IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ing/wpaper/201503.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Llopis,Ãscar
  • Azagra-Caro,Joaquín M.

Abstract

Policymakers compel scientists to influence colleagues, corporations and non-commercial actors. In the current study, we examine the relationship between biomedical scientistsâ psychological characteristics âpersonality traits and motivationsâ 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 scientistsâ 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

  • Llopis,Ãscar & Azagra-Caro,Joaquín M., 2015. "Who do you care about? Scientistsâ personality traits and perceived beneficiary impact," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201503, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 12 Jan 2018.
    • Handle: RePEc:ing:wpaper:201503
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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. 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.
    5. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Francisco Mas-Verdú & Victor Martinez-Gomez, 2012. "Forget R&D – Pay My Coach: Young Innovative Companies and Their Relations with Universities," International Studies in Entrepreneurship, in: David B. Audretsch & Erik E. Lehmann & Albert N. Link & Alexander Starnecker (ed.), Technology Transfer in a Global Economy, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 13-34, Springer.
    6. 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.
    7. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    8. Fernández-Zubieta,Ana & Geuna, Aldo & Lawson, Cornelia, 2013. "Researchers’ mobility and its impact on scientific productivity," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201306, University of Turin.
    9. Henry Sauermann & Michael Roach, 2011. "Not All Scientists pay to be Scientists:," DRUID Working Papers 11-03, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. John P. Walsh & Wei Hong, 2003. "Secrecy is increasing in step with competition," Nature, Nature, vol. 422(6934), pages 801-802, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Sánchez-Barrioluengo, Mabel, 2014. "Articulating the ‘three-missions’ in Spanish universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1760-1773.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Joaquin Azagra-Caro & Juana Aznar-Marqez & Juan Blanco, 2008. "Interactive vs. non-interactive knowledge production by faculty members," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(10), pages 1289-1297.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. Spyros Arvanitis & Ursina Kubli & Martin Woerter, 2006. "University-Industry Knowledge Interaction in Switzerland: What University Scientists Think about Co-operation with Private Enterprises," KOF Working papers 06-132, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    25. 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.
    26. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Luca Secondi & Enza Setteducati & Alessio Ancaiani, 2014. "Participation and commitment in third-party research funding: evidence from Italian Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 169-198, April.
    27. Albert N. Link & Donald S. Siegel & Barry Bozeman, 2007. "An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(4), pages 641-655, August.
    28. Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Aldo Geuna & Cornelia Lawson, 2016. "Productivity pay-offs from academic mobility: should I stay or should I go?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(1), pages 91-114.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ferran Giones & Kari Kleine & Silke Tegtmeier, 2022. "Students as scientists’ co-pilots at the onset of technology transfer: a two-way learning process," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1373-1394, October.
    2. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Carlos Benito-Amat & Ester Planells-Aleixandre, 2022. "Academic artists’ engagement and commercialisation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1273-1296, August.
    3. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Laura González-Salmerón & Pedro Marques, 2021. "Fiction lagging behind or non-fiction defending the indefensible? University–industry (et al.) interaction in science fiction," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1889-1916, December.
    4. Ferran Giones & Daniel Laufs & Carsten Schultz, 2020. "Co-creating Science Commercialization Opportunities for Blue Biotechnologies: The FucoSan Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Anabel Fernández-Mesa & Oscar Llopis & Ana García-Granero & Julia Olmos-Peñuela, 2020. "Enhancing organisational commitment through task significance: the moderating role of openness to experience," Post-Print hal-03004571, HAL.
    6. Fernández-Mesa, Anabel & Llopis, Oscar & García-Granero, Ana & Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, 2020. "Enhancing organisational commitment through task significance: the moderating role of openness to experience," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 602-612.
    7. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Daniele Biancardi & Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo & Federico Biagi, 2019. "Study on Higher Education Institutions and Local Development," JRC Research Reports JRC117272, Joint Research Centre.

    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. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    2. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Luca Secondi & Enza Setteducati & Alessio Ancaiani, 2014. "Participation and commitment in third-party research funding: evidence from Italian Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 169-198, April.
    3. B. Urban & J. Chantson, 2019. "Academic entrepreneurship in South Africa: testing for entrepreneurial intentions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 948-980, June.
    4. DâEste,Pablo & Llopis,Oscar & Yegros,Alfredo, 2013. "Conducting pro-social research: cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201303, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    5. Pandey, Poonam & Pansera, Mario, 2020. "Bringing Laxmi and Saraswati together: Nano-scientists and academic entrepreneurship in India," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    6. Sengupta, Abhijit & Ray, Amit S., 2017. "University research and knowledge transfer: A dynamic view of ambidexterity in british universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 881-897.
    7. Adegbile, Abiodun Samuel & Sarpong, David & Kolade, Oluwaseun, 2021. "Environments for Joint University-Industry Laboratories (JUIL): Micro-level dimensions and research implications," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    8. Berna Beyhan & M. Teoman Pamukçu & Erkan Erdil, 2011. "Individual and Organizational Aspects of University-Industry Relations in Nanotechnology: The Turkish Case," STPS Working Papers 1106, STPS - Science and Technology Policy Studies Center, Middle East Technical University, revised Jun 2011.
    9. Sabrina Backs & Markus Günther & Christian Stummer, 2019. "Stimulating academic patenting in a university ecosystem: an agent-based simulation approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 434-461, April.
    10. Perkmann, Markus & Salandra, Rossella & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Hughes, Alan, 2021. "Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    11. Wesley M. Cohen & Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2020. "Not in the Job Description: The Commercial Activities of Academic Scientists and Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 4108-4117, September.
    12. Alessandra Scandura & Simona Iammarino, 2022. "Academic engagement with industry: the role of research quality and experience," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1000-1036, August.
    13. Pablo D’Este & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 752-763.
    14. Oscar Llopis & Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo & Julia Olmos-Peñuela & Elena Castro-Martínez, 2018. "Scientists’ engagement in knowledge transfer and exchange: Individual factors, variety of mechanisms and users," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 790-803.
    15. Victoria Galan-Muros & Todd Davey, 2019. "The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1311-1346, August.
    16. Aschhoff, Birgit & Grimpe, Christoph, 2014. "Contemporaneous peer effects, career age and the industry involvement of academics in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 367-381.
    17. Compagnucci, Lorenzo & Spigarelli, Francesca, 2020. "The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    18. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lawson, Cornelia, 2014. "Flying the nest: How the home department shapes researchers’ career paths," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201409, University of Turin.
    19. Yi Zhang & Kaihua Chen & Guilong Zhu & Richard C. M. Yam & Jiancheng Guan, 2016. "Inter-organizational scientific collaborations and policy effects: an ego-network evolutionary perspective of the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1383-1415, September.
    20. Ryan, Paul & Geoghegan, Will & Hilliard, Rachel, 2018. "The microfoundations of firms’ explorative innovation capabilities within the triple helix framework," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 15-27.

    More about this item

    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

    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:ing:wpaper:201503. 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: Ester Planells (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ingenes.html .

    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.