Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supporting Frontier Research, Which Institutions and Which Processes

Some Initial Considerations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Changing Governance of Higher Education and Research

Part of the book series: Higher Education Dynamics ((HEDY,volume 43))

Abstract

The chapter deals with ‘frontier research’ as a concept to organise public intervention in science and questions the choices made in Europe with the creation of a specific agency, the European Research Council. It shows how politically driven the emergence of the concept was both in the US and in Europe. It presents the very different organisational choices that have been made in Europe and in the US, but also within the US. This drives to analyse Frontier research through two lenses: as a process highlighting organisational implications, and as part of knowledge dynamics highlighting the need for keeping the link with substantive aspects and thus the need for cognitive specificity. These lenses are then applied to look at the ERC trying to address three questions: does the process selected will produce ‘excellent’ rather than ‘frontier’ science? Will it help addressing the perceived ‘quantitative’ gap in frontier science between the US and Europe? Will it be able to cope with diversity in knowledge dynamics? The answers are not straightforward and drive to suggest an evolution of the ERC being not only one more agency among the existing funding agencies in Europe, but also the ‘agency of agencies’ to be in a position to focus on ‘scientific grand challenges’.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Research fields” are empirically outlined by three inter-connected elements, namely converging knowledge communities, consistent bodies of knowledge and research organisations. “Research spaces”, on the other hand, are defined by the ‘essential’ relationships of the research organisations and by notions of the utility of knowledge. The emphasis is on the relationships and on the exchange(s) in which the organisational actors are involved rather than on the attributes of the organisations.

  2. 2.

    Here I adopt the categorisation proposed by Mallard et al. (2009) with its four types: constructivist, comprehensive, positivist and utilitarian.

  3. 3.

    For a full demonstration, see the report “Challenging Europe’s Research: rationales for the ERA” by the ERA Expert Group (2008).

  4. 4.

    See PRIME (2007), Bonn Conference.

References

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • André, M. (2006). L’Espace européen de la recherche: histoire d’une idée. Revue d’histoire de l’intégration européenne, 12, 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, L. (2007). Major findings from the EPOM exploratory project. PRIME network of excellence. www.prime-noe.org. Accessed 20 Mar 2010.

  • Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (2003). New frontiers in the future of aging: From successful aging of the young old to the dilemmas of the fourth age. Gerontology, 49, 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, A. R., Nilon, C. H., & Hollweg, K. S. (Eds.). (2003). Understanding urban econsystems: A new frontier for science and education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A. (2005). Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. PRIME. Annual Conference, Manchester, January 6–9, 2005. Online: http://www.prime-noe.org/index.php?project=prime&locale=en&level1=menu1_prime_1b8057d059a36720_19&level2=5&doc=Annual_Conference. Accessed 8 July 2010.

  • Bonaccorsi, A. (2007). Explaining the poor performance of European science: Institutions vs policies. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 303–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A. (2008). Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva, 46(3), 285–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. (1945). Science the endless frontier. A report to the president by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, July 1945. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm. Accessed 21 Jan 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Larédo, P., & Mustar, P. (Eds.). (1997). The strategic management of research and technology: The evaluation of technological programmes. Paris: Economica International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caracostas, P., & Muldur, U. (1997). La Société, ultime frontière – Une vision européenne des politiques de recherche et d’innovation pour le XXI e siècle. Luxembourg: OPOCE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, Y. T., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1996). Learning the innovation journey: Order out of chaos. Organization Science, 7(6), 593–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collarelli O’Connor, G. C., & Rice, M. P. (2001). Opportunity recognition and breakthrough in large established firms. California Management Review, 43(2), 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courtney, H., Kirkland, J., & Viguerie, P. (1997). Strategy under uncertainty. Harvard Business Review, 75, 67–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. (1969). Social structure of a group of scientists: A test of the invisible college hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 34(3), 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delemarle, A., & Larédo, P. (2008). Breakthrough innovation and the shaping of new markets: The role of community of practice. In A. Amin & J. Roberts (Eds.), Organising for creativity: Community, economy and space (pp. 178–199). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DOE (US Department of Energy). (2008). Energy frontier research centres, tackling our energy challenges in a new era of science. Washington, DC: Office of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11(2), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Sylos Labini, M. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called “European Paradox”. Research Policy, 35(10), 1450–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ERA Expert Group. (2008). Challenging Europe’s research: Rationales for the ERA. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/eg7-era-rationales-final-report_en.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2010.

  • ERC. (2007). The IDEAS work programme. European Research Council Work Programme 2008. European Commission C (2007) 5746 of 29 Nov 2007. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/wp/ideas/l_wp_200801_en.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2010.

  • European Commission (EC). (2005). Frontier research: The European challenge. Brussels: Directorate General for Research. European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Nowotny, H., & Limoges, C. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzeti, L. (1995). A brief history of European research union policy. Luxembourg: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA, 263(10), 1438–1441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horrobin, D. F. (1996). Peer review of grant applications: A harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? Lancet, 348(9037), 1293–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1982). Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? Social Studies of Science, 12(1), 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, S., & Laredo, P. (2007, May 30). Beyond the dichotomy of national vs European science systems – Configurations of knowledge, institutions and policy in European research, background document to the workshop “knowledge dynamics and ERA integration”, Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M., Mallard, G., & Guetzkow, J. (2006). Beyond blind faith: Overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larédo, P. (2004). Prospective de l’Espace Européen de la Recherche. RFAP, 112, 675–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larédo, P. (2006). The transformation of ‘search regimes’: Implications for government interventions. In Issues in regulation theory (La Lettre de la Régulation), 56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larédo, P. (2009). La Recherche Européenne et les Enjeux des Nouvelles Sciences Dominantes. In J. P. Leresche, K. Weber, & P. Larédo (Eds.), L’internationalisation des Systèmes de Recherche en Action (pp. 27–50). Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larédo, P., Jolivet, E., Shove, E., Raman, S., Rip, A., Moors, E., Poti, B., Schaeffer, G. J., Penan, H., & Garcia, C. E. (2002). Final report of the Socrobust project. http://www.createacceptance.net/fileadmin/create-acceptance/user/docs/Socrobust_final_report.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2010.

  • Larédo, P., Delemarle, A., & Kahane, B. (2010). Dynamics of nanosciences and nanotechnologies: Policy implication. STI Policy Review, 1(1), 43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallard, G., Lamont, M., & Guetzkow, J. (2009). Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34(5), 573–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nedeva, M. (2010). Public sciences and change: Science dynamics revisited. In J. Mucha & K. Leszczynska (Eds.), Society, culture and technology at the dawn of the 21st century (pp. 19–39). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSB. (2007). Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation. Report NSB 07-32.

    Google Scholar 

  • PRIME. (2007). Beyond the dichotomy of national vs. European science systems – configurations of knowledge, institutions and policy in European research. Bonn Conference. http://www.prime-noe.org/Local/prime/dir/General%20Presentation/News/Bonn_Background.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2010.

  • Rip, A., & Nederhof, A. J. (1986). Between dirigism and laissez-faire: Effects of implementing the science policy priority for biotechnology in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 15(5), 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant – basic science and technological innovation. Washington: Bookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The NIH Common Fund. (2004). Research teams of the future. http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/researchteams/. Accessed 8 July 2010.

  • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Energy. (2003). Report to Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee. http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/BESAC/COVMaterialsSciences.pdf. Accessed 08 July 2010.

  • van der Besselaar, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2008). Peer review as mechanism and mantra. EGOS-WZB workshop. Peer review reviewed. Berlin, 24–25 April 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, F., & Wessely, S. (2003). Peer review of grant applications. In F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health science (2nd ed., pp. 14–44). London: British Medical Association.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecole des Ponts Paristech, Marne la Vallée, France

    Philippe Larédo

  2. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Philippe Larédo

Authors
  1. Philippe Larédo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Larédo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Sociology of Organisation, German University of Administrative Sciences, Speyer, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany

    Dorothea Jansen

  2. Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany

    Insa Pruisken

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Larédo, P. (2015). Supporting Frontier Research, Which Institutions and Which Processes. In: Jansen, D., Pruisken, I. (eds) The Changing Governance of Higher Education and Research. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 43. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09677-3_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation