Implementing the Innovation Agenda: A Study of Change at a Research Funding Agency

Abstract

With the rise of an innovation agenda in science policy, previous studies have identified a shift in how the state delegates responsibility to funding agencies in order to change the behaviour of the scientific community. This paper contributes to this literature through a micro-level study of how one of Canada’s largest research funding agencies, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), has changed resource allocation for research over 25 years. Our study foregrounds research funding agencies as key sites for examining the reconfiguration of the relationship between the state and science, as expressed in programmatic and resource allocation decisions. Through analysis of an original dataset compiled from NSERC’s funding and documentary data, we demonstrate the relationship between the introduction of innovation objectives in funding instruments, the adoption of new delegation modes to guide resource allocation, and changes in funding among research fields over time. Our study empirically demonstrates the cumulative effect of programmatic and funding decisions in a major agency, going beyond previous accounts of more general trends at the national level.

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

Fig. 1

Source: Authors’ calculations based on total amounts given out each year and the number of grants recorded in NSERC’s awards database

Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Source: Authors’ calculations based on total amounts given out each year in NSERC’s awards database

Fig. 4

Source: Authors’ calculations based on total amounts given out each year in NSERC’s awards database

Fig. 5

Source: Authors’ calculations based on total amounts given out each year in NSERC’s awards database

Fig. 6

Source: Authors’ calculations based on total amounts given out each year in NSERC’s awards database

Notes

  1. 1.

    The other two federal funding agencies are the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). SSHRC supports research and training in the social sciences and humanities; CIHR provides support for health and medical research.

  2. 2.

    Stokes clarifies that there is, in fact, a fourth quadrant in which the answer to both “consideration of use?” and “quest for understanding?” is no. Such research “systematically explores particular phenomena without having in view either general exploratory objectives or any applied use to which the results will be put” (emphasis in original, Stokes 1997: 74).

  3. 3.

    For example, research subjects “1101 Structural loads and safety” and “1102 Steel: materials and structures” could be grouped under the broader research field “1100 Structural Engineering”. Application sub-areas “501 Processed food products and beverages” and “504 Human pharmaceuticals” could be grouped under “500 Manufacturing processes and products”.

  4. 4.

    Approximately 9% of investments of interest, or C$1.6 billion out of C$18.4 billion, did not have research categories available in the database. 18%, or C$3.4 billion, did not have entries available for application areas.

  5. 5.

    “Funded researchers” refers to scientists listed on successful grants in the awards database. Some scientists serve as principal investigators for “group” or multi-researcher projects, meaning that, in practice, the “per-capita” figure will be further diluted because the number of recipients benefitting from certain grants may be larger in practice.

  6. 6.

    On many funding applications, researchers are asked to provide the primary and secondary areas of application for their research using NSERC’s code tables. NSERC’s database only provides one code, which was used in our analysis.

  7. 7.

    For this analysis, we excluded instruments supporting both pure and use-inspired basic research because of the difficulty of assigning an appropriate fraction to each research type.

  8. 8.

    Research subjects were analyzed based on entries in the database, which are usually self-identified by the researchers preparing the applications and are based on code tables provided by the funding agency. NSERC’s database only provides one research subject code.

  9. 9.

    The notable increase in the fraction of such funds in 2007-08 at NSERC was largely due to federal commitments to create the “centres of excellence for commercialization and research” and to boost the long-standing federal Networks of Centres of Excellence program by injecting funds for private sector-led initiatives.

  10. 10.

    This is due mainly to the introduction of programs for researchers collaborating with firms, in which applications bypass the academic peer review with funding decisions left to the discretion of the granting council’s internal staff.

References

  1. Abreu, Maria, and Vadim Grinevich. 2013. The Nature of Academic Entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the Focus on Entrepreneurial Activities. Research Policy 42(2): 408–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Advisory Panel for the Review of Federal Support for Fundamental Science. 2017. Canada’s Fundamental Science Review. http://www.sciencereview.ca/eic/site/059.nsf/vwapj/ScienceReview_April2017-rv.pdf/$file/ScienceReview_April2017-rv.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2018.

  3. Amara, Nabil, Julia Olmos-Peñuela, and Ignacio Fernández-de-Lucio. 2019. Overcoming the “Lost Before Translation” Problem: An Exploratory Study. Research Policy 48(1): 22–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson-Grosjean, Janet. 2006. Public Science, Private Interests: Culture and Commerce in Canada’s Networks of Centres of Excellence. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baba, Yasunori, Naohiro Shichijo, and Silvia Rita Sedita. 2009. How do Collaborations with Universities Affect Firms’ Innovative Performance? The Role of “Pasteur Scientists” in the Advanced Materials Field. Research Policy 38(5): 756–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Braun, Dietmar. 1993. Who Governs Intermediary Agencies? Principal-Agent Relations in Research Policy-Making. Journal of Public Policy 13(2): 135–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Braun, Dietmar. 1998. The Role of Funding Agencies in the Cognitive Development of Science. Research Policy 27(8): 807–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Braun, Dietmar. 2003. Lasting Tensions in Research Policy-Making: A Delegation Problem. Science and Public Policy 30(5): 309–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Calvert, Jane. 2006. What’s Special about Basic Research? Science, Technology, and Human Values 31(2): 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Council of Canadian Academies. 2018. Competing in a Global Innovation Economy: The Current State of R&D in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Expert Panel on the State of Science and Technology and Industrial Research and Development in Canada, Council of Canadian Academies.

  11. Department of Finance Canada. 2006. Advantage Canada: Building a strong economy for Canadians. https://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2006/pdf/plane.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2018.

  12. Department of Finance Canada. 2007. The Budget Plan 2007. Aspire to a stronger, safer, better Canada. https://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/pdf/bp2007e.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2018.

  13. Doern, G. Bruce. 2009. The Granting Councils and the Research Granting Process: Core Values in Federal GovernmentUniversity Interactions. In Research and Innovation Policy: Changing Federal Government–University Relations, eds. G. Bruce Doern and Christopher Stoney, 89–122. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Doern, G. Bruce, David Castle, and Peter W.B. Phillips. 2016. Canadian Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy: The Innovation Economy and Society Nexus. Montréal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press - MQUP.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Elzinga, Aant, and Andrew Jamison. 1995. Changing Policy Agendas in Science and Technology. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, revised ed., eds. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, 572–597. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fisher, Donald, and Knell Rubenson. 2010. Canada. In National Innovation and the Academic Research Enterprise: Public Policy in Global Perspective, eds. David D. Dill and Frans A. Van Vught, 62–116. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Government of Canada. 2007. Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/113.nsf/vwapj/SandTstrategy.pdf/$file/SandTstrategy.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2018.

  18. Government of Canada. 2014. Seizing Canada’s Moment: Moving Forward in Science, Technology and Innovation. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_07419.html. Accessed 3 July 2018.

  19. Godin, Benoît, and Yves Gingras. 2000. Impact of Collaborative Research on Academic Science. Science and Public Policy 27(1): 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gulbrandsen, Magnus. 2005. Tensions in the Research Council-Research Community Relationship. Science and Public Policy 32(3): 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Guston, David H. 1996. Principal-Agent Theory and the Structure of Science Policy. Science and Public Policy 23(4): 229–240.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Guston, David H. 2000. Between Politics and Science Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Independent Panel on Federal Support to Research and Development. 2011. Innovation Canada: A Call to Action. Review of Federal Support to Research and Development: Expert Panel Report. http://rd-review.ca/eic/site/033.nsf/eng/h_00287.html. Accessed 5 July 2018.

  24. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 2013. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Landry, Réjean, Malek Saïhi, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2010. Evidence on How Academics Manage Their Portfolio of Knowledge Transfer Activities. Research Policy 39(10): 1387–1403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Larsen, Maria T. 2011. The Implications of Academic Enterprise for Public Science: An Overview of the Empirical Evidence. Research Policy 40(1): 6–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lepori, Benedetto, Peter van den Besselaar, Michael Dinges, Bianca Potì, Emanuela Reale, Stig Slipersæter, Jean Thèves, and Barend van der Meulen. 2007. Comparing the Evolution of National Research Policies: What Patterns of Change? Science and Public Policy 34(6): 372–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lepori, Benedetto, Emanuela Reale, and Andrea O. Spinello. 2018. Conceptualizing and Measuring Performance Orientation of Research Funding Systems. Research Evaluation 27(3): 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Martin, Ben R. 2012. Are Universities and University Research Under Threat? Towards an Evolutionary Model of University Speciation. Cambridge Journal of Economics 36(3): 543–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE). 2016. Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research Program. http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/_docs/NetworksCentres-CentresReseaux/CECR_eng.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2018.

  31. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). 1985. Functions and Powers. Sections 4-6. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/N-21.pdf. Accessed 2 February 2018.

  32. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). 2011. NSERC Code Tables. http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Help-Aide/Codes-ListeDeCodes_Eng.asp. Accessed March to August 2018.

  33. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). 2017. Awards Database. http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/ase-oro/index_eng.asp. Accessed March 2017.

  34. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). 2018. 2018 Competition Statistics. Discovery Grants, Research Tools and Instruments and Subatomic Physics Programs. http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/FundingDecisions-DecisionsFinancement/2019/2018DG-RTI-SP_e.pdf. Accessed 5 April 2019.

  35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2018. New Trends in Public Research Funding. In OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2018: Adapting to Technological and Societal Disruption, 185-204. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2018-13-en.

  36. Potì, Bianca, and Emanuela Reale. 2007. Changing Allocation Models for Public Research Funding: An Empirical Exploration Based on Project Funding Data. Science and Public Policy 34(6): 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Quaglione, Davide, Alessandro Muscio, and Giovanna Vallanti. 2015. The Two Sides of Academic Research: Do Basic and Applied Activities Complement Each Other? Economics of Innovation and New Technology 24(7): 660–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sá, Creso M., Andrew Kretz, and Kristjan Sigurdson. 2013. Accountability, Performance Assessment, and Evaluation: Policy Pressures and Responses from Research Councils. Research Evaluation 22(2): 105–117.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sá, Creso M., and Jeffrey Litwin. 2011. University-Industry Research Collaborations in Canada: The Role of Federal Policy Instruments. Science and Public Policy 38(6): 425–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Skoie, Hans. 1996. Basic research: A new funding climate? Science and Public Policy 23(2): 66–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Science, Technology and Innovation Council. 2015. State of the Nation 2014. Canada’s science, technology and innovation system. Canada’s innovation challenges and opportunities. http://www.stic-csti.ca/eic/site/stic-csti.nsf/eng/Home. Accessed 29 November 2016.

  42. Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant. Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Subramanian, Annapoornima M., Kwanghui Lim, and Pek-Hooi Soh. 2013. When Birds of a Feather Don’t Flock Together: Different Scientists and the Roles They Play in Biotech R&D Alliances. Research Policy 42(3): 595–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Tijssen, Robert J.W. 2018. Anatomy of Use-Inspired Researchers: From Pasteur’s Quadrant to Pasteur’s Cube Model. Research Policy 47(9): 1626–1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. van der Meulen, Barend. 1998. Science Policies as Principal-Agent Games Institutionalization and Path Dependency in the Relation Between Government and Science. Research Policy 27(4): 397–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. van der Meulen, Barend. 2003. New Roles and Strategies of a Research Council: Intermediation of the Principal-Agent Relationship. Science and Public Policy 30(5): 323–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Van Duinen, Reinder J. 1998. European Research Councils and the Triple Helix. Science and Public Policy 25(6): 381–386.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Veletanlić, Emina, and Creso M. Sá. 2018. Government Programs for University-Industry Partnerships: Logics, Design, and Implications for Academic Science. Research Evaluation 28(2): 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ylijoki, Oili-Helena. 2003. Entangled in Academic Capitalism? A Case-Study on Changing Ideals and Practices of University Research. Higher Education 45(3): 307–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to greatly acknowledge Dr. James Li for his help in generating an awards dataset for analysis, Mr. Stuart Rolfe for his advice on analytical data strategies, and Dr. Mitchell Young for helpful comments on our first draft. An earlier version of this paper was presented on August 24, 2018 at the ECPR 2018 General Conference (Section on Politics of Higher Education, Research and Innovation) at the Universität Hamburg in Hamburg, Germany. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editorial board for providing very valuable feedback on our manuscript. This research was not supported by any funding agencies or other organizations.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emina Veletanlić.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 5712 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veletanlić, E., Sá, C. Implementing the Innovation Agenda: A Study of Change at a Research Funding Agency. Minerva 58, 261–283 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09396-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Research policy
  • Research councils
  • Principal-agent theory
  • Delegation modes
  • Innovation
  • Canada