Analyzing research outcomes and spillovers at a US nanotechnology user facility
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract This paper maps research outcomes and identifies spillover effects at a US University Research Center (URC) that offers user facilities for nanotechnology research. We use scientometric and network science approaches to analyze measures of topical orientation, productivity, impact, and collaboration applied to URC-related Web of Science abstract publications records. A focus is on the analysis of spillover effects on external organizations (i.e., non-affiliated users). Our findings suggest the URC’s network relies on external organizations acting as brokers, to provide access to the facilities to other external organizations. Analysis of heterophily indicates that collaboration among internal and external organizations is enhanced by the facilities, while articles written by a mix of co-authors affiliated with internal and external organizations are likely to be more cited. These results provide insights on how URCs with user facilities can create conditions for diverse collaboration and greater research impact.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: scientometrics and bibliometrics research · Complex Network Analysis Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. Bozeman B, Boardman PC (2003) Managing the new multipurpose, multidiscipline university research centers: institutional innovation in the Academic Community. IBM Center for The Business of Government. https://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/UniversityResearchCenter.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2022
2. Bozeman B, Dietz JS, Gaughan M (2001) Scientific and technical human capital: an alternative model for research evaluation. Int J Technol Manage 22(7–8):716–74010.1504/IJTM.2001.002988 ↗
3. Lee S, Bozeman B (2005) The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci 35(5):67310.1177/0306312705052359 ↗
4. Garrett-Jones S, Turpin T, Diment K (2010) Managing competition between individual and organizational goals in cross-sector research and development centres. J Technol Transf 35(5):527–54610.1007/s10961-009-9139-x ↗
5. Ponomariov BL, Boardman PC (2010) Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: university research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Res Policy 39(5):613–62410.1016/j.respol.2010.02.013 ↗
6. Gaughan M, Corley EA (2010) Science faculty at US research universities: the impacts of university research center-affiliation and gender on industrial activities. Technovation 30(3):215–22210.1016/j.technovation.2009.12.001 ↗
7. Sabharwal M, Hu Q (2013) Participation in university-based research centers: is it helping or hurting researchers? Res Policy 42(6–7):1301–131110.1016/j.respol.2013.03.005 ↗
8. Rogers JD, Youtie J, Kay L (2012) Program-level assessment of research centers: contribution of Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers to US Nanotechnology National Initiative goals. Res Eval 21(5):368–38010.1093/reseval/rvs028 ↗
9. Smith AM, Lai SY, Bea-Taylor J, Hill RB, Kleinhenz N (2016) Collaboration and change in the research networks of five Energy Frontier Research Centers. Res Eval 25(4):472–485
10. Brown GE Jr, Sutton SR, Calas G (2006) User facilities around the world. Elements 2(1):9–1410.2113/gselements.2.1.9 ↗
11. Hernández Y, Brown CM (2009) User facilities: the education of new neutron users. Am Inst Phys AIP Conf Proc 1164(1):52–5810.1063/1.3224697 ↗
12. Bozeman B, Corley E (2004) Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Res Policy 33(4):599–61610.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008 ↗
13. Vestal A, Danneels E (2022) Technological distance and breakthrough inventions in multi-cluster teams: how intra- and inter-location ties bridge the gap. Adm Sci Q 67(1):167–20610.1177/00018392211027512 ↗
14. Fox MF, Mohapatra S (2007) Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. J Higher Educ 78(5):542–57110.1353/jhe.2007.0032 ↗
15. Youtie J, Libaers D, Bozeman B (2006) Institutionalization of university research centers: the case of the National Cooperative Program in Infertility Research. Technovation 26(9):1055–106310.1016/j.technovation.2005.11.007 ↗
16. Dietz JS, Bozeman B (2005) Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Res Policy 34(3):349–36710.1016/j.respol.2005.01.008 ↗
17. Alcácer J, Chung W (2007) Location strategies and knowledge spillovers. Manage Sci 53(5):760–77610.1287/mnsc.1060.0637 ↗
18. Audretsch DB, Bozeman B, Combs KL, Feldman M, Link AN, Siegel DS et al (2002) The economics of science and technology. J Technol Transf 27(2):155–20310.1023/A:1014382532639 ↗
19. Youtie J, Ward R, Shapira P, Porter AL, Newman N (2021) Corporate engagement with nanotechnology through research publications. J Nanopart Res 23(4):1–1210.1007/s11051-021-05195-4 ↗
20. Boardman C, Gray D (2010) The new science and engineering management: cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations. J Technol Transf 35(5):445–45910.1007/s10961-010-9162-y ↗
21. Clarivate (2022) Web of science core collection. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science-core-collection/. Accessed 4 Mar 2022
22. Southeastern Nanotechnology Infrastructure Corridor (SENIC). The institute for electronics and nanotechnology at the Georgia institute of technology and the joint school of nanoscience and nanoengineering of North Carolina A&T State University and the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. SENIC research impact. Annual publication reports available at https://senic.gatech.edu/senic-research-impact/. Accessed 4 Apr 2022
23. Seglen PO (1992) The skewness of science. J Am Soc Inform Sci 43(9):628–63810.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199210)43:9<628::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-0 ↗
24. Leydesdorff L, Rafols I (2009) A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 60:348–36210.1002/asi.20967 ↗
25. Rafols I, Porter AL, Leydesdorff L (2010) Science overlay maps: a new tool for research policy and library management. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 61(9):1871–188710.1002/asi.21368 ↗
26. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands (2022) VOSviewer, version 1.6.18. https://www.vosviewer.com/. Accessed 29 May 2022
27. Wang Z, Porter AL, Kwon S, Youtie J, Shapira P, Carley SF, Liu X (2019) Updating a search strategy to track emerging nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res 21:19910.1007/s11051-019-4627-x ↗
28. Erdős P, Rényi A (1960) On the evolution of random graphs. Math Inst Hung Acad Sci 5(1):17–60
29. Watts DJ (1999) Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. Am J Sociol 105(2):493–52710.1086/210318 ↗
30. Blondel VD, Guillaume J-L, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech: Theory Exp P10008. https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0476. Accessed 29 May 202210.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 ↗
31. National Science Foundation (2020) Alexandria, VA. Award abstract #2025462. NNCI: Southeastern Nanotechnology Infrastructure Corridor (SENIC). https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2025462. Accessed 25 May 2022