Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces

The academic research funding landscape has significantly changed over the last three decades. Resource scarcity, a shift towards performance-based funding, and increased competitive project funding have become dominant trends. This has led to a growing scholarly interest in how funding conditions influence research. While many studies focus on funding's impact on research performance and content, fewer examine the link between researcher behavior and specific funding mechanisms. This paper contributes to this emerging body of research by investigating the epistemic and organizational dynamics of the Swedish Distinguished Professor Grant (DPG), an individual excellence funding instrument. The DPG, with its substantial funding, long duration (10 years), and minimal requirements, offers a unique opportunity to explore the role of autonomy in promoting research excellence. The central research question is: How do researchers leverage the autonomy granted by "no-strings-attached" excellence funding?

Existing literature largely focuses on the effects of funding on research performance and content, either at a macro-level (examining resource allocation) or micro-level (analyzing researcher behavior within changing funding conditions). Relatively few studies directly link researcher behavior to specific funding instruments. Studies examining the impact of excellence funding schemes, like the ERC grants, show that such funding enables risky, time-consuming research by providing resource stability and flexibility. However, the literature on "protected spaces," a concept used to describe the autonomy researchers have to conduct research of their choice, is limited. Rip (2011) uses the concept to map changes in knowledge production dynamics, while other studies operationalize "protected space" to explore the degree of autonomy researchers possess, considering epistemic and organizational factors. These studies use "protected space" as a variable to compare different science systems and research fields.

This study uses a mixed-methods approach. First, text calls and applications for the DPG were examined. Second, a scouting interview with a program officer from the Swedish Research Council (VR) was conducted. Third, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 out of 29 DPG recipients from the first three call rounds (2013, 2015, and 2017). The interviews, lasting 45 minutes to 1 hour, focused on the effects of the funding instrument on research practices and organization. Template analysis (King, 1998) was used to interpret the interview material, focusing on researchers' choices regarding DPG use and the conditions influencing these choices. The analysis identified two main dimensions: (i) framing conditions (autonomy and duty) and (ii) focus areas/choices (maintenance and care, momentum building, and epistemic venturing).

The findings reveal that DPG recipients experienced considerable autonomy in three areas: epistemic, strategic, and temporal. Epistemic autonomy allowed researchers to pursue their own research agendas without constraints imposed by budgets or timetables. Strategic autonomy enabled them to adapt their research directions as needed, and temporal autonomy provided greater control over their time allocation, reducing the burden of frequent funding applications. However, this autonomy was balanced by a sense of duty towards their team members (ensuring career development for junior researchers) and towards science and funders (demonstrating the productivity and value of the funding). Researchers made choices regarding resource allocation that fell into three categories: Maintenance and care involved actions to secure the group's survival and well-being of junior researchers. Momentum building included efforts to acquire and develop human and epistemic capacity (e.g., hiring senior researchers, developing research tools). Epistemic venturing involved risk-taking behavior such as tackling complex problems or exploring new research avenues. The researchers engaged in a balancing act between these three areas, continuously constructing and maintaining their "protected spaces."

The findings support the idea that control over resources and their long-term stability encourage riskier and more ambitious research agendas. The DPG's generous conditions fostered a "protected space" characterized by autonomy balanced by a sense of duty. This balancing act involved investments and adjustments in the three main areas of maintenance and care, momentum building, and epistemic venturing. The study demonstrates that "protected spaces" are not passively received but actively constructed and maintained through ongoing efforts to reconcile competing priorities. The interactions between these three areas highlight that building capacity (momentum building) can support both maintenance and care and epistemic venturing, showcasing the multifaceted nature of resource management within a protected space. The precarious relationship between maintenance/care and epistemic venturing highlights the need for a safety net to mitigate the uncertainties inherent in risk-taking endeavors.

The DPG effectively enables research that would be difficult with standard funding. The increased autonomy and flexibility promote riskier and more complex research. However, context-dependency limits the generalizability of the findings to other research systems. Further research should examine the long-term impacts of the DPG, particularly as the funding period concludes for the initial recipients. Additionally, future research should explore the potential equity and diversity implications of such concentrated funding, especially considering the initial lower allocation for social sciences and humanities.

The study's qualitative nature and relatively small sample size limit the generalizability of the findings. The interviews were conducted before the completion of the 10-year funding period, potentially limiting the long-term perspective. The absence of data on DPG recipients who did not participate in the study could introduce bias. The focus on the Swedish context limits the extent to which conclusions can be generalized to other national research systems and funding models.