Search results

This chapter provides an overview of the findings and chapters of a thematic volume in the International Perspectives on Education and Society (IPES) series. It describes the common dataset and methods used by an international research team.

The chapter synthesizes the results of a series of country-level case studies and cross-national and regional comparisons on the growth of scientific research from 1900 until 2011. Additionally, the chapter provides a quantitative analysis of global trends in scientific, peer-reviewed publishing over the same period.

The introduction identifies common themes that emerged across the case studies examined in-depth during the multi-year research project Science Productivity, Higher Education, Research and Development and the Knowledge Society (SPHERE). First, universities have long been and are increasingly the primary organizations in science production around the globe. Second, the chapters describe in-country and cross-country patterns of competition and collaboration in scientific publications. Third, the chapters describe the national policy environments and institutionalized organizational forms that foster scientific research.

The introduction reviews selected findings and limitations of previous bibliometric studies and explains that the chapters in the volume address these limitations by applying neo-institutional theoretical frameworks to analyze bibliometric data over an extensive period.

Growth in scientific production and productivity over the 20th century resulted significantly from three major countries in European science – France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Charting the development of universities and research institutes that bolster Europe’s key position in global science, we uncover both stable and dynamic patterns of productivity in the fields of STEM, including health, over the 20th century. Ongoing internationalization of higher education and science has been accompanied by increasing competition and collaboration. Despite policy goals to foster innovation and expand research capacity, policies cannot fully account for the differential growth of scientific productivity we chart from 1975 to 2010.

Our sociological neo-institutional framework facilitates explanation of differences in institutional settings, organizational forms, and organizations that produce the most European research. We measure growth of published peer-reviewed articles indexed in Thomson Reuters’ Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE).

Organizational forms vary in their contributions, with universities accounting for nearly half but rising in France; ultrastable in Germany at four-fifths, and growing at around two-thirds in the United Kingdom. Differing institutionalization pathways created the conditions necessary for continuous, but varying growth in scientific production and productivity in the European center of global science. The research university is key in all three countries, and we identify organizations leading in research output.

Few studies explicitly compare across time, space, and different levels of analysis. We show how important European science has been to overall global science production and productivity. In-depth comparisons, especially the organizational fields and forms in which science is produced, are crucial if policy is to support research and development.

This article analyses in what way Swiss academic institutions have had a favourable or unfavourable influence on changing research practices by following developments in four scientific areas – Bose-Einstein Condensates, Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Large-Scale Assessments in education research and Computerised Corpus Linguistics. Based on empirical evidence, we argue that overall a number of institutional conditions have had a positive influence on the decisions of scientists to dare a switch to a new scientific field. One finds, however, also differences in the working of these institutional conditions leading to quicker or slower developments of the four selected scientific areas.

Recent changes in the funding and governance of academic research in many OECD countries have altered established authority relationships governing research priorities and judgements. These shifts in the influence of a variety of groups and organisations over scientific choices and careers can be expected to affect the development of different kinds of intellectual innovations by changing the level of protected space they provide researchers and the flexibility of dominant intellectual standards governing the allocation of resources and evaluation of research outcomes. Variations in these features of public science systems influence scientists’ willingness to pursue unusual and risky projects over many years and help to explain cross-national differences in the rate and mode of development of four innovations in the physical, biological and human sciences.

The debate about university technology transfer policy would benefit from increased attention to two parts of the technology transfer equation: the societal purpose of basic scientific research and the characteristics of scientific researchers.11This Chapter was prepared for the Colloquium on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer hosted by the Karl Eller Center of the University of Arizona and sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. I am grateful to them for their support. I am also grateful to the participants in the Colloquium for helpful comments. Finally, I thank my research assistant, David Zelner, for assistance with this project. One purpose of curiosity-driven research is to provide a demand function that can serve as a proxy for the socially optimal (but unknowable) demand function for the unpredictable research that is necessary for long-term technological progress. Preserving the curiosity-driven research peer review “market” is thus important for that progress. This analysis highlights the importance of adequate funding for curiosity-driven research. A model of typical university scientists’ preferences can be used to assess how technology transfer policies may affect the social norms of the research community and the long-term viability of the curiosity-driven research endeavor. The analysis suggests that patenting will be an ineffective technology transfer mechanism unless researchers are precluded from using patenting to maintain control over follow-on research.

Although its contributions to global science date from 1980, Qatar embarked on an ambitious plan in 2009 to position itself as an important hub for global research production. This paper assesses Qatar’s contribution over the past three decades to global research output and science productivity in STEM+ fields, as measured by scientific journal article production.

The core of the analysis is based on a specially coded dataset of all peer-reviewed journal articles in the STEM+ disciplines with at least one author whose primary affiliation was a Qatar-based research organization. The original data source is Thomson Reuters’ Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Analyzing trends between 1980 (the first year in which a paper with a Qatar-based author appeared in these selected leading journals) and 2011, the chapter documents how scientific journal article production in Qatar has developed over three decades.

Between 1980 and 2002, rates of journal article production were relatively low. From 2003, reflecting considerable investments in higher education and research, the annual number of journal article publications increased dramatically. Most publications were authored by university-based scientists (58%) and scientists based at research hospitals or other medical research facilities (30%). By 2011, over 83% of scientific journal articles published with at least one Qatar-based author were the result of collaboration with international partners. European, North American, and Middle Eastern research scientists and organizations were the most common international collaborators.

This is the first comprehensive empirical study of Qatar’s contributions to global scientific production in the STEM+ disciplines.

In this chapter, we review the literature that analyzes how the peculiar missions, rules, and incentive systems in the scientific community affect the process and outcomes of the commercialization of academic research. We will focus on how the peculiar institutional logics of academia determine the decision of academics to commercialize their research, and how these logics affect the outsourcing of research from firms to academic laboratories, as well as the attempts of firms to reproduce academic incentive systems within their research labs by allowing their researchers to publish and offering them financial rewards based on their standing in the scientific community. Finally, we report on research that has analyzed how the rules of the scientific community might lead to the production, transfer, and commercialization of false knowledge.

This chapter focuses on scientific and research networks. All six facets of knowledge networks are described. The importance of three facets is called out, including domain, knowledge, and nodes. The authors provide profiles of five networks, including an invisible college in chemistry, a professional association network in engineering, an editorial network, a national biological observation collaboration, and a national science museum.