IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2312.10476.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Pelletier
  • Kevin Wirtz

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship between scientists' cognitive profile and their ability to generate innovative ideas and gain scientific recognition. We propose a novel author-level metric based on the semantic representation of researchers' past publications to measure cognitive diversity both at individual and team levels. Using PubMed Knowledge Graph (PKG), we analyze the impact of cognitive diversity on novelty, as measured by combinatorial novelty indicators and peer labels on Faculty Opinion. We assessed scientific impact through citations and disruption indicators. We show that the presence of exploratory individuals (i.e., cognitively diverse) is beneficial in generating distant knowledge combinations, but only when balanced by a significant proportion of exploitative individuals (i.e., cognitively specialized). Furthermore, teams with a high proportion of exploitative profiles tend to consolidate science, whereas those with a significant share of both profiles tend to disrupt it. Cognitive diversity between team members appears to be always beneficial to combining more distant knowledge. However, to maximize the relevance of these distant combinations of knowledge, maintaining a limited number of exploratory individuals is essential, as exploitative individuals must question and debate their novel perspectives. These specialized individuals are the most qualified to extract the full potential of novel ideas and integrate them within the existing scientific paradigm.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2312.10476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.10476
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    2. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    3. Joshua Ettinger & Friederike E. L. Otto & E. Lisa F. Schipper, 2021. "Storytelling can be a powerful tool for science," Nature, Nature, vol. 589(7842), pages 352-352, January.
    4. Milojević, Staša, 2015. "Quantifying the cognitive extent of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 962-973.
    5. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    6. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    7. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    8. Johan S. G. Chu & James A. Evans, 2021. "Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(41), pages 2021636118-, October.
    9. Chien Hsiang Liao, 2011. "How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(3), pages 747-761, March.
    10. Nooteboom, Bart & Van Haverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & Gilsing, Victor & van den Oord, Ad, 2007. "Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1016-1034, September.
    11. Tahamtan, Iman & Bornmann, Lutz, 2018. "Creativity in science and the link to cited references: Is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 906-930.
    12. Ayoubi, Charles & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2017. "At the origins of learning: Absorbing knowledge flows from within the team," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 374-387.
    13. Shouhuai Xu & Moti Yung & Jingguo Wang, 2021. "Seeking Foundations for the Science of Cyber Security," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 263-267, April.
    14. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Montobbio, Fabio & Sinatra, Roberta, 2020. "New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    15. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Zhang, Lin, 2018. "A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1182-1193.
    16. Jonathan Adams, 2013. "The fourth age of research," Nature, Nature, vol. 497(7451), pages 557-560, May.
    17. Linda Argote & Sara L. Beckman & Dennis Epple, 1990. "The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial Settings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 140-154, February.
    18. Alexander M. Petersen & Mohammed E. Ahmed & Ioannis Pavlidis, 2021. "Grand challenges and emergent modes of convergence science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    19. Witt, Ulrich, 2009. "Propositions about novelty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 311-320, May.
    20. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    21. Lingfei Wu & Dashun Wang & James A. Evans, 2019. "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7744), pages 378-382, February.
    22. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    23. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    24. Bernardo Mueller, 2019. "The building blocks of creativity and new ideas," RAUSP Management Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 54(2), pages 242-246, March.
    25. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
    26. Alexander M. Petersen & Mohammed E. Ahmed & Ioannis Pavlidis, 2021. "Grand challenges and emergent modes of convergence science," Papers 2103.11547, arXiv.org.
    27. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Karim R. Lakhani, 2010. "Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1016-1033, October.
    28. Tobias Koopmann & Maximilian Stubbemann & Matthias Kapa & Michael Paris & Guido Buenstorf & Tom Hanika & Andreas Hotho & Robert Jäschke & Gerd Stumme, 2021. "Proximity dimensions and the emergence of collaboration: a HypTrails study on German AI research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9847-9868, December.
    29. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    30. Michaël Bikard & Fiona Murray & Joshua S. Gans, 2015. "Exploring Trade-offs in the Organization of Scientific Work: Collaboration and Scientific Reward," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1473-1495, July.
    31. Abhay S. D. Rajput & Sangeeta Sharma, 2021. "India: draft science policy calls for public engagement," Nature, Nature, vol. 592(7852), pages 26-26, April.
    32. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    33. Jean J. Wang & Sarah X. Shao & Fred Y. Ye, 2021. "Identifying 'seed' papers in sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6001-6011, July.
    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. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    2. Liang, Zhentao & Ba, Zhichao & Mao, Jin & Li, Gang, 2023. "Research complexity increases with scientists’ academic age: Evidence from library and information science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    3. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.
    4. Jacqueline N. Lane & Ina Ganguli & Patrick Gaule & Eva Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2021. "Engineering serendipity: When does knowledge sharing lead to knowledge production?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1215-1244, June.
    5. Dongqing Lyu & Kaile Gong & Xuanmin Ruan & Ying Cheng & Jiang Li, 2021. "Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 287-303, January.
    6. Nicola Cortinovis & Frank van der Wouden, 2021. "Better by design? Collaboration and performance in the board-game industry," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2104, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2021.
    7. Thomas, Duncan Andrew & Ramos-Vielba, Irene, 2022. "Reframing study of research(er) funding towards configurations and trails," SocArXiv uty2v, Center for Open Science.
    8. Frank Nagle & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Jack of all trades and master of knowledge: The role of diversification in new distant knowledge integration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 55-85, January.
    9. Liyin Zhang & Yuchen Qian & Chao Ma & Jiang Li, 2023. "Continued collaboration shortens the transition period of scientists who move to another institution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1765-1784, March.
    10. Gerald Schweiger & Adrian Barnett & Peter van den Besselaar & Lutz Bornmann & Andreas De Block & John P. A. Ioannidis & Ulf Sandstrom & Stijn Conix, 2024. "The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds," Papers 2403.16934, arXiv.org.
    11. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Muller & Pierre Pelletier, 2020. "Deep Learning in Science," Papers 2009.01575, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2020.
    12. Bianchini, Stefano & Müller, Moritz & Pelletier, Pierre, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    13. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    14. 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.
    15. Richard T. Carson & Joshua Graff Zivin & Jordan J. Louviere & Sally Sadoff & Jeffrey G. Shrader, 2022. "The Risk of Caution: Evidence from an Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 9042-9060, December.
    16. Bercovitz, Janet & Feldman, Maryann, 2011. "The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 81-93, February.
    17. Zhuanlan Sun & C. Clark Cao & Sheng Liu & Yiwei Li & Chao Ma, 2024. "Behavioral consequences of second-person pronouns in written communications between authors and reviewers of scientific papers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Keyvan Vakili & Sarah Kaplan, 2021. "Organizing for innovation: A contingency view on innovative team configuration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1159-1183, June.
    19. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    20. Pezzoni, Michele & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Visentin, Fabiana, 2022. "How fast is this novel technology going to be a hit? Antecedents predicting follow-on inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2312.10476. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.