Jointly published by Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest Scientometrics, Vol. 79, No. 2 (2009) 341–349 and Springer, Dordrecht DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0422-2 Received December 5, 2007 Address for correspondence: ULF SANDSTRÖM E-mail: ulfsa@isak.liu.se 0138–9130/US $ 20.00 Copyright © 2008 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest All rights reserved Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research ULF SANDSTRÖM Linköping University, Dept. ISAK, SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden We analyze the relation between funding and output using bibliometric methods with field normalized data. Our approach is to connect individual researcher data on funding from Swedish university databases to data on incoming grants using the specific personal ID-number. Data on funding include the person responsible for the grant. All types of research income are considered in the analysis yielding a project database with a high level of precision. Results show that productivity can be explained by background variables, but that quality of research is more or less un-related to background variables. Introduction Reviewing the literature on careers and innovation DIETZ & BOZEMAN [2005] remark that there are two almost separated literatures on these issues – the management of innovation studies on the one hand and the study of productivity by economists and sociologist on the other hand. There are by tradition a number of studies that focus on a single sector, either the industrial track or the academic. Many studies with an academic focus have a tendency to favor measures of institutional and personal prestige (the Mertonian tradition), the industrial track favors management aspects and innovative capabilities (the innovation tradition). Some more integrative approaches like that of STEPHAN & LEVIN [1992] have asked for a change in the discussion, but with few exceptions [DIETZ & AL., 2000] theoretical and empirical discussions on this subject are woefully compartmentalized. Already the literature on faculty research productivity is voluminous. We refer to articles by FOX [1983, 1992], TOUTKOUSHIAN & AL. [2003] and LEE & BOZEMAN [2005] for overviews of the main research issues. Whatever type of research the focus on productivity counted as number of articles or number of citations has created methodological problems. Even if these studies are based on summative indices