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

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. 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. Terms of use: Documents in

Authorship and Content Analysis of Engineering Education Research: A Case Study

“…Regarding such classification, Klavans and Boyack [29] have suggested that individual publication and citation counts can be taken as an indicator for identifying the leading researchers within a field. Similarly, other researchers suggest that citation and publication counts are obvious indicators of productive and creative scientists within a field [30][31][32]. These prolific researchers have more impact on the field, and the likelihood that these papers are selected as "creative work" is higher [33].…”

Managing in the creative industries: Managing the motley crew

“…The idea of the lone genius is criticized as a myth (Montuori, 2003) in that creativity, whilst still combining exemplary performance and rule resetting, takes place in relation to a community of practitioners and a social context that facilitates it (Amabile et al, 1996). Creative activities entail interaction within and outside the group or community (Heinze & Bauer, 2007), challenging, extending and adapting ideas and practices, dealing with and embracing the unexpected (Oliver & Roos, 2003). (We turn below to the importance of social networks functioning in creative endeavour.…”

Dynamics of Brokerage Positions in Clusters: Evidence from the Spanish Foodstuffs Industry

“…In this paper, we generally opted for the most common denominator, broker and brokerage. Notable contributions at individual or firm-level should be mentioned [5][6][7][8][9]. Most of this research builds on the ideas of brokers and structural holes [2,10,11].…”