Developing indicators and typologies of frontier-­potential researchers to explore impacts of the ERC’s Starting Independent Researcher Grant

This paper describes a proposed two-stage, controlled, survey-based, research funding impact assessment methodology, developing and testing indicators and typologies of publicly-funded individual researchers more or less likely to undertake research with the potential to become regarded as frontier (‘frontier-potential’ researchers). A baseline stage, online survey questionnaire measurement was addressed to 381 researchers: successful applicants (grantees) to the ‘first cohort’ (2007 call) of the European Research Council (ERC) Starting Independent Researcher Grant (StG) scheme and a designated control group (controls) of assumed similar calibre applicants passing the ERC’s apparent quality threshold (Stage 1 of its StG application process). 184 responses were received right across the ERC’s original StG research domain categories (life sciences, physical sciences and engineering, and social sciences and humanities). Grantees and controls were individually characterised using a novel 22-variable researcher-profiling scheme, based on existing studies, and addressing makers of their ‘demographic’ features (gender, age, and relationship/dependents status), their ‘approach’ to research activity (risk-taking and outlier traits), and researcher ‘standing’ factors (knowledge and organisational career features, and research workplace resource, reputation and prestige). Matched-pairs of grantees and controls were created, to facilitate the envisaged second-stage measurement of the exact same individuals and consequent impact assessment of qualitative changes between the before and after states of the grantees, as compared to those of the originally-matched controls. Four initial typologies were created – one for researcher ‘approach’ (addressing cognitive mobility and apparent research novelty/risk-taking) and three for different researcher ‘standing’ aspects (researcher stability/independence, output productivity, and host research workplace reputation/performance). These suggested the ERC, via its 2007 StG call, selected for ostensibly more ‘frontier-potential’ researcher types, albeit – to a lesser extent – all types were also present for the control researchers. The survey also indicated ERC ‘added value’ as a new entrant into the existing European research funding landscape. Its StG was perceived to have attractive features (funding size, duration, support for research group creation, and facilitating high-risk/novel research activity). For both grantees and controls their association with the StG had also apparently caused early positive and negative impacts (including ‘halo effect’ attraction of additional research funds, faster promotion or tenure, greater researcher independence and risk-taking; or lost research time/focus, greater administrative burdens, and tensions arising from sudden research resource/ direction independence, respectively).