Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of resource acquisition and profile development of institutional units within universities. We conceptualize resource acquisition as a two-level nested process, where units compete for external resources based on their credibility, but at the same time are granted faculty positions from the larger units (department) to which they belong. Our model implies that the growth of university units is constrained by the decisions of their parent department on the allocation of professorial positions, which represent the critical resource for most units’ activities. In our field of study this allocation is largely based on educational activities, and therefore, units with high scientific credibility are not necessarily able to grow, despite an increasing reliance on external funds. Our paper therefore sheds light on the implications that the dual funding system of European universities has for the development of units, while taking into account the interaction between institutional funding and third-party funding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., & Lepori, B. (2015). Organizations as penetrated hierarchies. Organization Studies, 36(7), 873–896.
Bornmann, L., Thor, A., Marx, W. & Schier, H. (2016). The application of bibliometrics to research evaluation in the humanities and social sciences: an exploratory study using normalized Google Scholar data for the publications of a research institute. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23627.
Braam, R., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2010). Life cycles of research groups: The case of CWTS. Research Evaluation, 19(3), 173–184.
Braam, R., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2014). Indicators for the dynamics of research organizations: a biomedical case study. Scientometrics, 99(3), 949–971.
Braun, D. (1998). The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy, 27(1998), 807–821.
Buhmann, A., Ingenhoff, D., & Lepori, B. (2015). Dimensions of diversity: Mapping the field of media and communication studies by combining cognitive and material dimensions. Communications, 40(3), 267–293.
Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33, 1081–1102.
CHEPS. (2010). Progress in higher education reform in Europe. Funding Reform Brussels: European Commission.
Coronini, R., & Mangematin, V. (1999). From individual scientific visibility to collective competencies: the example of an academic department in the social sciences. Scientometrics, 45(1), 77–97.
Crow, M., & Bozeman, B. (1987). R&D laboratory classification and public policy: the effects of environmental context on laboratory behavior. Research Policy, 16, 229–258.
Crow, M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the US national innovation system. New York: Columbia University Press.
Fumasoli, T., & Lepori, B. (2011). Patterns of strategies in Swiss higher education institutions. Higher Education, 61(2), 157–178.
Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607–632.
Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 473–496). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Joly, P. B., & Mangematin, V. (1996). Profile of public laboratories, industrial partnerships and organisation of R&D: The dynamics of industrial relationships in a large research organization. Research Policy, 25, 901–922.
Jongbloed, B., & Lepori, B. (2015). The funding of research in higher education: Mixed models and mixed results. In M. Souto-Otero, J. Huisman, D. D. Dill, H. de Boer, A. S. Oberai, & L. Williams (Eds.), Handbook of higher education policy and governance (pp. 439–461). New York: Palgrave.
Larédo, P., & Mustar, P. (2000). Laboratory activity profiles: An exploratory approach. Scientometrics, 47(3), 515–539.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The construction of scientific facts. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Laudel, G. (2006). The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33(7), 489–504.
Lauf, E. (2005). National diversity of major international journals in the field of communication. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 139–151.
Lepori, B. (2007). Patterns of diversity in the swiss higher education system. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 209–240). Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar.
Lepori, B. (2011). Coordination modes in public funding systems. Research Policy, 40(3), 355–367.
Lepori, B., Dinges, M., Reale, E., Slipersaeter, S., Theves, J., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2007). Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change? Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 372–388.
Lepori, B., & Probst, C. (2009). Using curriculum vitae for mapping scientific fields. A small-scale experience for Swiss communication sciences. Research Evaluation, 18(2), 125–134.
Lepori, B., Usher, J., & Montauti, M. (2013). Budgetary allocation and organizational characteristics of higher education institutions: A review of existing studies and a framework for future research. Higher Education, 65(1), 59–78.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.
Moll, J., & Hoque, Z. (2011). Budgeting for legitimacy: the case of an Australian university. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(2), 86–101.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1974). Organizational decision making as a political process: The case of a university budget. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 135–151.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Probst, C., Lepori, B., De Filippo, D., & Ingenhoff, D. (2011). Profiles and beyond: constructing consensus on measuring research output in communication sciences. Research Evaluation, 20(1), 73–88.
Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 453–473.
Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2009). When and how to use bibliometrics as a screening tool for research performance. Science and Public Policy, 62(1), 133–143.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Verbree, M., Horlings, E., Groenewegen, P., Van der Weijden, I., & van den Besselaar, P. (2015). Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: A multivariate study of biomedical research groups. Scientometrics, 102(1), 25–49.
Viner, N., Green, R., & Powell, P. (2006). Segmenting academics: Resource targeting of research grants. Science and Public Policy, 33(3), 166–178.
Weisenburger, E., & Mangematin, V. (1995). Le laboratoire public de recherche entre dépendance et autonomie stratégique. Cahiers d’Economie Et Sociologie Rurales, 37, 227–249.
White, H. C. (2002). Markets from networks: Socioeconomic models of production Princeton. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Swissuniversities under the programme on Measuring the Performance of Research. The authors would like to thank two anynmous reviewers for helpful suggestions, as well as the Swiss Society of Media and Communication Science for support in the data collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lepori, B., Wise, M., Ingenhoff, D. et al. The dynamics of university units as a multi‐level process. Credibility cycles and resource dependencies. Scientometrics 109, 2279–2301 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2080-5
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2080-5