How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects

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.

Keywords

Science funding, Signal theory, Resourcefulness, Value creation, Principal investigators

Citation

O’Kane C, Zhang JA, Haar J, Cunningham JA. (2023). How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects. Small Business Economics. 61. 2. (pp. 799-826).

URI

https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/69788

Collections

Journal Articles

Full item page