Search results

1 – 10 of over 174000
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Masayuki Kondo

The purpose of this paper is to clarify how university‐industry (U‐I) collaboration differs by technology fields in Japan.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to clarify how university‐industry (U‐I) collaboration differs by technology fields in Japan.

Design/methodology/approach

An analysis of the research resource allocation in the Japanese national universities in the Japanese national innovation system is followed by the analysis of U‐I collaboration by technology fields. The fields analyzed are life science, information and communication technology (ICT), environment science, nanotechnology and material science, which have been designated as strategically important fields by the Second Japanese Science and Technology Basic Plan. The analysis was conducted in a quantitative way using government data of R&D expenditure, researchers, patent application, joint research, contract research and university spin‐offs.

Findings

Some characteristics of U‐I collaboration have been quantitatively found by technology fields. Though the national universities occupy large R&D expenditure shares in life science and nanotechnology/material science in the Japanese national innovation system, their joint research and contract research are fairly active in environment science as well as in life science and in nanotechnology/material science. For university spin‐offs, the national universities are active in life science and ICT.

Originality/value

This paper quantitatively clarifies U‐I collaboration by technology fields showing relative importance of U‐I collaboration by technology fields. The results provide information input to policy makers when they formulate policies to promote U‐I collaboration by technology fields and to corporate managers when they make U‐I collaboration strategies by technology fields as a part of open innovation strategies.

Details

Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China, vol. 3 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1756-1418

Keywords

Content available
Article

Björn Hammarfelt

The publication oeuvre of a researcher carries great value when academic careers are assessed, and being recognised as a successful candidate is usually equated with being…

Abstract

Purpose

The publication oeuvre of a researcher carries great value when academic careers are assessed, and being recognised as a successful candidate is usually equated with being a productive author. Yet, how publications are valued in the context of evaluating careers is so far an understudied topic. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

Through a content analysis of assessment reports in three disciplines – biomedicine, economics and history – this paper analyses how externalities are used to evaluate publication oeuvres. Externalities are defined as features such as reviews and bibliometric indicators, which can be assessed without evaluating the epistemological claims made in the actual text.

Findings

All three fields emphasise similar aspects when assessing: authorship, publication prestige, temporality of research, reputation within the field and boundary keeping. Yet, how these facets of quality are evaluated, and the means through which they are assessed differs between disciplines. Moreover, research fields orient themselves according to different temporal horizons, i.e. history looks to the past and economics to the future when research is evaluated.

Research limitations/implications

The complexities involved in the process of evaluating candidates are also reflected in the findings, and while the comparative approach taken effectively highlights domain specific differences it may also hide counter-narratives, and subtle intradisciplinary discussion on quality.

Originality/value

This study offers a novel perspective on how publications are valued when assessing academic careers. Especially striking is how research across different fields is evaluated through different time horizons. This finding is significant in the debate on more overarching and formal systems of research evaluation.

Details

Aslib Journal of Information Management, vol. 69 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2050-3806

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

P. Ingwersen, B. Larsen and E. Noyons

The paper investigates the advantages of graphical mapping of national research publication and citation profiles from scientific fields in order to provide additional…

Abstract

The paper investigates the advantages of graphical mapping of national research publication and citation profiles from scientific fields in order to provide additional information with respect to research performance. By means of multi‐dimensional scaling techniques national social science profiles from seventeen OECD countries and two periods, 1989‐1993 and 1994‐1998, are mapped, each profile represented by a vector of either publication volumes or citation values for nine social science fields. Aside from demonstrating the developments of publication volumes and citedness ranges as well as patterns, the graphical maps display clusters and similarities of national profiles over time. Combined with international rankings of averaged national impact factors (NIF) relative to the average world impact of field (WIF) for the same number of fields and periods, the graphical display supplies additional otherwise concealed information of the differences in research patterns between countries – even when the NIFs are quite similar. The analyses show that low Pearson correlation coefficients can be applied to flag extraordinary instances of either high or low national citation impacts during a period. Most importantly, the graphical maps make a strong case for adjusting or tuning the baseline impact to the actual national publication profiles when comparing NIFs of different countries. A new indicator, the Tuned Citation Impact Index (TCII) is proposed. It is constructed from the amount of expected citations a country ought to have received in each research field aggregated over its true profile. Common baseline profiles, like those of the world or EU, are consequently not regarded as the ideal benchmark. In the case illustrated by the journal publications of the social sciences the paper verifies the hypothesis that a dominant central cluster exists consisting of the large Anglo‐American countries: USA, Canada and the UK. A further hypothesis, that the smaller northern EU countries with English as the second language are located together and close to the central cluster on the publication maps is only partly satisfied in the second period. A third hypothesis, that countries located near the central cluster on the citation maps may hold high(er) NIFs is falsified.

Details

Journal of Documentation, vol. 57 no. 6
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0022-0418

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here

Abstract

Details

Advances in Librarianship
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-0-12024-618-2

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Jane Cho

This study attempts to prove the extent of the gaps in the academic ecosystem by using the Gini coefficient.

Abstract

Purpose

This study attempts to prove the extent of the gaps in the academic ecosystem by using the Gini coefficient.

Design/methodology/approach

This study measures the gap between research document volume and citation by country and academic field using the latest ten years of research data of the Web of Science.

Findings

As a result, there is a large volume of documents in the USA and China, and the gap between global countries is g = 0.88 with high inequality. The fields of arts and humanities and social sciences are led by British and American cultures, and the gap between countries (g = 0.91, 0.89) is larger than in other fields. In the meantime, there is also inequality (g = 0.40) about the volumes of research documents between six academic fields, and the gap between the average numbers of citations per publication is the highest in social science (g = 0.80) and the lowest in life science (g = 0.71).

Originality/value

This study proves the extent of the gaps in the academic ecosystem by using the Gini coefficient with large amount research data.

Details

Performance Measurement and Metrics, vol. 22 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1467-8047

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Roslyn Cameron and Jose F. Molina‐Azorin

The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence of mixed methods research across several business and management fields and to gauge the level of acceptance of…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence of mixed methods research across several business and management fields and to gauge the level of acceptance of mixed methods within these fields.

Design/methodology/approach

The methodology employed for this study involved synthesizing the findings from six large‐scale methodological scans of business and management discipline journals in seven fields: marketing, international business, strategic management, organizational behaviour, operations management, entrepreneurship and human resource management.

Findings

The study finds that quantitative studies dominate all seven fields (76 per cent of empirical articles) followed by mixed methods (14 per cent of empirical articles) and qualitative studies (10 per cent of empirical articles). In applying the framework for acceptance levels, it would seem there exists minimal acceptance of mixed methods across these fields.

Research limitations/implications

The study has limitations related to the coverage of different disciplines and differences in sample sets. More extensive research is planned for the future and will involve an expanded mixed method prevalence rate study across additional business and management fields.

Practical implications

The growing use of mixed methods has practical implications for research training and capacity building within business schools. The study points to the need to develop research capacity through the introduction of postgraduate courses in mixed methods and advanced research skills training for existing researchers.

Originality/value

Mixed methods is a relatively new and emerging methodological movement. This paper attempts to gauge the use and level of acceptance of mixed methods across a diverse range of business and management discipline areas.

Details

International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. 19 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1934-8835

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Jane Cho

Alternative metrics (altmetrics) are non-traditional metrics to measure the social impact of research results, which were unable to be assessed by the previous methods, by…

Abstract

Purpose

Alternative metrics (altmetrics) are non-traditional metrics to measure the social impact of research results, which were unable to be assessed by the previous methods, by calculating how research results are reflected in various social media. The purpose of this paper is to measure and compare the impact of Korean study results in four fields that were published in international journals using altmetrics.

Design/methodology/approach

This study analysed the impact of 383 Korean research articles published by international journals in the field of medical science, engineering, social science and arts and humanities through altmetrics and compared it with bibliometrics.

Findings

As a result, the frequency of research articles which are “discussed” through social media such as Twitter was shown to be highest in the medical science than in other fields. In addition, the frequency of research articles which were “saved” through reference management tool such as Mendeley was shown to be higher in the social science and the arts and humanities than in other fields. Furthermore, as a result of a correlation analysis between altmetrics and bibliometrics, it is found that there exists a positive correlation between the number of articles which were “saved” in Mendeley and “cited” in follow-up studies.

Originality/value

This study examined the impact of the articles originating in non-English-speaking nations; it could be referred by other non-English-speaking nations that are trying to identify invisible impact of their research output on global society. By finding the academic field which are receiving special attention from global community using altmetrics, researchers could prospect country’s overall research impact and utilize it to make a future R&D plan.

Details

Performance Measurement and Metrics, vol. 18 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1467-8047

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Björn Hammarfelt

The aim of this article is to study a locally‐oriented and book‐based research field using two Swedish language sources. Knowledge about citation patterns outside…

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this article is to study a locally‐oriented and book‐based research field using two Swedish language sources. Knowledge about citation patterns outside journal‐based, English language databases is scarce; thus a substantial part of research in the humanities and the social sciences is neglected in bibliometric studies.

Design/methodology/approach

Citation characteristics (publication type, language, gender and age) in the journal Tidskrift för Litteraturvetenskap (2000‐2009) and in grant applications (2006‐2009) are studied. The datasets are analyzed further, adopting an author‐co‐citation approach for depicting and comparing the “intellectual base” of the field.

Findings

It is shown that monographs and anthologies are the main publication channel in Swedish literary research. English, followed by Swedish, is the major language, and the gender of authors seems to influence citation practices. Furthermore, a common intellectual base of literary studies that is independent of publication type and language could be identified.

Practical implications

Bibliometric analysis of fields within the humanities needs to go beyond established databases and materials. The extensive use of recent English language monographs in Swedish literary studies informs the acquisition policy of university libraries serving literature scholars.

Originality/value

Citation analysis of non‐English sources offers further knowledge about scholarly fields with a local and “rural” profile. The approach of using references in grant applications provides a novel and promising venue for bibliometric research.

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Jan Nolin and Fredrik Åström

LIS has been described as a fragmented field in crisis, with an increased competition from other fields; and lacking in development of theories. The purpose of this paper…

Abstract

Purpose

LIS has been described as a fragmented field in crisis, with an increased competition from other fields; and lacking in development of theories. The purpose of this paper is to articulate a strategy in which the perceived weakness can be seen as a source of strength.

Design/methodology/approach

The text builds mostly on reflections on meta‐theoretical and science‐organisation literature. Ten distinct problems for the research field are identified and discussed in order to provide a viable strategy for the future.

Findings

While it is common to suggest a convergent movement toward the idealised characteristics of the strong research discipline as a recipe against fragmentation, a strong convergent movement is suggested that feeds off the fragmented character of the field. What is commonly perceived as a weakness, the multidimensional character of the field, can be translated into a strategic resource.

Originality/value

The paper provides a fresh perspective on the strategic situation of LIS.

Details

Journal of Documentation, vol. 66 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0022-0418

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part

David J. Hess and Scott Frickel

This Introduction gives a historical and theoretical overview of this volume on Fields of Knowledge: Science, Politics and Publics in the Neoliberal Age, which showcases…

Abstract

This Introduction gives a historical and theoretical overview of this volume on Fields of Knowledge: Science, Politics and Publics in the Neoliberal Age, which showcases original research in political sociology of science targeting the changes in scientific and technological policy and practice associated with the rise of neoliberal thought and policies since the 1970s. We argue that an existing family of field theoretic frameworks and empirical field analyses provides a particularly useful set of ideas and approaches for the meso-level understanding of these historical changes in ways that complement as well as challenge other theory traditions in sociology of science, broadly defined. The collected papers exhibit a dual focus on sciences’ interfield relations, connecting science and science policy to political, economic, educational, and other fields and on the institutional logics of scientific fields that pattern expert discourses, practices, and knowledge and shape relations of the scientific field to the rest of the world. By reconceptualizing the central problem for political sociology of science as a problem of field- and inter-field dynamics, and by critically engaging other theory traditions whose assumptions are in some ways undermined by the contemporary history of neoliberalism, we believe these papers collectively chart an important theoretical agenda for future research in the sociology of science.

Details

Fields of Knowledge: Science, Politics and Publics in the Neoliberal Age
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78350-668-2

1 – 10 of over 174000