Investigating returns to scope of research fields in universities

AbstractFor policy-makers and managers of research organizations, improvement in performance is a constant objective. The potential presence of returns to scope of fields of research could influence decisions in planning the fields of activity of the research organization and the spatial positioning of its researchers in function of their specializations. We investigate the possible presence of returns to scope and the relation between scope of fields in an organization and intensity of interdisciplinary collaboration. The results, from analyzing the scientific collaborations of Italian university researchers over the years 2004–2008, seem to indicate that in general the scope of the research fields has no impact on the productivity of research or the intensity of interdisciplinary collaboration.

[1]  María Bordons,et al.  Interdisciplinarity as a multidimensional concept: its measure in three different research areas , 2001 .

[2]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[3]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations , 2007 .

[4]  Koen Frenken,et al.  The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration , 2007 .

[5]  Paul H. J. Hendriks,et al.  What keeps science spiralling? Unravelling the critical success factors of knowledge creation in university research , 2010 .

[6]  Cristiano Giuffrida,et al.  A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  Daniele Archibugi,et al.  International partnerships for knowledge in business and academia: A comparison between Europe and the USA , 2004 .

[8]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Scale, Scope and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Ethical Drug Discovery , 2015 .

[9]  Anthony R. Hendrickson,et al.  Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future , 1998 .

[10]  Meric S. Gertler,et al.  Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there) , 2003 .

[11]  E. Cohn,et al.  Institutions of Higher Education as Multi-product Firms: Economies of Scale and Scope , 1989 .

[12]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Globalisation of science in kilometres , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[13]  Jeffrey T. Macher,et al.  Experience and scale and scope economies: Trade-offs and performance in development. , 2006 .

[14]  C. Handy.  Trust and the virtual organization , 1999 .

[15]  J. Klein.  Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[16]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? , 2012, Scientometrics.

[17]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Structures and strategies of interdisciplinary science , 1999 .

[18]  J. Brownstein,et al.  Does Collocation Inform the Impact of Collaboration? , 2010, PloS one.

[19]  Victoria Millar,et al.  The ‘paradox of interdisciplinarity’ in Australian research governance , 2013 .

[20]  Joachim Schummer,et al.  Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology , 2004, Scientometrics.

[21]  Judith Igelsböck,et al.  Growing into what? The (un-)disciplined socialisation of early stage researchers in transdisciplinary research , 2013 .

[22]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[23]  E. Mansfield,et al.  The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support , 1996 .

[24]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation , 1899 .

[25]  Tony Dale,et al.  Science from the periphery: Collaboration, networks and 'Periphery Effects' in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1995-2000 , 2003, Scientometrics.

[26]  P. Boardman,et al.  Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital☆ , 2010 .

[27]  Jonas Lundberg,et al.  Lifting the crown - citation z-score , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[28]  W. Glänzel.  Seven Myths in Bibliometrics About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies , 2008 .

[29]  Massimo Franceschet,et al.  The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[30]  Diana Hicks,et al.  How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model , 1997, Scientometrics.

[31]  M. Clark,et al.  Evaluating transdisciplinary science. , 2003, Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.

[32]  Thomas J. Allen,et al.  Research Laboratory Architecture and the Structuring of Communications : R&D Management , 1975 .

[33]  Manjulika Koshal,et al.  Economies of scale and scope in higher education: a case of comprehensive universities , 1999 .

[34]  F. W. Lancaster,et al.  Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences , 1997 .

[35]  Gregory Tassey,et al.  The functions of technology infrastructure in a competitive economy , 1991 .

[36]  J. Sylvan Katz,et al.  Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration , 1994, Scientometrics.

[37]  Gigliola Mathisen Nyhagen,et al.  New organisational structures and the transformation of academic work , 2013 .

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

[39]  Creso M. Sá,et al.  ‘Interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. research universities , 2008 .

[40]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[41]  David Williams,et al.  Improved likelihood ratio tests for complete contingency tables , 1976 .

[42]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Assessment of sectoral aggregation distortion in research productivity measurements , 2008 .

[43]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies , 2004, Scientometrics.

[44]  J. Hoehn,et al.  Selected paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence Rhode Island, July 24-27, 2005. , 2005 .

[45]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems , 2004 .

[46]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Across institutional boundaries?: Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience , 2008 .

[47]  R. Boschma.  Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2005 .

[48]  E M Hallowell,et al.  The human moment at work. , 1999, Harvard business review.

[49]  K. Arrow.  Higher education as a filter , 1973 .

[50]  Halil Dundar,et al.  Departmental Productivity in American Universities: Economies of Scale and Scope , 1995 .

[51]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones? , 2011, Scientometrics.

[52]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level , 2011, Scientometrics.

[53]  John Hudson,et al.  Trends in Multi-authored Papers in Economics , 1996 .

[54]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  The dispersion of research performance within and between universities as a potential indicator of the competitive intensity in higher education systems , 2012, J. Informetrics.