The Role of Search in University Productivity: Inside, Outside, and Interdisciplinary Dimensions

Due to improving information technology, the growing complexity of research problems, and policies designed to foster interdisciplinary research, the practice of science in the United States has recently undergone significant structural change. Using a sample of 110 top US universities observed during the late 20th century we find that knowledge flows, both in total and in their major components, are a significant and positive determinant of research output. Outside knowledge-flows from other universities have increased at a faster rate than inside flows from the same university. Over time, the importance of outside flows for research output has risen, and it has done so at a faster rate than the importance of inside flows has decreased. Thus the overall contribution of knowledge-flows has increased and has shifted towards outside flows. Turning to knowledge-flows by field, we find that interdisciplinary knowledge-flows have increased only slightly relative to same field flows, despite policy initiatives that favor interdisciplinary research. Moreover, the importance of interdisciplinary flows for research output, while positive and statistically highly significant, has stayed about the same, even as same field flows have become more important, probably because of growth in cyber infrastructure. Although a final verdict is yet to be reached, one interpretation is that interdisciplinary research is still in its early stages. While interdisciplinary flows have begun to increase, the resulting discoveries, and their influence on subsequent research, may still lie in the future. Copyright 2011 The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

[1]  R. Nelson The Role of Knowledge in R&D Efficiency , 1982 .

[2]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Standing on Academic Shoulders: Measuring Scientific Influence in Universities , 2004 .

[3]  James D. Adams,et al.  Is the U.S. Losing its Preeminence in Higher Education? , 2009 .

[4]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  The Link Between Science and Invention: The Case of the Transistor , 1962 .

[5]  Harriet Zuckerman,et al.  Age, aging, and age structure in science , 1968 .

[6]  G. Holton,et al.  HOW A SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY IS MADE : A CASE HISTORY , 1996 .

[7]  Diana Hicks,et al.  Science policy for a highly collaborative science system , 1996 .

[8]  J. Riley,et al.  The analytics of uncertainty and information: Long-run relationships and the credibility of threats and promises , 1992 .

[9]  P. Jeffrey Smoothing the Waters , 2003 .

[10]  Eric P. Chiang,et al.  Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers , 2000 .

[11]  J. Hausman Mismeasured Variables in Econometric Analysis: Problems from the Right and Problems from the Left , 2001 .

[12]  Elizabeth A. Corley,et al.  Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies , 2006 .

[13]  J. S. Katz,et al.  What is research collaboration , 1997 .

[14]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Scientific Teams and Institution Collaborations: Evidence from U.S. Universities, 1981-1999 , 2004 .

[15]  James D. Adams,et al.  Research Productivity in a System of Universities , 1996 .

[16]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Is the Internet a US invention?—an economic and technological history of computer networking , 2002 .

[17]  Samuel Kortum,et al.  Research, Patenting, and Technological Change , 1997 .

[18]  James D. Adams,et al.  The Nber-Rensselaer Scientific Papers Database: Form, Nature, and Function , 2008 .

[19]  M. Mobius,et al.  Getting Closer or Drifting Apart , 2004 .

[20]  Elizabeth A. Corley,et al.  University research centers and the composition of research collaborations , 2008 .

[21]  M. Cimoli,et al.  Technology, growth and development , 2000 .