IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/grt/wpegrt/2015-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who do you care about? Scientists’ personality traits and perceived beneficiary impact

Author

Listed:
  • Oscar LLOPIS
  • Joaquin AZAGRA-CARO

Abstract

Policymakers compel scientists to influence colleagues, corporations and non-commercial actors. In the current study, we examine the relationship between biomedical scientists’ psychological characteristics –personality traits and motivations– and their perceived impact on these different stakeholders. Taking the scientist as the main unit of analysis, we merge the organizational psychology and research evaluation literature to better understand the individual origins of societal impact. We also combine motivation and personality research with science policy studies to predict perceived beneficiary impact. Our focus is on biomedicine and its interest in and consequences for industry and patients, and we measure psychological characteristics through a large-scale survey. Openness to experience increases biomedical scientists’ perceived impact on the academic community, extraversion on industry and conscientiousness on patients. Accounting for these effects opens new paths for designing more effective policies regarding scientific mobility, allocation of research activities and incentive schemas.

Suggested Citation

  • Oscar LLOPIS & Joaquin AZAGRA-CARO, 2015. "Who do you care about? Scientists’ personality traits and perceived beneficiary impact," Cahiers du GREThA 2015-29, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée.
  • Handle: RePEc:grt:wpegrt:2015-29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cahiersdugretha.u-bordeaux4.fr/2015/2015-29.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lam, Alice, 2011. "What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1354-1368.
    2. Paul Nightingale & Alister Scott, 2007. "Peer review and the relevance gap: Ten suggestions for policy-makers," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 543-553, October.
    3. Fehrler, Sebastian & Kosfeld, Michael, 2014. "Pro-social missions and worker motivation: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 99-110.
    4. Bozeman, Barry & Gaughan, Monica, 2007. "Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers' interactions with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 694-707, June.
    5. Etzkowitz, Henry & Webster, Andrew & Gebhardt, Christiane & Terra, Branca Regina Cantisano, 2000. "The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 313-330, February.
    6. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    7. Grant, Adam M. & Campbell, Elizabeth M. & Chen, Grace & Cottone, Keenan & Lapedis, David & Lee, Karen, 2007. "Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 53-67, May.
    8. Marcati, Alberto & Guido, Gianluigi & Peluso, Alessandro M., 2008. "The role of SME entrepreneurs' innovativeness and personality in the adoption of innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1579-1590, October.
    9. Diana Boehm & Teresa Hogan, 2014. "‘A jack of all trades’: the role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 134-149, February.
    10. Fernández-Zubieta, Ana & Geuna, Aldo & Lawson, Cornelia, 2013. "Researchers’ mobility and its impact on scientific productivity"," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201313, University of Turin.
    11. Arvanitis, Spyros & Kubli, Ursina & Woerter, Martin, 2008. "University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1865-1883, December.
    12. Owen-Smith, Jason & Powell, Walter W, 2001. "To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at Technology Transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 99-114, January.
    13. Haeussler, Carolin & Colyvas, Jeannette A., 2011. "Breaking the Ivory Tower: Academic Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences in UK and Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 41-54, February.
    14. Roach, Michael & Sauermann, Henry, 2010. "A taste for science? PhD scientists' academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 422-434, April.
    15. De Fuentes, Claudia & Dutrénit, Gabriela, 2012. "Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1666-1682.
    16. Sánchez-Barrioluengo, Mabel, 2014. "Articulating the ‘three-missions’ in Spanish universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1760-1773.
    17. Azagra-Caro, Joaquin M. & Archontakis, Fragiskos & Gutierrez-Gracia, Antonio & Fernandez-de-Lucio, Ignacio, 2006. "Faculty support for the objectives of university-industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 37-55, February.
    18. Sauermann, Henry & Roach, Michael, 2014. "Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs’ preferences for publishing in industrial employment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 32-47.
    19. Welsh, Rick & Glenna, Leland & Lacy, William & Biscotti, Dina, 2008. "Close enough but not too far: Assessing the effects of university-industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1854-1864, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    perceived beneficiary impact; psychological motivations; big five personality traits; biomedicine;

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:grt:wpegrt:2015-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Valerio Sterzi). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ifredfr.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.