1 Changing Governance and Authority Relations in the Public Sciences Richard Whitley (Manchester Business School, University of Manchester)

2 Summary of the Argument Major changes in the governance of higher education and the public sciences have taken place over the past 40 or so years in many OECD countries. These have affected the nature of authority relationships governing research priorities and the evaluation of results. In particular, the increasing exogeneity, formalisation and substantive nature of governance mechanisms, as well as the strength and extent of their enforcement, have altered the relative authority of different groups and organisations, as well as creating some new ones. These changes have occurred in different ways in different kinds of public science systems. As a result, the diversity of intellectual innovations and the coordination of research goals and outcomes have changed to different degrees in different countries.

3 G overnance changes in the public sciences in the postwar period have involved substantial shifts in the authoritative mechanisms governing the establishment and evaluation of research priorities and results Changes in these mechanisms can be described in terms of nine dimensions of governance systems: The exogeneity of governance to actors The formalisation of regulation The substantive or procedural nature of incentives and controls Whether compliance is signalled through largely anonymous processes or directly communicated through discussion. Whether authoritative communication is primarily vertical or horizontal. The strength of institutional enforcement The extent of enforcement over different actors and activities The difficulty of exit from institutional controls The extent to which the collective goods produced by the governance system are publicly available or privately appropriated.

4 These dimensions distinguish five major types of coordination systems: Characteristics of Governance Mechanisms in Five Coordination Systems CharacteristicsCoordination System Substantive Democratic State Procedural State Idealised Market Formal Association Network Exogeneity of governance to actors Formalised11110 Substantive1/00/101/01 Signalling0/11100 Vertical communication 11010

5 Characteristics of Governance Mechanisms in Five Coordination Systems CharacteristicsCoordination System Substantive Democratic State Procedural State Idealised Market Formal Association Network Strong enforcement Extensive enforcement Difficult to exit1101/00 Public nature of collective goods 1100/1 of which idealised models of the public sciences most resemble networks

6 Recent governance changes have involved: Increasing exogeneity of authority over public science systems (PSS) Increasing formalisation of governance Increasing emphasis on procedural governance mechanisms of universities plus increasing substantive steering of strategies Attempts to establish pseudo-market signalling of success and failure in competitions for prestige and resources Increasing vertical communication of public policy priorities Increasing strength of enforcement of evaluations and priorities by both state agencies and scientific élites Increasing extent of enforcement of particular models of scientific research and performance standards across the sciences and countries Increasing difficulty of exit from institutional controls as resources and activities become tied to particular goals and performance auditing Increasing emphasis on public collective goods.

7 Three major kinds of shifts in authority relationships governing intellectual priorities and coordination have been associated with these governance changes: 1.Increased state steering of research goals and evaluations of the significance of results 2.Increased state management of universities and other public research organisations (PROs) through competitive resource allocation and performance monitoring 3.Enhancement of unified authority hierarchies in PROs The impact of these changes on the relative authority of key groups and agencies has varied between different kinds of PSS. Three ideal types of PSS can be distinguished in terms of the relative authority of different groups and organisations: State-shared, state-delegated, and employer-competitive

8 Type of Public Science System Relative Authority of: State-SharedState-delegatedEmployer- competitive The StateConsiderableMediumLimited Research Funding Foundations Limited Considerable Organisational scientific elites ConsiderableLimited Research groups and individuals LimitedConsiderable National and international scientific elites Medium Considerable Commercial and other external stakeholder interests Limited Medium PRO managersLowMediumConsiderable

9 Major Governance Changes in Public Science Systems Changing Authority of Agencies and Groups Increasing state steering of research priorities and knowledge evaluation Increasing state management of PROs through competitive resource allocation and performance monitoring Enhancement of unified authority hierarchies in PROs State ministries and agencies Increased, especially where public funding is highly concentrated and there are few non-state research support agencies Reduction of direct control in state-shared PSS, increased regulatory control in state- delegated and employer- competitive PSS Increased where this enables the state to implement priorities, reduced otherwise Research funding agencies Increased, especially where funds are highly concentrated in one or two Increased where agencies evaluate performance Varies Organisation al scientific élites Reduced in state-shared PSS Reduced in most PSS PRO managers Increased in state-shared PSS where states implement mission contracts with them, less elsewhere Increased considerably in state-shared PSS, incrementally elsewhere Increased

10 Major Governance Changes in Public Science Systems Changing Authority of Agencies and Groups Increasing state steering of research priorities and knowledge evaluation Increasing state management of PROs through competitive resource allocation and performance monitoring Enhancement of unified authority hierarchies in PROs Organisational scientific élites Reduced in state- shared PSS Reduced in most PSS Research groups and individuals Increased in state- shared PSS where they are able to obtain research resources directly VariesIncreased in state- shared PSS where they are able to pursue their own projects, reduced in state-delegated PSS

11 Major Governance Changes in Public Science Systems Changing Authority of Agencies and Groups Increasing state steering of research priorities and knowledge evaluation Increasing state management of PROs through competitive resource allocation and performance monitoring Enhancement of unified authority hierarchies in PROs National and International scientific élites Increased where they are involved in science policy development and implementation, but less so where policy goals dominate resource allocation Increased where peer review is dominant evaluation mechanism Increased, especially in state-shared PSS Commercial and other stakeholder interests Increased where the state pursues economic growth goals through research priorities, especially in employer dominated PSS Increased where competition and state policies encourage commercialisation of research Increased where PROs manage commercialisation of research, especially in employer dominated PSS

12 In considering the impact of these changes on intellectual innovation and coordination, four changes in authority relations: 1.Increased researcher dependence on scientific elites for project-based funding and reputations 2.Increased influence of public policy goals and foundations on research funding and priorities 3.Increased PRO strategic autonomy and capability 4.Increasing opportunities for, and encouragement of, research commercialisation by PROs. can be expected to affect: 1.The diversity and longevity of research projects 2.The ease of establishing new scientific fields 3.The degree of competition for scientific prestige in established disciplines 4.The degree of national and international coordination of research goals and results, differently in different kinds of PSS.

13 Expected Effects of Changing Authority Relations on Intellectual Innovation and Coordination Changes in Authority Relations Expected effects on innovation and coordin- ation Increased researcher dependence on epistemic elites for project-based funding and reputations Increased influence of public policy goals and foundations on research funding Increased PRO strategic autonomy and capability Increasing opportunities for, & encouragement of, research commer- cialisation by PROs Diversity & longevity of research projects Reduced, especially where funding is highly concentrated Increased variety, especially in employer- competitive (emp- comp) PSS, but reduced longevity Reduced in low prestige PROs, possibly increased in elite ones where funding is not concen- trated. Limited impact in emp- comp PSS Reduced except where it leads to endowment-type research support for long term projects Ease of establishing new scientific fields Reduced, except where there are diverse funding sources Increased where state provides new resources Increased where elite PROs have access to discretionary resources, esp. in emp- comp PSS Increased for fields close to technological opportunities

14 Expected Effects of Changing Authority Relations on Intellectual Innovation and Coordination (cont.) Changes in Authority Relations Expected effects on innovation and coordin- ation Increased researcher dependence on epistemic elites for project-based funding and reputations Increased influence of public policy goals and foundations on research funding Increased PRO strategic autonomy and capability Increasing opportunities for, & encouragement of, research commer- cialisation by PROs Competition for disciplinary prestige Intensified, especially where strong evaluation systems are discipline based Reduced, unless funding is allocated through peer review Intensified in low prestige PROs where disciplinary elites dominate strong evaluation systems, weakened in elite ones Reduced National and international coordination of research goals and results StrengthenedReduced, especially in emp-comp PSS Strengthened in low prestige PROs, esp. in PSS with strong evaluation systems & reputational monitoring Reduced

15 In summary: Governance changes in public science systems often combine characteristics of both substantive and procedural states, with varied consequences for intellectual innovation and coordination. Key mechanisms generating these consequences have been shifts in the influence of different groups and organisations governing research priorities and evaluating results. These shifts, and their outcomes, differ significantly between different kinds of PSS, with their greatest impact on state-shared ones. Their impact on intellectual variety and coordination in different sciences is mediated by the degree and rigidity of stratification of PROs and the diversity of funding agencies.