J. David Roessner

Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature

Interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR) extends and challenges the study of science on a number of fronts, including creating output science and engineering (S&E) indicators. This literature review began with a narrow search for quantitative measures of the output of IDR that could contribute to indicators, but the authors expanded the scope of the review as it became clear that differing definitions, assessment tools, evaluation processes, and measures all shed light on different aspects of IDR. Key among these broader aspects is (a) the importance of incorporating the concept of knowledge integration, and (b) recognizing that integration can occur within a single mind as well as among a team. Existing output measures alone cannot adequately capture this process. Among the quantitative measures considered, bibliometrics (co-authorships, co-inventors, collaborations, references, citations and co-citations) are the most developed, but leave considerable gaps in understanding of the social dynamics that lead to knowledge integration. Emerging measures in network dynamics (particularly betweenness centrality and diversity), and entropy are promising as indicators, but their use requires sophisticated interpretations. Combinations of quantitative measures and qualitative assessments being applied within evaluation studies appear to reveal IDR processes but carry burdens of expense, intrusion, and lack of reproducibility year-upon-year. This review is a first step toward providing a more holistic view of measuring IDR, although research and development is needed before metrics can adequately reflect the actual phenomenon of IDR.

Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity

We offer two metrics that together help gauge how interdisciplinary a body of research is. Both draw upon Web of Knowledge Subject Categories (SCs) as key units of analysis. We have assembled two substantial Web of Knowledge samples from which to determine how closely individual SCs relate to each other. “Integration” measures the extent to which a research article cites diverse SCs. “Specialization” considers the spread of SCs in which the body of research (e.g., the work of a given author in a specified time period) is published. Pilot results for a sample of researchers show a surprising degree of interdisciplinarity.

Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers

Abstract NSF engineering research centers (ERCs) constitute the most upstream performer of R&D among university–industry–government research centers. Findings from surveys and interviews with 355 firms participating in the 18 ERCs established between 1985 and 1990 indicate that firms participate primarily to gain access to upstream modes of knowledge rather than specific products and processes. Findings also point to problematic continuation of industrial support for ERCs following termination of NSF funding after reaching the maximum number of years (11) permitted under the program, and related pressures on ERCs to direct their research portfolios towards shorter-term, more applied research.

Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture

Recognizing prior research and reflection, we offer a definition of interdisciplinary research (IDR) that focuses on integration of concepts, techniques and/or data. We note that this need not entail teaming. Building upon this definition, we discuss its implications for accurate measurement. We then synthesize contextual and process factors expected to foster knowledge integration. These suggest a rich set of research questions concerning the implications for successful IDR of actions by universities, funding organizations, professional associations, and the science media, including journal editors. We seek to engage social scientists who study research practices, organizations, and policy in consideration of interdisciplinary research processes and their evaluation. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Current practices in the evaluation of US industrial modernization programs

Abstract The expansion of public policies and programs to promote the technological modernization of small and mid-sized manufacturing enterprises in the United States has been accompanied by an increased interest in assessing the effectiveness and impact of these initiatives. This article examines current practices used in the evaluation of US industrial modernization programs at state and national levels, drawing on interviews with program managers, site visits, and scrutiny of available studies. Issues related to the meaning of evaluation in the context of industrial modernization, the scale and scope of existing programs, and the definition of metrics are considered. A series of evaluation approaches, methods, and studies are identified and reviewed, including the role of program monitoring, customer valuation, external reviews, economic impact studies, control groups, and assessments of best practice. The authors address the use of evaluation results and discuss key challenges and directions relevant to the development of more robust evaluation procedures.

New public infrastructures for small firm industral modernization in the USA

There has been increasing concern in the United States about lagging industrial modernization, especially amongst the nations small and midsized manufacturers with 500 or fewer employees. This has prompted a series of new technological infrastructure initiatives by federal and state governments, academic and industry organizations, and other groups. New legislation, policies and programmes have been established to promote industrial competitiveness and modernization for small and midsized firms. After considering the dimensions of the industrial modernization problem, the paper examines US federal and state technological infrastructural interventions aimed at promoting industrial modernization. These include industry and technology centres, industrial extension and technology deployment proyrammes, industry consortia and networking, and support for conversion from defence to civilian technologies and markets. The paper considers insights and best practices from the US experience with these programmes and...

Evaluating government innovation programs: Lessons from the U.S. experience☆

Since the late 1970s policymakers in industrialized countries have been devoting increasing attention to programs intended to promote research and industrial innovation (Nelson 271; Rothwell and Zegveld [31,32]). The “new economic reality” that lies behind these actions can be characterized succinctly as the pinch between demands for fiscal restraint and pressures to enhance international economic competitiveness. Technological innovation, particularly in certain “high tech” industries such as computers, electronics, aerospace, and biotechnology, increasingly is being accepted as a major driving force behind national economic growth and competitiveness. This realization has led to expansion of traditional research and education programs and creation of a host of new, untested programs intended to stimulate industrial innovation and technology transfer. At the same time, demands for fiscal responsibility, accountability, and justification for the new programs led to a flurry of evaluation efforts. In the U.S., for example, passage of the R&D tax credit in 1981 was accompanied by substantial congressional concern about its effectiveness. In Europe, innovation and technology policy have been identified as

International high tech competitiveness: does China rank number 1?

This paper compares three selected indicator series that address national, technology-based competitiveness. The ‘traditional’ Georgia Tech High Tech Indicators (HTI) have been comparing 33 nations with respect to current and future prospects at exporting high tech products since the late 1980s. Those indicators blend expert opinion with statistical time series data. Second, we introduce ‘statistics only’ HTI, a revised formulation that addresses knowledge-based service export capabilities as well as high tech products, biennially. Third, the World Economic Forum annually generates its Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), treating 125 countries. The traditional HTI reported China supplanting the USA as the top-ranking economy as of 2007. That has generated some controversy. In striking contrast, the 2006–2007 GCI reported China as No. 54. This paper explores the bases for these differences. To a substantial degree, they derive from whether one normalises based on a nations size. We conclude that these indicator series provide multiple perspectives that complement each other. In the case of China, all of these indicators point to continuing dramatic increase in technology-based economic competitiveness. If not yet, then within not too many years, the USA will likely be supplanted by China as the leading technology-based economy.

Outcome measurement in the USA: state of the art

Methods used historically in the USA to assess the outcomes of research programs are summarized and key milestones noted in the context of Government Performance and Results Act requirements. Good theory is needed if performance indicators are to reflect accurately the unique features of research and innovation programs. Several promising approaches to measuring research outcomes are identified and described. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

National capacities to absorb and institutionalize external science and technology

This article describes a conceptual model of kechnology absorption and adaptation leading to a countrys export-based conipetitiveness in high-technology products, and the results of the models application to empirical data on 29 countries. The model is one output of a recently-completed, five-year investigation of indicators of high-technology development. The models seven conceptual variables were operationalized by combining statistical data with expert-derived measures to produce composite indicators. The seven indicators include four “leading” or infact indicators that are expected to be predictive of a nations competitiveness, in high-techndogy products i n approximately 15 years, and three output indicators of current competitiveness: world market share, national emphasis on high technology products for export, and recent rate of change in world market share. Extensive assument of the validity and reliability of the indicators leads to the conclusion that the model is a useful tool, for both pol...