, Volume 54, Issue 1, pp 99–127 | Cite as

The ‘Negotiated Space’ of University Researchers’ Pursuit of a Research Agenda

  • Terttu LuukkonenEmail author
  • Duncan A. Thomas


The paper introduces a concept of a ‘negotiated space’ to describe university researchers’ attempts to balance pragmatically, continually and dynamically over time, their own agency and autonomy in the selection of research topics and pursuit of scientific research to filter out the explicit steering and tacit signals of external research funding agencies and university strategies and policies. We develop this concept to explore the degree of autonomy researchers in fact have in this process and draw on semi-structured interview material with research group leaders in Finland and the UK, in the former in seven research fields, in the latter in two fields. First, the analysis reveals that topic selection is strongly filtered by the intra-scientific factors. In topic selection researchers have more leeway, a broader negotiated space than in research content, that is, in the ways in which they pursue their research, which are more affected by funding opportunities and other contextual matters. Second, the ways which affect researchers’ agency include individual- and more aggregate-level acts and factors: at the individual level, researchers resort to different strategies to create a negotiated space, but at the more aggregate level field-specific factors play a role. In fields with multiple funding opportunities, which we call ‘shopping mall’ fields, researchers can have a broader negotiated space than in fields where funding is more based on ‘lottery’. In the latter, the researchers’ negotiated space is narrow and contingent on the outcome of the funders’ decisions.


Universities Research topic Research agenda Negotiated space Researcher autonomy 



This research was funded by Tekes, Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation, from its innovation research funding instrument, award number 40422/11. The team that conducted these interviews consisted of, besides the authors of this paper, Juha Tuunainen, Antti Pelkonen, and Antti-Jussi Tahvanainen. We gratefully acknowledge the highly useful comments by the anonymous referees of our paper. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Eu-SPRI Science and Innovation Policy Conference, Manchester, 18-20 June 2014, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research.

Supplementary material

11024_2016_9291_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)


  1. Åkerlind, Gerlese S. 2008. An academic perspective on research and being a researcher: an integration of the literature. Higher Education 33: 17–31.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, Erik, Terttu Luukkonen, Patries Boekholt, Anke Nooijen, Zsuzsa Jávorka, and Frank Zuijdam. 2013. Evaluation of the Academy of Finland, Reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2013:14.Google Scholar
  3. Bourke, Paul, and Linda Butler. 1999. The Efficacy of Different Modes of Funding Research: Perspectives from Australian Data on the Biological Sciences. Research Policy 28: 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, Dietmar. 2012. Why do Scientists Migrate? A Diffusion Model. Minerva 50(4): 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Berkeley: Sage Publications, University of California.Google Scholar
  6. Gläser, Jochen. 2000. Limits of change: cognitive constraints on “postmodernization” and the political redirection of science. Social Science Information 39(3): 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gläser, Jochen, Stefan Lange, Grit Laudel, and Uwe Schimank. 2010. The Limits of Universality: How Field-Specific Epistemic Conditions Affect Authority Relations and their Consequences. In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 291–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heinze, Thomas. 2008. How to Sponsor Ground-Breaking Research: a Comparison of Funding Schemes. Science & Public Policy 35: 302–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hood, Christopher. 1991. A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration 69: 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jordan, Gretchen B. 2006. Factors Influencing Advances in Basic and Applied Research: Variation due to Diversity in Research Profiles. In Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change, eds. Jonathan Hage, and M.T.H. Meeus, 173–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. 1982. Scientific Communities or Transepistemic Arenas of Research? A Critique of Quasi-Economic Models of Science. Social Studies of Science 12(1): 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. 1983. The Ethnographic Study of Scientific Work: Towards a Constructivist Interpretation of Science. In Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, eds. Karin D. Knorr-Cetina, and Michael Mulkay, 115–140. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Lam, Alice. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialisation: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy 40: 1354–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamont, Michèle. 2010. Looking Back at Bourdieu. In Cultural Analysis, and Bourdieu’s Legacy, eds. Elizabeth Silva, and Alan Warde, 128–141. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Langfeldt, Liv. 2001. The Decision-making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and their Effects on the Review Outcome. Social Studies of Science 31(6): 820–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laudel, Grit. 2006. The Art of Getting Funded: How Scientists Adapt to their Funding Conditions. Science and Public Policy 33(7): 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laudel, Grit, and Jochen Gläser. 2014. Beyond Breakthrough Research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding. Research Policy 43: 1204–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laudel, Grit, Martin Benninghoff, Eric Lettkemann, and Elias Håkansson. 2014. Highly Adaptable but not Invulnerable: Necessary and Facilitating Conditions for Research in Evolutionary Development Biology. In Organisational Transformation and Scientific Change: The Impact of Institutional Restructuring on Universities and Intellectual Innovation, eds. Richard Whitley, and Jochen Gläser, 235–265. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  19. Leisyte, Liudvika, Jürgen Enders, and Harry de Boer. 2010. Mediating Problem Choice: Academic Researchers’ Responses to Changes in their Institutional Environment. In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 266–290. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luukkonen, Terttu. 2012. Conservatisms and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices. Research Evaluation 21: 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luukkonen, Terttu. 2014. Changing conditions of university research and intellectual innovation—A summary. In Universities, Funding Systems, and the Renewal of the Industrial Knowledge Base: UNI Project Findings, ed. Terttu Luukkonen, 3–14. ETLA Reports, No. 33.Google Scholar
  22. Luukkonen, Terttu, and Maria Nedeva. 2010. Towards understanding integration in research and research policy. Research Policy 39(5): 674–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luukkonen, Terttu, and Duncan Thomas. 2013. Industrial Engagement of University Research. ETLA Brief 20/2013.Google Scholar
  24. Lähteenmäki-Smith, Kaisa, Kimmo Halme, Tarmo Lemola, Kalle Piirainen, Kimmo Viljamaa, Katri Haila, Anu Kotiranta, Mari Hjelt, Tuomas Raivio, Wolfgang Polt, Michael Dinges, Michael Ploder, Susanne Meyer, Terttu Luukkonen, and Luke Georghiou. 2013. “Licence to SHOK?” External Evaluation of the Strategic Centres for Science, Technology and Innovation, Publications of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy 1/2013. Edita Publishing Oy.Google Scholar
  25. Manathunga, Catherine. 2009. Post-colonial perspectives on interdisciplinary researcher identities. In Academic research and researchers, eds. Angela Brew, and Lisa Lucas, 131–145. Maidenhead: Open University Press, MacGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2014. The Culture of Scientific Research in the UK. December 2014.Google Scholar
  27. OECD. 2014. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Netherlands. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  28. Pielke Jr, Roger. 2014. The Social Function of Science. Nature 507: 427–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pietilä, Maria. 2014. The many faces of research profiling: academic leaders’ conceptions of research steering. Higher Education 64: 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schroyer, Trent. 1984. On finalization in science. Theory and Society 13(5): 715–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tuunainen, Juha, and Duncan Thomas. 2014. Strategic research management and intellectual renewal of university research. Tekes Policy Brief No. 7/2014.Google Scholar
  32. Wang, Jian, and Diana Hicks. 2013. Detecting structural change in university research systems: A case study of British research policy. Research Evaluation 22(4): 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weingart, Peter. 1997. From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information 36(4): 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whitley, Richard. 2000. The Intellectual and Social Organization of Sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Whitley, Richard. 2010. Reconfiguring Public Sciences: The Impact of Governance Changes on Authority and Innovation in Public Science Systems. In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 3–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whitley, Richard, and Jochen Gläser. 2007. The Impact of Institutional Reforms on the Nature of Universities as Organisations. In The Changing Governance of the Sciences. The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, eds. Richard Whitley, and Jochen Gläser, 19–50. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Witty, Sir Andrew. 2013. Encouraging a British Invention Revolution: Sir Andrew Witty’s Review of Universities and Growth [Witty Review], Final Report and Recommendations, London: Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, October 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Research Institute of the Finnish EconomyHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business SchoolThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations