TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

O-016The third mission in nine cases: How Triple Helix dynamics vary acrossscientific fieldsLaurens Hessels, Harro van Lente, Ruud Smits, Utrecht University, NeadearlandsThe institutional environment of universities has changed considerably over the past three to four decades. In many countries,the allocation of research funding is increasingly based on promises concerning the practical impact of the proposed research.Universities are under pressure to develop their ‘third mission’, that is to contribute directly to economical growth or to othersocietal goals. Another significant development is the rise of pressures for accountability. Academic research is increasinglysubject to evaluations that measure the performance of individuals, research groups or institutes. What are the consequencesof these institutional changes for the nature of academic research activities? Will they be more strongly oriented towardspractical applications? Do university researchers in all fields of science engage increasingly in ‘Triple Helix interactions’ (Etzkowitzand Leydesdorff, 2000)?In this paper we address these questions based on an analysis of the ‘Credibility Cycle’ in nine fields of natural science. Weanalyze the impact of the aforementioned institutional changes on the steps researchers have to go through in the CredibilityCycle. The fieldwork includes qualitative document analysis and in-depth interviews with over 60 Dutch academic researchers.The Credibility Cycle (Latour and Woolgar, 1986; Hessels et al., 2009) explains how struggles for reputation steer the behaviourof individual scientists. Its starting assumption is that a major motivation for a scientist’s actions is the quest for credibility.Scientists invest time and money expecting to acquire data that can support arguments. These are written down in articles,which may yield recognition from colleagues. Based on this, scientists hope to be able to receive new funding, from which theybuy new equipment (or hire staff) which will help to gather data again, etc. Conceived in this way, the research process can bedepicted as a repetitive cycle in which conversions take place between money, staff, data, arguments, articles, recognition, andso on.The changing institutional environment of academic research causes two profound changes in the Credibility Cycle. First, theacquisition of funding is much more connected to potential practical applications. A substantial share of all available fundingsources demands research to contribute to a desired innovation trajectory, e.g. by the involvement of ‘user committees’ or‘dissemination activities’. Second, the attribution of recognition becomes formalized by the existence of performance evaluations.As a result, scientific recognition nowadays strongly depends on bibliometric criteria, such as the number of publications andcitations.These developments imply that Triple Helix relationships have become rewarding in terms of credibility, because they can helpto secure funding. At the same time, it has become more important to pursue a research agenda that appeals to one’sdisciplinary audience. Engaging too much in application oriented research projects will decrease one’s possibilities to developan excellent publication record and to publish papers with a high scientific impact. In other words, the new Credibility Cycleappears to stimulate Triple Helix interactions at one point, but inhibits them elsewhere.The results of our analysis indicate that interactions with government or industry are not increasing in all fields. In this paper wewill discuss how the interplay between the two (possibly counteracting) forces varies across scientific fields and how thisresults in either more or less TH interactions.In some fields, such as Catalysis and Animal Breeding, researchers simply sustain the existing fruitful and tight relationshipswith industry. These help them to acquire sufficient funding, without compromising the fundamental nature of the researchagenda. In fields of a second category, including Paleo-Ecology and Molecular Genetics, the shifting funding situation did leadto an increasing interaction with ‘contexts of application’, like environmental policy circles or biotech firms. The fact that thesesocietal stakeholders had developed a growing interest in fundamental knowledge enabled the researchers to acquire fundingfor relatively large research projects on basic issues that will lead to publications in high-impact journals. The third class offields, however, is shifting in the opposite direction. In Toxicology, for example, the increasing pressure for publications hasmade it necessary to develop a more fundamental research agenda, which is less likely to yield direct practical applications.For this reason, interactions with industry and government have decreased rather than increased in this field. Finally, a fourthcategory can be identified consisting of fields like Cell Biology that traditionally work on very fundamental questions. Thesefields have not increased their TH interactions, because this would inhibit them to continue their basic research agendas.Collaborations with industry or government would require a shift to more practical issues, which could harm the researchers’academic status as measured in performance evaluations.Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010152