Money, money, money… in the world of academia: On the relation of financial means, academic structures and knowledge production

The issue of funding and financial support has become fundamental to participation in the academic field (Gläser & Velarde, 2018; Polster, 2007). The role of financial resources in academic work goes beyond simply paying scientists, financial resources in the form of funding are an essential component of knowledge production in scientific work. Where financial investments are made, research can be carried out. This refers not only to institutions but also to research fields in terms of content, depending on the type of funding source (Kundu & Matthews, 2019). The influence of different funders in research has been repeatedly discussed (Bonnell, 2021; Kreiß, 2015; Lundh et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2017). State or private funding may have different influences on scientific work practices and also on academic freedom. Among other things, objectivity of financial resources from industry is questioned, as such commissioned research is more often targeted and result-oriented.

The relevance of financial resources becomes clear at the latest when one wants to gain a foothold in academia. In order to become part of it, there are certain rules and rituals that go along with it. These include, for example, attending (inter)national conferences, obtaining literature and necessary materials, and other associated costs. These are only examples of additional costs besides the actual scientific work. Money also plays a central role in the actual scientific work process, as extensive scientific research requires corresponding financial resources. The influence of financial means on knowledge production is manifold—even an informal exchange over coffee with professors or colleagues can contribute to new input and new ideas. The implementation of ideas and work then ultimately requires financial support. Nowadays, the funding history of young talents is more and more taken into account when it comes to pursuing a career in academia. The importance of funding is also reflected in the fact that funding early in a scientific career increases the likelihood of further funding, thus providing an advantage for young researchers (Bol et al., 2018). The so-called “Matthew effect” describes the fact that early success increases the probability of future success (Merton, 1968). On the other hand, individuals who have already experienced rejections appear to be less likely to submit further applications and funding requests than researchers who are successful in this regard. Therefore, funding in the sense of applying for (and receiving) grants can also be seen as an investment that precedes establishment as a scientist. Thus, those who claim funding and bring financial resources to the university have a voice and influence (Polster, 2007). It is an opportunity to showcase oneself as well as other important qualities for working in academia, such as organizational and economic skills that are also required. Essential questions that arise in this context, however, are who will and should actually have these opportunities and freedom for knowledge production—new innovative minds or already established scientists? And what does this mean for science and for the introduction of new approaches and ideas? To what extent can different approaches contribute to innovation and knowledge production?

Universities should make it their mission not only to pass on knowledge that has already been secured, but above all to create opportunities to give (young) persons the space and freedom they need for creative thinking and innovation. It is also a question of how much trust young scientists are given to participate and act within the academic structure. Regarding grant approval, it often tends to support the same “type” of scientist—scientists who are already established and at least well-known in their community (Ebadi & Schiffauerova, 2015). This is associated with typical characteristics such as a certain age and hierarchical power within an academic institution, in most cases a professorship. For those who have power gain trust and credibility and thus funding. Hüther and Krücken (2012) explain these existing power relations, especially the decision-making power of professors, using the example of German university culture. Also, Hawkins et al. (2014) elaborate the existing hierarchical structures and the power dynamics working top-down. This leads to the further promotion of established scientists who already have opportunities to implement their ideas and scientific practices, while this fact makes it more difficult for young scientists to do so.

In the wake of power relations regarding publications, the issue of authorship is relevant to the debate. Multiple authors in a publication raise the question of each person’s contribution to the content, who contributed to the work and to what extent. It is often younger scientists who are affected, as it is difficult to trace who came up with the idea in the first place, and the credit often goes to the more established scientists within a research group. Also, younger scientific collaborators and researchers, who contribute to a scientific project, are not always acknowledged and mentioned by name. Another aspect relates to the criticism of the peer review system as the fundamental decision-making basis for funding and publishing scientific work (Neidhardt, 2020). Under the peer review system, there are not only objective criteria for what constitutes good science, it also depends on the subjective view of the research area and methodological approach, that is, the person(s) reviewing. This process can lead to possible preferences or rejections.

Often, there is still some room for maneuver within a project and a particular topic when it comes to the methodological design and implementation of ideas within funded projects. Even when there is some form of flexibility for ideas, it is again under the influence of those in power. Whoever has the decision-making power decides whether ideas are accepted or not (promotion vs. inhibition of knowledge, see von Fircks, 2023). There are two important aspects to consider: First, the social power imbalance between a professor and a student. The professor has significantly more power due to the hierarchical structures. This power includes the trust of the university and funders, which leaves the professor with decision-making power, including in most cases deciding who gets a position on a project. This can limit the scope of young scientists and places them in an enormous dependency on the institutions, but above all on the people in charge. In this context, power has the ability to determine something as a given truth, such as knowledge, rather than seeing it as a human construction that is questionable (and should be questioned) or can be changed (Gjerde, 2004). This can have a profound influence on knowledge production and innovation in science. Funding can go wrong if only established people and established knowledge are promoted. These structural processes can lead to maximum conformity and do not promote innovation regarding knowledge production. In this regard, it is important to consider socio-cultural aspects in the context of academic work as well. Clegg (2022) postulates that it is not only about the content aspect and subject area, but also the associated choice of academic community. “The choice of a community to which we will contribute is not only about ideas or practices; it is also […] a delicate human system, a network of relationships, all of which require a great deal of trust” (Clegg, 2022, p. 94). One should not underestimate that role and influence that these aspects can have regarding scientific work and work practices. These circumstances also entail certain dangers, they may promote conformity and make it difficult to allow different views and standpoints within a community, which are crucial for knowledge production and freedom of thinking in academia. In that context Williams (2016) discusses the role of academia in challenging conformity and censorship.

Another question related to financial support regarding research is what it means to be rich or poor in this context. Depending on the perspective, there are seemingly two different approaches. The first approach is that one must rely on financial resources to participate in academia. If the clearly defined goal is an academic career, participation in science with all the rules and necessities explained so far seems inevitable. This also means that one has to rely on funding and grants and possibly has to adapt or even subordinate their own ideas and concepts to these circumstances. Another approach is to decide against financial support and participation in the academic field in its usual structures. However, this not only means financial losses, but also potentially far-reaching consequences. A long-term academic career seems unfeasible without financial support. The lack of appropriate financial resources can also have an impact on the implementation possibilities of the planned work and thus represent a limitation. The question scientists must ask themselves is what price they are willing to pay. This reveals a certain financial dependency, not only on an existential but also on an intellectual level. If one wants to participate in the academic community, one has to adapt to the given structures to a certain degree. However, this can also mean to make certain compromises, for example with regard to the topic to be researched or the possible implementation of a desired project. However, such a compromise must in no way mean giving up one’s own values and morals. After all, these should be part of the daily work practice and must be protected and secured as an important compass within scientific work and work ethic in academia.

Looking at those who receive funding, the question arises as to how funding promotes or hinders freedom of thinking and knowledge production, especially among young scientists. When we talk about freedom of thinking in science, we must first deal with the notion of academic freedom. Berggren and Bjørnskov (2022) describe academic freedom as “the actual freedom of faculty and students to teach, study and pursue knowledge and research without unreasonable interference or restriction from the law, university regulations or public pressure” (p. 1315). Academic freedom is an important buzzword when it comes to the ability to produce knowledge in the context of scholarly work. It allows a free flow of ideas, ideally without interference from political or other institutional authorities. When it comes to the free production of knowledge, the freedom of academic researchers must always be seen in the context of institutional freedom and the conditions of the university (Niemczyk & Rónay, 2023). This is important to consider because institutional freedom is also subject to certain limits. After all, universities live on financial support to fund their research and work in general.

Scientific work seems to be a complex process on many different levels, as it involves much more than just a theory-based approach and methodological understanding (Clegg, 2022). The influence of the scientific community in which one operates, one’s work colleagues and funders, and also relationships and possible dependencies play an important role in one’s actions and decisions. When it comes to academic freedom in scientific work, this seems to be more present at the beginning of one’s scientific career. If we look at the career of a young scientist, the first career step is usually a course of study. In this phase, the researcher usually makes first important experiences with the scientific field and possible developments of interests and ideas. Initially, this phase is less about obtaining funding and more about gaining access to the scientific community and positioning oneself in that field. At this stage, the degrees of freedom seem high and the focus is not so much on funders or peer review systems, but on knowledge production and the innovative approach to scientific work. This results in a first contact with interesting research areas and corresponding questions that one would like to explore. Therein lies an enormous potential and opportunity to use this access for new scientists. This view, not yet formed, can open up a perspective that already established scientists could incorporate into their routines and perhaps have not yet considered. Ideally, both sides, young scientists in the early career phase and already established and experienced scientists, can benefit from each other and thus enrich each other’s work process. Therefore, in this highly competitive field of work, it should be less about an either-or and more about a both-and.

As one’s career progresses, factors such as sponsors or thematic priorities of the university or those in charge come into play, which can affect freedom of thinking and increase pressure. A researcher’s excellence is often measured by operational factors such as funding or publications (MacGregor et al., 2006). McGinn (2012) also explains the resulting pressure on researchers as different research areas are treated differently in terms of their value and importance. In addition, peer-reviewed publications in leading journals are now expected by default. Similarly, certain grants and fellowships are seen as awards for outstanding work and thus as a certain form of currency.

In terms of academic freedom, Rea (2021) identifies three main aspects that play a role: unreliable funding, pressure in partnerships, and insecure employment. Many academics nowadays work from contract to contract and therefore no longer have a permanent job. This can also affect how they work and speak about sensitive issues and unpopular opinions, as speaking out can lead to risking future jobs or contracts. It is argued that this problem is due to government underfunding. In addition to government funding, other funders (private or commercial partnerships) are increasingly being used, which can lead to precarious freedom in academia, as already elaborated.

Suppression and restriction of free speech in the academic landscape comes not only from potential funders, but also from other actors in the field within the academic structure (Stevens et al., 2020). This is usually the case when academics make unpopular or critical statements. It becomes particularly critical when these positions and criticisms relate to political or religious issues. Censorship is also used to restrict freedom of opinion and thought on taboo subjects. As such examples can be observed throughout the history of science, the fear of social and professional consequences is in many cases sufficient for budding scientists not to express themselves critically or put their thoughts and findings on paper. One of the most famous cases of scientific suppression is the one of Galileo Galilei in the 17th century, who was forced by the Roman Catholic Church to disavow his discovery that the earth revolves around the sun—he was therefore silenced (Morvillo, 2010). However, it often does not have to go that far. Furthermore, a distinction must be made between suppression and rejection. One speaks of suppression when, for example, possible ideas are not even elaborated or published for fear of impending consequences. Suppression measures thus anticipate the production of new ideas in science and prevent them from being expressed. Rejection, on the other hand, is also part of knowledge production in science and is used when scientific evidence is lacking or contradicts it, refuting new theories and ideas. There are different forms to deal with possible suppression in the scientific community. It can lead to “self-censorship” which means intentionally withholding information without the visibility of formal obstacles (Sharvit et al., 2018). External framework conditions and the resulting consequences do not directly censor scientists, but rather cause them to self-censor due to the threat of consequences, as it is discussed by Väliverronen and Saikkonen (2021) as well as Aktas et al. (2019).

In connection with existing funding structures and the accompanying inhibition of free thinking of (young) scientists, the question arises to what extent the current hierarchical academic structures need to be changed. The common top-down approach promotes the existence of already established approaches, as the same decision-makers are usually in charge. While young people have an advantage in terms of physical abilities and are maybe more likely to be promoted in other areas, this seems to be the other way around in academia. For here the older, more experienced are clearly at an advantage. But one could also ask whether there is also longevity in terms of intelligence. Isn’t there a certain stage of life or age that is characterized by maximum cognitive performance and innovation, regardless of where one stands in the hierarchy? In that matter, longevity of intelligence in academia has been examined by Christensen et al. (1997). Results of this cross-sectional analysis show differences between the scores in stem completion and figure reproduction of older academics and younger PhD students, with the mean scores of PhD students being higher. But not only to focus on intelligence, in addition to cognitive abilities, changes of other aspects are also to be considered. As Stroebe (2010) discusses, some of those aspects may be changes in motivation and time resources, since establishing oneself as a well-known scientist often involves other activities in addition to publishing. Young scientists are mostly full of energy and drive, often have a different perspective and new ideas and are not so entrenched in the established system and certain routines. This can contribute to innovation and thus new approaches, if young scientists are encouraged and trusted. A prime example regarding the innovation and great mind of young scientists would be Einstein (1905), who stated his theory of relativity, a paper titled “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koärper” (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies), at the age of (only) 26 years.

The elaborated matter would suggest a different approach, one that is more bottom-up rather than top-down. But even this approach is subject to certain limitations in its freedom and promotion of young scholars. New scientists can never be truly free in their thinking or in putting their thinking into practice. Somehow, there is always a supervisor involved who ultimately bears the responsibility and decision-making power. If they are encouraging and supportive, they can foster innovation and perhaps new approaches to knowledge production, and if they are not open to that, they can inhibit it (von Fircks, 2023). Perhaps we should abandon this bipolar view of either-or and instead strive for a complementary view. After all, established scientists and young scientists can learn and benefit from each other. Together, they can symbiotically combine and leverage their advantages in their work. While young scientists can bring in new approaches and different perspectives, established scientists can use and promote the input of the new generation through long-standing expertise and specialized knowledge.

In this context, however, it is crucial that this is also acknowledged and mentioned, that young scientists get their place and appropriate recognition for their contribution and ideas. Although competition is very high and the mentality tends to be against each other, the opportunities for collaboration and complementing each other with colleagues should be enhanced more. Individuals have a different way of thinking and looking at things. Therefore, exchanges in an academic context are fundamental to inspire each other and reflect on one’s own thinking and actions. It is difficult to change this system when at the bottom of the institutional structure because of dependency and vulnerability. But one can lead by example and act differently if one holds a position of power later on.

Culture is something we all participate in, even by just observing it, and therefore we take a certain perspective or position (Gjerde, 2004). This also applies to academic culture, as discussing these issues and sharing thoughts with colleagues can start a change by opening a space to talk about things. Culture can be (re)created through dialogues, it changes as it is passed on, and new ways of sharing knowledge also change cultural practices (Gjerde, 2004). In order to have the space for new ideas and critical thinking and to be able to implement them, one needs a suitable environment in which this is possible. In this context, one can speak of the university or academic structure as a social reputation system (Stevens et al., 2020). This becomes clear when one considers the individual steps of scientific activity, from letters of recommendation and peer review processes to relationships in the respective research field or generally across universities, all these aspects are important factors for a successful career in academia. This is also reflected in the research findings of Ebadi and Schiffauerova (2015), where scientific networking and collaboration among scientists is shown to be a significant factor in increasing the likelihood of receiving research funding. The connection between the many social evaluations in daily work practice and the concern about the consequences for one’s own reputation and career in the case of critical thinking and researching also becomes clear.

Looking at all the aspects addressed in this discourse, the following can be summarized. Money is relevant to academic and general scientific work on several levels. Financial resources are needed to be able to participate in the academic field at all. This applies, for example, to the costs of necessary documents and network gatherings in the form of congresses. Furthermore, informal exchanges with colleagues are often important for new suggestions and possible ideas and their implementation. Funding plays a central role in the professional pursuit of being a scientist and working in academia. Only those who are (well) paid can pursue their work and carry it out in the long run. This also applies to institutions such as universities. Academic research work can only be guaranteed through funding and financial resources. Decision-makers can exert great influence on research, which can put scientists under pressure. Therefore, it can be challenging to manage the balancing act between fulfilling conditions and thus a higher probability of follow-up funding on the one hand, and asserting one’s own (possibly diverging) interests or research results on the other hand. With financial resources comes power, but also responsibility. It is therefore up to the decision-makers to use their power in a targeted and responsible manner, for example by supporting and promoting young scientists. Especially persons with decision-making power should stand up for academic freedom.

Lastly, it is to mention that this article does not claim to illuminate the discussed topic in its entirety and to provide final answers to the questions raised, as some aspects still need to be discussed. However, it is intended to take a critical look at the existing structures and circumstances in order to become aware of them and to constantly question given truths, in the sense of scientific ethics and freedom of thinking.