影響學術研究計畫補助通過率的體制因素：經費治理與領域的觀點

Institutional Factors Affecting the Approval Rate of Academic Research Projects: Perspective on the Governance of Funding and Disciplines

蔡林彤飛(Tung-Fei Tsai-Lin)；王遠樵(George Wang)

學術研究補助 ； 通過率 ； 補助機構 ； 體制觀點 ； Academic research funding ； approval rate ； funding agency ； institutional perspective

科技管理學刊

21卷4期（2016 / 12 / 01）

33 - 64

繁體中文

研究影響學術研究計畫通過率的因素，不只有助於了解國家學術研究資源分配，更重要的是如何透過通過率的設定，有效鼓勵研究者持續投入與提升研究品質。不同過去對於計畫與個人的因素探討，本研究從體制的觀點，提出經費治理因素與領域因素，蒐集包括美國、德國、奧地利與臺灣等國內外主要補助機構補助學術研究計畫情形，瞭解影響通過率的體制因素為何。研究結果顯示在經費治理因素方面，學術研究計畫通過率受到學術研究經費、補助機構的治理架構與補助機構的定位影響；在領域因素方面，受到領域發展規模、經費門檻與經費來源影響。本研究認為各國家在制定學術補助政策過程，在不同的學術研究經費治理架構與學術領域研究發展的體制下，應有差異化通過率政策，並建議研究補助機構若需要降低通過率加強學術研究競爭力，也應分散經費來源與擴大一般核心研究經費投資。

Studies on factors influencing the approval rate of academic research project would be beneficial to understand whether there is an optimal approval rate could stimulate academic research. This study summarized two institutional factors from the perspectives on the governance of funding and discipline. Through an international comparison of the US, Germany, Austria, and Taiwan, the results indicate that under the perspective on the governance of funding, the approval rate could be decided by the governance of academic research funding and the agencies as well as the position of funding agencies. Under the disciplinary perspective, the approval rate could be affected by the size of disciplinary fund, number of researchers, and sources of funding. This paper concludes that policymakers could differentiate funding arrangements depend on the various institutional setting. Policy implications are suggested.

1. 科技部(2014)，「科技部簡介」，科技部網站，取自：https://www.most.gov.tw/folksonomy/list?menu_id=79bf076f-e8c7-4133-97f7-bf9101d8b88a&l=ch
2. National Science Foundation (2014-2015), Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2011–13Detailed Statistical Tables, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation
3. 行政院國家科學委員會(2010-2013)，中華民國科學技術統計要覽，臺北市：行政院國家科學委員會。
4. National Science Foundation (2014-2015), Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2012–14 Detailed Statistical Tables, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation
5. OECD (2014) Gross Domestic Expenditure on R-D by Sector of Performance and Source of Funds, From: http://stats.oecd.org/.
6. National Science Foundation (2014), Higher Education Research and Development Survey, Fiscal Year 2013, From: http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/.
7. Aagaard, K.,Schneider, J. W.(2015).Research funding and national academic performance: Examination of a Danish success story.Science and Public Policy
8. Auranen, O.,Nieminen, M.(2010).University Research Funding and Publication Performance-An International Comparison.Research Policy,39(6),822-834.
9. Austrian Science Fund(2011).Annual Report 2010-2011.Vienna, Austria:Austrian Science Fund.
10. Bloch, C.,Sørensen, M. P.(2015).The Size of Research Funding: Trends and Implications.Science and Public Policy,42(1),30-43.
11. Bornmann, L.,Daniel, H.-D.(2005).Committee Peer Review at An International Research Foundation: Predictive Validity and Fairness of Selection Decisions on Post-Graduate Fellowship Applications.Research Evaluation,14(1),15-20.
12. Braun, D.(1993).Who Governs Intermediary Agencies? Principal-Agent Relations in Research Policy-Making.Journal of Public Policy,13(2),135-162.
13. Edler, J.,Kuhlmann, S.(2008).Coordination within Fragmentation: Governance in Knowledge Policy in The German Federal System.Science and Public Policy,35(4),265-276.
14. Fischer, C.,Reckling, F.(2011).Factors Influencing Approval Probability in FWF Decision-Making Procedures.Vienna, Austria:Fonds zur Forderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FWF).
15. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research(2014).Federal Report on Research and Innovation 2014.Berlin, Germany:German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
16. German Research Foundation(2012).DFG's Annual Report 2011-2013.Bonn, Germany:German Research Foundation.
17. Geuna, A.(2001).The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are There Negative Unintended Consequences?.Journal of Economic Issues,35(3),607-632.
18. Geuna, A.(1999).The Economics Of Knowledge Production: Funding and The Structure of University Research.Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar.
19. Geuna, A.,Martin, B. R.(2003).University Research Evaluation and Funding: An International Comparison.Minerva,41(4),277-304.
20. Grossbaum, J. J.(1970).Federal Support of Research Projects Through Contracts and Grants: A Rationale.American University Law Review,19,423-469.
21. Heinze, T.(2008).How to Sponsor Ground-Breaking Research: A Comparison of Funding Schemes.Science and Public Policy,35(5),302-318.
22. Kamenetzky, J. R.(2013).Opportunities For Impact: Statistical Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion.Science and Public Policy,40(1),72-84.
23. Larivière, V.,Macaluso, B.,Archambault, É.,Gingras, Y.(2010).Which Scientific Elites? On The Concentration of Research Funds, Publications and Citations.Research Evaluation,19(1),45-53.
24. Lepori, B.(2011).Coordination Modes in Public Funding Systems.Research Policy,40(3),355-367.
25. Lepori, B.,Masso, J.,Jabłecka, J.,Sima, K.,Ukrainski, K.(2009).Comparing the Organization of Public Research Funding in Central and Eastern European Countries.Science and Public Policy,36(9),667-681.
26. Lepori, B.,van den Besselaar, P.,Dinges, M.,van der Meulen, B.,Potì, B.,Reale, E.,Slipersaeter, S.,Theves, J.(2007).Indicators for Comparative Analysis of Public Project Funding: Concepts, Implementation and Evaluation.Research Evaluation,16(4),243-255.
27. Luukkonen, T.(2014).The European Research Council and the European Research Funding Landscape.Science and Public Policy,41(1),29-43.
28. Marsh, H. W.,Jayasinghe, U. W.,Bond, N. W.(2008).Improving The Peer-Review Process for Grant Applications: Reliability, Validity, Bias, And Generalizability.American Psychologist,63(3),160-168.
29. Mutz, R.,Bornmann, L.,Daniel, H.-D.(2013).Types of Research Output Profiles: A Multilevel Latent Class Analysis of The Austrian Science Fund's Final Project Report Data.Research Evaluation,22(2),118-133.
30. National Science Foundation(2010).FY 2009-2013 Performance and Financial Highlights.Arlington, VA:National Science Foundation.
31. Potì, B.,Reale, E.(2007).Changing Allocation Models for Public Research Funding: An Empirical Exploration Based on Project Funding Data.Science and Public Policy,34(6),417-430.
32. Radosevic, S.,Lepori, B.(2009).Public Research Funding Systems in Central and Eastern Europe: Between Excellence and Relevance: Introduction to Special Section.Science and Public Policy,36(9),659-666.
33. Raudla, R.,Karo, E.,Valdmaa, K.,Kattel, R.(2015).Implications of Project-Based Funding of Research on Budgeting and Financial Management in Public Universities.Higher Education,70(6),957-971.
34. Schibany, A.,Borowiecki, M.,Dachs, B.,Dinges, M.,Gassler, H.,Leitner, K.-H.,Rammer, C.,Streicher, G.,Weber, M.,Zahradnik, G.(2013).,Vienna, Austria:.
35. Slipersæter, S.,Lepori, B.,Dinges, M.(2007).Between Policy and Science: Research Councils' Responsiveness in Austria, Norway and Switzerland.Science and Public Policy,34(6),401-415.
36. van Leeuwen, T. N.,Moed, H. F.(2012).Funding Decisions, Peer Review, and Scientific Excellence in Physical Sciences, Chemistry, and Geosciences.Research Evaluation,21(3),189-198.
37. 行政院國家科學委員會(2010)。行政院國家科學委員會98年報。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
38. 行政院國家科學委員會(2013)。行政院國家科學委員會101年報。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
39. 行政院國家科學委員會(2014)。行政院國家科學委員會103年報。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
40. 行政院國家科學委員會(2012)。行政院國家科學委員會100年報。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
41. 行政院國家科學委員會(2014)。行政院國家科學委員會102年報。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
42. 行政院國家科學委員會(2011)。行政院國家科學委員會99年報。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
43. 科技部(2015)。科技部103 年報。臺北市:科技部。

1. 蕭義棋,趙義隆,葉峻賓(2021)。若即若離？探索TSSCI商管社群網絡結構及知識活動－編輯群重疊的策略觀點。管理與系統，28(2)，115-155。