IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fisidp/8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identifying creative research accomplishments: methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics

Author

Listed:
  • Heinze, Thomas
  • Shapira, Philip
  • Senker, Jacqueline
  • Kuhlmann, Stefan

Abstract

Motivated by concerns about the organizational and institutional conditions that foster research creativity in science, we focus on how creative research can be defined, operationalized, and empirically identified. A functional typology of research creativity is proposed encompassing theoretical, methodological and empirical developments in science. We then apply this typology through a process of creative research event identification in the fields of nanotechnology and human genetics in Europe and the United States, combining nominations made by several hundred experts with data on prize winners. Characteristics of creative research in the two respective fields are analyzed, and there is a discussion of broader insights offered by our approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Heinze, Thomas & Shapira, Philip & Senker, Jacqueline & Kuhlmann, Stefan, 2006. "Identifying creative research accomplishments: methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 8, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fisidp:8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/28525/1/522399991.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:jamist:v:57:y:2006:i:2:p:169-185 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Nicolas Battard & Paul F. Donnelly & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Integration of multiple stakeholders in scientific research : A sensemaking-sensegiving approach," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-01514751, HAL.
    3. Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2008. "Mapping the nanotechnology enterprise: a multi-indicator analysis of emerging nanodistricts in the US South," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 209-223, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Nicolas Battard, 2012. "Convergence and multidisciplinarity in nanotechnology: Laboratories as technological hubs," Post-Print hal-01514795, HAL.
    6. Jue Wang & Philip Shapira, 2011. "Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 563-586, June.
    7. Nicolas Battard & Paul F. Donnelly & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Integration of multiple stakeholders in scientific research : A sensemaking-sensegiving approach," Post-Print hal-01514751, HAL.
    8. Laudel, Grit & Gläser, Jochen, 2014. "Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1204-1216.
    9. Mie Augier & James G. March & Andrew W. Marshall, 2015. "Perspective—The Flaring of Intellectual Outliers: An Organizational Interpretation of the Generation of Novelty in the RAND Corporation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1140-1161, August.
    10. Tomaz Bartol & Karmen Stopar, 2015. "Nano language and distribution of article title terms according to power laws," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 435-451, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Guangyuan Hu & Stephen Carley & Li Tang, 2012. "Visualizing nanotechnology research in Canada: evidence from publication activities, 1990–2009," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 550-562, August.
    13. Chen, Chaomei & Chen, Yue & Horowitz, Mark & Hou, Haiyan & Liu, Zeyuan & Pellegrino, Donald, 2009. "Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 191-209.
    14. Ylenia Curci & Mireille Matt & Isabelle Billard & Thierry Burger-Helmchen, 2017. "Are the risks of being creative manageable? The case of public research in Hard Science," Working Papers of BETA 2017-30, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.

    More about this item

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Technology Assessment

    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:zbw:fisidp:8. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isfhgde.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.