Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda
In: Research Policy, Band 37, Heft 4, S. 740-760
12 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Research Policy, Band 37, Heft 4, S. 740-760
Although many studies have been conducted on the drivers of and barriers to research collaborations, current literature provides limited insights into the ways in which individual researchers choose to engage in different collaborative projects. Using a choice experiment, we studied the factors that drive this choice using a representative sample of 3145 researchers from Western Europe and North America who publish in English. We find that for most researchers, the expected publication of research in scientific journals deriving from a project is the most decisive factor driving their collaboration choices. Moreover, most respondents prefer to collaborate with other partners than industry. However, different factors' influence varies across groups of researchers. These groups are characterised as going for the 'puzzle' (60% of the sample), the 'ribbon' (33%) or the 'gold' (8%), i.e., primarily oriented toward intellectual goals, recognition or money, respectively. This heterogeneity shows that a combination of interventions will be required for governments aiming to promote university–industry collaborations.
BASE
© The Author(s) 2020. ; Although many studies have been conducted on the drivers of and barriers to research collaborations, current literature provides limited insights into the ways in which individual researchers choose to engage in different collaborative projects. Using a choice experiment, we studied the factors that drive this choice using a representative sample of 3145 researchers from Western Europe and North America who publish in English. We find that for most researchers, the expected publication of research in scientific journals deriving from a project is the most decisive factor driving their collaboration choices. Moreover, most respondents prefer to collaborate with other partners than industry. However, different factors' influence varies across groups of researchers. These groups are characterised as going for the 'puzzle' (60% of the sample), the 'ribbon' (33%) or the 'gold' (8%), i.e., primarily oriented toward intellectual goals, recognition or money, respectively. This heterogeneity shows that a combination of interventions will be required for governments aiming to promote university–industry collaborations. ; This research was sponsored by a Veni grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (451-12-029) (NWO).
BASE
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Band 45, Heft 2, S. 232-245
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Band 45, Heft 2, S. 211-220
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: Research Policy, Band 40, Heft 3, S. 463-472
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Band 36, Heft 5, S. 387-401
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Band 38, Heft 7, S. 555-568
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: Research Policy, Band 37, Heft 8, S. 1255-1266
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Band 48, Heft 2, S. 265-275
ISSN: 1471-5430
AbstractIn spite of the growing literature about excellence funding in science, we know relatively little about its implications for academic research practices. This article compares organizational and epistemic effects of excellence funding across four disciplinary fields, based on in-depth case studies of four research groups in combination with twelve reference groups. In spite of the highly selective nature of excellence funding, all groups employ dedicated strategies to maximize their chances of acquiring it, which we call strategic anticipation. The groups with ample excellence funding acquire a relatively autonomous position within their organization. While the epistemic characteristics of the four fields shape how excellence funding can be used, we find that in all fields there is an increase in epistemic autonomy. However, in fields with more individual research practices a longer time horizon for grants, beyond the usual 5 years, would fit better with the research process.
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Band 40, Heft 2
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Band 51, Heft 4, S. 618-642
ISSN: 1471-5430
Abstract
Distinguishing between research collaboration, consultancy, dissemination, and commercialization of research results, this paper analyses the determinants of researchers' societal engagement. The analytical framework integrates societal engagement as part of the credibility cycle. Several variables extend previous findings on determinants and mechanisms—herein scientific recognition and funding sources. A novel method to investigate the relationship between scientific recognition and societal engagement is explored. Drawing on a large-scale survey of European-based researchers in physics, cardiology, and economics, we find that several factors are associated with different modes of societal engagement in complex and intersecting ways. Scientific recognition is positively associated with research collaboration and dissemination, while organizational seniority is associated with all modes except for research collaboration with non-scientific actors. Female gender is positively associated with dissemination and external funding sources are positively associated will all. The findings intersect with differences in the three research fields.