What are the institutional mechanisms that enable or hinder the development of new forms of knowledge production? This issue has been slightly neglected in the discussion of the "triple helix". To redress this shortcoming, the authors suggest an institutionalist complement to the triple helix model. The article analyzes the institutional regulation of academic research, with a special emphasis on how norms in the academic system are constituted via research funding. It is argued that funding is a key mechanism of change in the norm system since its reward structure influences the performance and evaluation of research. The empirical analysis is based on the public financing of technical research in Sweden, with comparisons made with other countries. The structure of research funding has been reformed in all the countries studied. In addition to continuing recognition for scientific merit, the reforms have had the effect of emphasizing the commercial potential and the societal relevance of the research supported. The two dominant models of research funding, an intra-academic model and a top-down interventionist model, seem to be replaced partly with a catalytic one. However, there are counteracting tendencies. Some agencies still reproduce a model of reputational control and a collegial orientation among researchers. It is concluded, therefore, that the forces of change and continuity are engaged in a process of negotiation about the normative regulation of academic research.