Understanding the Swiss-Norwegian Study on Targeted Funding

The latest research from the Research on Research Institute (RoRI) has sparked important discussions among European academics and funders. Published as Working Paper No. 18 in February 2026, the study titled "Targeted funding and changing research landscapes" examines whether targeted research calls—those with specific thematic priorities like climate adaptation or health crises—truly redirect scientists' work. By analyzing grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and the Research Council of Norway (RCN), researchers found that these calls do not lead to significant long-term shifts in scientists' publication portfolios.

This finding challenges the assumption that tying funds to societal challenges can steer research agendas more effectively than traditional investigator-initiated, or bottom-up, grants. In Switzerland and Norway, where public funding plays a pivotal role in university research, the results highlight how scientists maintain their core interests despite grant themes.

Background: Targeted vs. Bottom-Up Funding in Europe

European research funding has long balanced curiosity-driven discovery with mission-oriented priorities. The European Research Council (ERC), for instance, champions bottom-up approaches, awarding grants based on scientific excellence without predefined topics. In contrast, Horizon Europe introduces missions—large-scale initiatives targeting issues like cancer or ocean health—with €945 million allocated across five clusters.

National funders like SNSF and RCN mix both models. SNSF's project funding totals around CHF 500 million annually, with targeted calls comprising about 20-30% for areas like digital transformation. RCN similarly directs portions toward grand challenges. The debate intensifies as policymakers push for greater societal impact amid budget pressures, questioning if targeted calls crowd out basic research.

Universities in Europe, from ETH Zurich to the University of Oslo, rely on these funds for faculty projects and PhD training. A shift toward targeted grants could influence hiring and career paths in higher education.

Methodology: Tracking Publication Portfolios Over Time

RoRI researchers, led by experts like Ismael Rafols from the University of Sussex, used a novel approach. They linked grant data from SNSF and RCN to over 100,000 publications in Dimensions database, focusing on principal investigators (PIs).

Employing topic modeling—advanced natural language processing—they mapped PIs' research topics five years before, during, and after grants. This revealed overall portfolio evolution, not just grant-acknowledging papers. Targeted grants were those with explicit themes (e.g., SNSF's 'Big Data' or RCN's 'Climate Futures'), compared to open calls.

The analysis spanned 2010-2023, covering hundreds of PIs. Step-by-step: 1) Identify grants and PIs; 2) Extract abstracts; 3) Model topics (e.g., LDA algorithm); 4) Measure shifts via topic diversity and velocity metrics.

Key Findings: No Abrupt Shifts in Research Direction

The core result: Targeted funding does not produce larger or faster changes in PIs' publication topics than non-targeted grants. Shifts are gradual across both, averaging 10-15% topic diversification over five years.

Grant-acknowledging publications align more with call themes (e.g., 25% higher topic match), but PIs' broader output remains stable. In Norway, RCN PIs showed 8% mean shift; SNSF similar at 9%. No evidence of 'lock-in' or abandonment of prior lines.

• Topic velocity (rate of change): Comparable (0.02-0.03 units/year).
• Diversity increase: +12% post-grant, funding-type agnostic.
• Societal challenge calls: Slightly higher short-term alignment, but fades after 3 years.

SNSF Grants in Swiss Higher Education Context

Switzerland's SNSF, funding 80% of basic research at universities like EPFL and University of Zurich, uses targeted calls sparingly. Examples include 'Personalised Health' (CHF 100M+) and 'Blue Growth'. The study suggests these boost immediate outputs but don't pivot careers.

Swiss academics publish ~2x more post-SNSF grants, but topics evolve slowly due to tenure pressures favoring established expertise. For research jobs seekers, this stability aids planning long-term agendas.

Photo by Yuriy Vertikov on Unsplash

RCN's Role in Norwegian Universities

Norway's RCN allocates NOK 12B yearly, with targeted programs like FRIMEDBIO (independent projects) vs. thematic FME centers. University of Bergen and NTNU PIs showed resilient focus areas, e.g., marine biology persisting despite energy transition calls.

This implies targeted funds excel in collaboration but not redirection. Norwegian higher ed benefits from balanced portfolios, supporting postdoc opportunities.

Broader Implications for European Research Policy

Amid Horizon Europe's €95.5B budget, with 4.5% missions, the study questions steering efficacy. ERC's bottom-up model yields high-impact papers (2.5x citations), per past evaluations. Missions risk 'siloing' without broader shifts.

Stakeholders like EUA urge preserving bottom-up in MSCA. Links to Europe university jobs highlight funding's career role.

Expert Perspectives and Stakeholder Views

Ismael Rafols notes: "Targeted funding's effects vary by design; publications miss societal impacts." Policymakers defend missions for urgency, while academics fear reduced freedom.

University leaders in Oslo and Zurich emphasize hybrid models. Surveys show 60% PIs prefer bottom-up for breakthroughs.

Challenges and Limitations of the Analysis

Topic modeling misses nuances; non-pub outputs (patents, policy) untracked. Short grant durations (3-4 years) limit visibility. Sample biases toward successful PIs.

• Potential underestimation: Targeted calls foster networks, not topics.
• Regional context: Nordic/Swiss stability vs. volatile fields.

Future Outlook: Refining Funding Instruments

Recommendations: Tailor calls (e.g., flexible themes), evaluate holistically, blend with bottom-up. EU could pilot 'adaptive missions'. For 2030, expect more data-driven reforms.

Researchers: Diversify applications; funders: Monitor portfolios. Explore academic CV tips.

Photo by set.sj on Unsplash

Actionable Insights for European Researchers and Universities

• Apply targeted for resources, stick to strengths.
• Universities: Support hybrid strategies via faculty positions.
• Policymakers: Use RoRI metrics for evaluations.

Check Rate My Professor for insights; browse higher ed jobs.

Conclusion: Balancing Direction and Discovery

This Swiss-Norwegian study underscores scientists' resilience, favoring nuanced funding mixes. As Europe tackles grand challenges, preserving curiosity-driven paths ensures innovation. Stay informed via AcademicJobs.com for research jobs, higher ed careers, and advice.