IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v70y2007i3d10.1007_s11192-007-0313-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Heinze

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovations Research)

  • Gerrit Bauer

    (Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES))

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Heinze & Gerrit Bauer, 2007. "Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 811-830, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:70:y:2007:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-007-0313-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-0313-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-007-0313-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-007-0313-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Rodan & Charles Galunic, 2004. "More than network structure: how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(6), pages 541-562, June.
    2. Thomas Heinze & Philip Shapira & Jacqueline Senker & Stefan Kuhlmann, 2007. "Identifying creative research accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(1), pages 125-152, January.
    3. Hollingsworth, Joseph Rogers, 2002. "Research organizations and major discoveries in twentieth-century science: A case study of excellence in biomedical research," Discussion Papers, Presidential Department P 02-003, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    4. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Heinze, Thomas & Shapira, Philip & Rogers, Juan D. & Senker, Jacqueline M., 2009. "Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 610-623, May.
    2. Liu Li & Chaoying Tang, 2020. "How Does Inter-Organizational Cooperation Impact Organizations’ Scientific Knowledge Generation? Evidence from the Biomass Energy Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Su, Hsin-Ning & Moaniba, Igam M., 2017. "Investigating the dynamics of interdisciplinary evolution in technology developments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 12-23.
    4. R. Karpagam & S. Gopalakrishnan & M. Natarajan & B. Ramesh Babu, 2011. "Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 501-522, November.
    5. Jiancheng Guan & Gangbo Wang, 2010. "A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 331-343, August.
    6. Javier Martínez-del-Río & José Céspedes-Lorente, 2014. "Competitiveness and Legitimation: The Logic of Companies going Green in Geographical Clusters," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 131-146, March.
    7. Jianyu Zhao & Yining Huang & Xi Xi & Shanshan Wang, 2021. "How knowledge heterogeneity influences business model design: mediating effects of strategic learning and bricolage," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 889-919, June.
    8. Harpreet Singh & David Kryscynski & Xinxin Li & Ram Gopal, 2016. "Pipes, pools, and filters: How collaboration networks affect innovative performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1649-1666, August.
    9. Dost Mir & Arshad Muhammad & Afsar Bilal, 2018. "The Influence of Entrepreneurial Orientation on Types of Process Innovation Capabilities and Moderating Role of Social Capital," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 8(4), pages 1-15, October.
    10. Fu-Sheng Tsai & Gayle Baugh & Shih-Chieh Fang & Julia Lin, 2014. "Contingent contingency: Knowledge heterogeneity and new product development performance revisited," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 149-169, March.
    11. Hao, Bin & Feng, Yanan, 2018. "Leveraging learning forces in asymmetric alliances: Small firms’ perceived power imbalance in driving exploration and exploitation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 27-39.
    12. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    13. Yashuang Qi & Na Zhu & Yujia Zhai & Ying Ding, 2018. "The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 893-911, May.
    14. Vandor, Peter & Franke, Nikolaus, 2016. "See Paris and… found a business? The impact of cross-cultural experience on opportunity recognition capabilities," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 388-407.
    15. Gianluca Fabiano & Andrea Marcellusi & Giampiero Favato, 2020. "Public–private contribution to biopharmaceutical discoveries: a bibliometric analysis of biomedical research in UK," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 153-168, July.
    16. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 561-579, February.
    17. Angela Hullmann, 2007. "Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 739-758, March.
    18. Soda, Giuseppe & Zaheer, Akbar & Sun, Xiaoming & Cui, Wentian, 2021. "Brokerage evolution in innovation contexts: Formal structure, network neighborhoods and knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    19. Yue Wang & Ning Li & Bin Zhang & Qian Huang & Jian Wu & Yang Wang, 2023. "The effect of structural holes on producing novel and disruptive research in physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1801-1823, March.
    20. Barthélemy Chollet, 2008. "L’analyse des réseaux personnels dans les organisations:quelles données utiliser?," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 11(1), pages 105-130, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:70:y:2007:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-007-0313-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.