David, and Richard Kneller. 2008. Exporting, productivity and agglomeration. European Economic Review 52(5): 919–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, James J., Hidehiko Ichimura, and Petra E. Todd. 1997. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. The Review of Economic Studies 64(4): 605–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, James, Hidehiko Ichimura, Jeffrey Smith, and Petra Todd. 1998. Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66(5): 1017–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, Brian, and Lars Lefgren. 2011. The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics 95(9–10): 1168–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. Sylvan, and Diana Hicks. 1997. How much is collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics 40(3): 541–554.

  • Langberg, Kamma, Ebbe K. Graversen, and Evanthia K. Schmidt. 2004. Researcher influence, resources and autonomy in different managerial systems within the public research sector in Denmark. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management 4: 1577–1587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, Maria T. 2011. The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy 40: 6–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, Michael. 2002. Some practical issues in the evaluation of heterogeneous labour market programmes by matching methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) 165(1): 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Sooho, and Barry Bozeman. 2005. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. The Social Studies of Science 35(5): 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefner, Ingo. 2003. Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education 46(4): 469–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, Francesco, Jacques Mairesse, Fabio Montobbio, and Michele Pezzoni. 2011. Scientific productivity and academic promotion: A study on French and Italian physicists. Industrial and Corporate Change 20(1): 253–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pion, Georgine. 2011. The early career progress of NRSA predoctoral trainees and fellows. NIH Publication Number 00-4900. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health.

  • Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Donald B. Rubin. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1): 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Jeffrey A., and Petra E. Todd. 2005. Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of non-experimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics 125(1–2): 305–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tammi, Timo. 2009. The competitive funding of university research: The case of Finnish science universities. Higher Education 57(5): 657–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Stine T. Faber, Lise Degn and Tine Ravn for their work in conducting and analyzing the qualitative interviews with grant recipients. This paper has also benefited greatly from comments by two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carter Bloch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bloch, C., Graversen, E.K. & Pedersen, H.S. Competitive Research Grants and Their Impact on Career Performance. Minerva 52, 77–96 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9247-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9247-0

Keywords

Navigation