Funders and Researchers Shaping and Reshaping Grant Competition: Insights from the European Research Council
SSRN, ISSN: 1556-5068
2023
- 603Usage
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The goal of the paper is to advance our understanding of competition in public grant systems. Following economic sociology, we conceptualize competition as an interactive process between funders and researchers, which takes place in a context of uncertainty on the respective behavior. Accordingly, we suggest that mutual adjustment processes across different funding cycles are key to the creation of stable grant funding markets. We focus our analysis on two concepts suggested by the sociology of markets, i.e. grant desirability and scarcity. Using these lenses, we provide an exemplary analysis of the market interaction for the ERC grant schemes, and we study how funders and potential applicants adjusted grant conditions, respectively application behavior, to the outcomes of competition. Our findings suggest a dual role of desirability in creating a large pool of potential applicants and of scarcity in moderating the number of effective applications; we however highlight the central role of signals on (differential) success chances to avoid a lottery effect and to spark high investment in proposals by applicants. Results are of policy relevance, as they show that grant market competition can be only partially organized ex-ante, and the interaction process between funders and researchers might lead to unexpected effects; accordingly, we suggest that the achievement of policy goals also depends on the ability of funders to design suitable adjustment strategies.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know