Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: Determinants of funding success for academic scientists

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 251-270

  Melkers, Julia ^a   Xiao, Fang ^a,b  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Emerging technologies; Interdisciplinarity; University industry

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860538922     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-010-9173-8     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalisation of university-industry interaction. Technovation, 27(11), 704-715.
2. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., et al. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 599-623.
3. Balconi, M., & Laboranti, A. (2006). University-industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics. Research Policy, 35(10), 1616-1630.
4. Bassecoulard, E., Lelu, A., et al. (2007). Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis. Scientometrics, 70(3), 859-880.
5. Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 107-117.
6. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., et al. (2006). Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: Prevalences and predictors. Academic Medicine, 81(2), 137-145.
7. Bordons, M., Zulueta, M., et al. (1999). Measuring interdisciplinary collaboration within a university: The effects of the multidisciplinary research programme. Scientometrics, 46(3), 383-398.
8. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists' collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599-616.
9. Bozeman, B., & Dietz, J. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 716-740.
10. Bozeman, B., Laredo, P., et al. (2007). Understanding the emergence and deployment of "nano" S&T. Research Policy, 36, 807-812.
11. Bruer, J., Cole, J., & Zuckerman, H. (1991). The outer circle: Women in scientific community. New York: Norton Publishing.
12. Burt, R. S., & Minor, M. J. (1983). Applied network analysis: A methodological introduction. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
13. Carayol, N., & Thuc Uyen Nguyen, T. (2005). Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research. Research Evaluation, 14(1), 70-79.
14. D'Este, P., & Patel, P. (2005). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the dfactors determining the variety of university researchers' interactions with industry. Proceedings of 5th triple helix conference, Turin, Italy, 18-21 May.
15. Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2000). A different game. In G. S. Day, P. J. H. Schoemaker, & R. E. Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: Wiley.
16. Diamond, A. (1985). The money value of citations to single-authored and multiple-authored articles. Scientometrics, 8(5), 315-320.
17. Evetts, J. (1996). Gender and career in science and engineering. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
18. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131-150.
19. Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European University research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607.
20. Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). What is scientific and technological culture and how is it measured? A multidimensional model. Public Understanding of Science, 9(1), 43-48.
21. Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors' research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932-950.
22. Heinze, T., & Bauer, G. (2007). Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective. Scientometrics, 70(3), 811-830.
23. Herbertz, H., & Muller-Hill, B. (1995). Quality and efficiency of basic research in molecular biology: A bibliometric analysis of thirteen excellent research institutes. Research Policy, 24(6), 959-979.
24. Hu, D., Chen, H., et al. (2007). Longitudinal study on patent citations to academic research articles in nanotechnology (1976-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9, 529-542.
25. Huang, Z., Chen, H., et al. (2004). International nanotechnology development in 2003: Country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. Journal of nanoparticle Research, 6, 325-354.
26. Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507-527.
27. Kastenhofer, K., & Röggla, G. (2007). Is women scientists' approach to science more interdisciplinary? Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 119(21), 678.
28. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., et al. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641-655.
29. Livesay, D. R. (2007). At the crossroads of biomacromolecular research: Highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of the field. Chemistry Central Journal, 1, 1-4.
30. Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45-71.
31. Lung, R. B., Masanet, E., et al. (2006). The role of emerging technologies in improving energy efficiency: Examples from the food processing industry. New Orleans, Louisiana: Industrial Energy Technology Conference.
32. Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635-659.
33. Merton, R. K. (1970). Behavior patterns of scientists. Leonardo, 3(2), 213-220.
34. Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2), 195-205.
35. Morillo, F., Bordons, M., et al. (2001). An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 51(1), 203-222.
36. Nanotech. (2008). UAlbany NanoCollege GIVES STUDENTS A VIEW of growing career opportunities in nanotechnology, from http://www. nanotech-now. com/news. cgi?story_id=30962.
37. Narin, F., Stevens, K., et al. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21(3), 313-323.
38. Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003). Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 333-359.
39. Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2005). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 11474.
40. NIH. (2008). NIH funding, from http://report. nih. gov/index. aspx?section=NIHFunding.
41. NNI. (2008). Funding, from http://www. nano. gov/html/about/funding. html.
42. Oliver, A. L. (2004). Biotechnology entrepreneurial scientists and their collaborations. Research Policy, 33, 583-597.
43. Ponomariov, B. (2008). Effects of university characteristics on scientists' interactions with the private sector: An exploratory assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 485-503.
44. Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., et al. (2004). Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: A comparative case study of two scientific teams. Research Policy, 33(4), 661-678.
45. Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., et al. (2002). Measuring national 'emerging technology' capabilities. Science and Public Policy, 29(3), 189-200.
46. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2007). How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70(3), 633-650.
47. Rhoten, D., & Pfirman, S. (2007). Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy, 36(1), 56-75.
48. Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425-465.
49. Sigogneau, A., Malagutti, O., et al. (2005). Cross-disciplinary research: Co-evaluation and co-publication practices of the CNRS laboratories. Research Evaluation, 14(2), 165-176.
50. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(3), 303-339.
51. Smith-Doerr, L. (2004). Flexibility and fairness: Effects of the network form of organization on gender equity in life science careers. Sociological Perspectives, 47(1), 25-54.
52. Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. (1995). Who succeed in science? The gender dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
53. Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXIV(September), 1199-1235.
54. Stephan, P., & El-Ganainy, A. (2007). The entrepreneurial puzzle: Explaining the gender gap. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5), 475-487.
55. Stuart, T., & Ding, W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97-144.
56. Tang, J. (2003). Women succeeding in science in the twentieth century. Sociological Forum, 18(2), 325.
57. Thi, T. U. N., & Lahatte, A. (2003). Measuring and assessing relative disciplinary openness in university research units. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 29-37.
58. Thorsteinsdottir, O. H. (2000). External research collaboration in two small science systems. Scientometrics, 49(1), 145-160.
59. UTSystem. (2006). UT system to launch nanoelectronics initiative, from http://www. utsystem. edu/news/2006/BOR-Nanoelectronics-07-14-06. htm.
60. Walsh, J. P., Cohen, W. M., et al. (2007). Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Research Policy, 36, 1184-1203.
61. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Welsh, R., & Glenna, L. (2006). Considering the role of the University in conducting research on agri-biotechnologies. Social Studies of Science, 36(6), 929-942.