Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective

While some believe that publication and citation scores are key predictors of breakthroughs in science, others claim that people who work at the intersection of scientific communities are more likely to be familiar with selecting and synthesizing alternatives into novel ideas. This paper contributes to this controversy by presenting a longitudinal comparison of highly creative scientists with equally productive researchers. The sample of creative scientists is identified by combining information on science awards and nominations by international peers covering research accomplishments in the mid-1990s. Results suggest that it is not only the sheer quantity of publications that causes scientists to produce creative pieces of work. Rather, their ability to effectively communicate with otherwise disconnected peers and to address a broader work spectrum also enhances their chances to be widely cited and to develop novel ideas.

[1]  Carl Martin Allwood,et al.  Creative Knowledge Environments , 2008, Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

[2]  Carl Martin Allwood,et al.  Creative knowledge environments. The influences on creativity in research and innovation , 2004 .

[3]  P. Allison,et al.  7. Fixed-Effects Negative Binomial Regression Models , 2002 .

[4]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity , 2005 .

[5]  Todd Lubart,et al.  Creativity as Investment , 1997 .

[6]  Sharon Bailin.  CREATIVITY IN CONTEXT , 2002 .

[7]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Tie and Network Correlates of Individual Performance in Knowledge-Intensive Work , 2004 .

[8]  Creating a Tradition of Biomedical Research: Contributions to the History of The Rockefeller University , 2004 .

[9]  R. Whitley,et al.  The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Second Edition: with new introductory chapter entitled 'Science Transformed? The Changing Nature of Knowledge Production at the End of the Twentieth Century') , 2000 .

[10]  Simon Rodan,et al.  More than Network Structure: How Knowledge Heterogeneity Influences Managerial Performance and Innovativeness , 2004 .

[11]  D. Simonton.  Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist , 2004 .

[12]  Ulrich Dolata,et al.  [Rezension:] Heinze, Thomas: Die Kopplung von Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft: Das Beispiel Nanotechnologie (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2006) , 2008 .

[13]  J. Hollingsworth,et al.  Research organizations and major discoveries in twentieth-century science: A case study of excellence in biomedical research , 2002 .

[14]  Individuelle Kreativität und kollektives Ergebnis , 2000 .

[15]  D. Simonton.  Origins of genius : Darwinian perspectives on creativity , 1999 .

[16]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Publications and patents in nanotechnology , 2003, Scientometrics.

[17]  Darwin H. Stapleton,et al.  Creating a Tradition of Biomedical Research , 2004 .

[18]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[19]  S. Daniels.  Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. , 2005 .

[20]  R. Burt.  Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  Philip Shapira,et al.  Identifying creative research accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics , 2007, Scientometrics.

[22]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized , 2003 .

[23]  R. Whitley.  The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Second Edition: with new introductory chapter entitled 'Science Transformed? The Changing Nature of Knowledge Production at the End of the Twentieth Century') , 1984 .