Abstract
Plain English Summary Hyper-competition for public grant funding can compromise the value created from successfully funded research. When a scientist successfully acquires a publicly funded grant, it sends a signal of research quality and value. However, competition for funding is getting increasingly difficult. Scientists must balance their desire to do the research they want to do against the insistence of funding bodies to have the criteria they set addressed appropriately. Our research shows that, while this two-way interaction between scientists and funding bodies increases the quality and value of funded research, it also stifles research novelty and human capital development. This occurs because scientists over-conform to the perceived funding criteria. The main implication of this research is that policymakers and funding bodies must carefully monitor how they set, communicate and implement funding criteria and evaluation processes. They must ensure there is enough funding dedicated to early-stage and higher risk research, and also account for equality and diversity to support scientists at all career stages.
Scientists and funding bodies are interdependent actors involved in an ongoing two-way signalling interaction; however, we lack insight on the social mechanisms underpinning this interaction. To address this issue, we examine how successfully funded scientists interpret and address criteria set by the funding body to maximise their chances of funding success. We also consider the possible adverse side effects that can arise from scientists' competitive efforts to address these criteria. Our findings identify a portfolio of funding criteria-research feasibility, research alignment and team credentials-that scientists address when preparing grant applications. Effectively addressing these criteria enhances the prospects of funding success and value creation. However, we also find that scientists can over-address funding criteria, which is counterproductive and yields undesirable side effects. Our research therefore makes an important distinction between the possibilities for value creation and the value creation frictions that can unintentionally arise based on how grant-submitting scientists interpret and address the criteria signalled by the funding body. Our research has implications for policymakers, funding bodies and scientists which we also discuss.