Life cycles of research groups: the case of CWTS

Braam, Robert R.; Besselaar, Peter van den

doi:10.3152/095820210x503465

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Zucker and Darby 1996; Zuckerman 1992) and how to identify them in terms of output and productivity in relation to age (Costas et al 2010) and role (Bayer and Smart 1991). Lifecycles have been studied to examine changes over time in the productivity of researchers (Carayol and Matt 2004, 2006; Falagas et al 2008; Levin and Stephan, 1991; Reskin 1977) and the activity profile of institutes (Braam and van den Besselaar 2010). …”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Search strategies along the academic lifecycle

Horlings

Gurney

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how individual scientists build a personal portfolio of research is key to understanding outcomes on the level of scientific fields, institutions, and systems. We lack the scientometric and statistical instruments to examine the development over time of the involvement of researchers in different problem areas. In this paper we present a scientometric method to map, measure, and compare the entire corpus of individual scientists. We use this method to analyse the search strategies of 43 condensed matter physicists along their academic lifecycle. We formulate six propositions that summarise our theoretical expectations and are empirically testable: (1) a scientist’s work consists of multiple finite research trails; (2) a scientist will work in several parallel research trails; (3) a scientist’s role in research trail selection changes along the lifecycle; (4) a scientist’s portfolio will converge before it diverges; (5) the rise and fall of research trails is associated with career changes; and (6) the rise and fall of research trails is associated with the potential for reputational gain. Four propositions are confirmed, the fifth is rejected, and the sixth could not be confirmed or rejected. In combination, the results of the four confirmed propositions reveal specific search strategies along the academic lifecycle. In the PhD phase scientists work in one problem area that is often unconnected to the later portfolio. The postdoctoral phase is where scientists diversify their portfolio and their social network, entering various problem areas and abandoning low-yielding ones. A professor has a much more stable portfolio, leading the work of PhDs and postdoctoral researchers. We present an agenda for future research and discuss theoretical and policy implications.

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Search strategies along the academic lifecycle

Horlings

Gurney

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We focus on the research group since we contend that research is a team effort, and the group is an important organizational unit within the science system (Braam and van den Besselaar, 2010;Hernández et al, 2009;Rey-Rocha et al, 2008;Wuchty et al, 2007). Taking the research group as the unit of analysis contrasts with most studies of KT and science-society interactions which tend (with a few exceptions see Bercovitz and Feldman, 2011;Ramos-Vielba et al, 2010 to be at the university or researcher or university department level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this research is to achieve a better understanding of the processes underlying knowledge transfer (KT) in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). The paper addresses: first, the extent of SSH research groups' engagement in KT and the formal KT activities used to interact with non-academic communities; and second, how the characteristics of research groups may influence engagement in various types of KT. The empirical analysis is at research group level using data derived from a questionnaire of SSH research groups conducted by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). We find that KT activities are based on relational rather than commercial activities. The most frequent relational activities in which SSH research groups engage are consultancy and contract research, with personnel mobility a marginal activity. We find also that the characteristics of research groups (e.g. size and multidisciplinarity) and individuals (e.g. status and research impact) are associated with involvement in KT activities and that a deliberate focus on the societal impacts and relevance of the research conducted is strongly related to active engagement of research groups in all the modes of KT considered in this study. From a managerial perspective, our findings suggest that measures promoting a focus on the societal impact of research could enhance research groups' engagement in KT activities.

show abstract

“…Therefore, the units' activity profiles also indirectly express how units have positioned themselves in terms of resource acquisition by accumulating different types of credibility and constructing stable linkages with the audiences that provide specific resources. While this process is dynamic, empirical studies display that profiles are characterized by stability and that changes tend to occur during specific events, such as the replacement of the director or a major organizational restructuring (Braam and Van den Besselaar 2010).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework Resource Dependencies and Credibility mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This concerns: (a) the notion that units might display different profiles of activities (Larédo and Mustar 2000;Braam and Van den Besselaar 2010), particularly the balance between education and research; (b) the idea that resource acquisition is based on credibility cycles (Latour and Woolgar 1979), but these differ depending on the unit's profile and on the audience providing resources (Joly and Mangematin 1996); and (c) the notion that resources are not always substitutable, but some resources are critical and constrain the unit's development (Coronini and Mangematin 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dynamics of university units as a multi‐level process. Credibility cycles and resource dependencies

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an analysis of resource acquisition and profile development of institutional units within universities. We conceptualize resource acquisition as a twolevel nested process, where units compete for external resources based on their credibility, but at the same time are granted faculty positions from the larger units (department) to which they belong. Our model implies that the growth of university units is constrained by the decisions of their parent department on the allocation of professorial positions, which represent the critical resource for most units' activities. In our field of study this allocation is largely based on educational activities, and therefore, units with high scientific credibility are not necessarily able to grow, despite an increasing reliance on external funds. Our paper therefore sheds light on the implications that the dual funding system of European universities has for the development of units, while taking into account the interaction between institutional funding and third-party funding.

show abstract

Life cycles of research groups: the case of CWTS

Cited by 16 publications

References 14 publications

Search strategies along the academic lifecycle

Search strategies along the academic lifecycle

Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents

The dynamics of university units as a multi‐level process. Credibility cycles and resource dependencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About