Public funding in the academic field of nanotechnology: a multi-agent based model

SI: SNAMAS
First Online:

Abstract

This paper simulates research networks in nanotechnology in Germany and the US. Agent-based modelling is used to analyse how public third-party funding influences the diffusion of a high technology by four different ways of funding. This diffusion is measured by the emerging number of nanoscientists. Next to the size of the national research systems and the number of scientists, the spread of nanotechnology is measured by interdisciplinarity and the probability of changing one’s disciplinary identity. The model is proper for the investigation of other high-technologies. Different ways of funding researchers can, according to the study results, influence the pattern of diffusion of a new technology in academia, in particular in the bigger research system of the US. While results are not significant for Germany, the way of funding researchers has significant effects in the US, with star scientists playing a crucial role for the distribution of public funding.

Keywords

High technology Nanotechnology Technology diffusion 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is thankful for comments and suggestions by Richard Münch, Björn-Christopher Witte, and Ali Abbas, as well as for financial support received by the German Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG).

Supplementary material

10588_2013_9158_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (370 kb)
(PDF 370 kB)

References

  1. Abbott A (2005) The disciplines and the future. In: Brint S (ed) The future of the city of intellect. The changing American university. Stanford University Press, Stanford Google Scholar
  2. Blau PM (1977) Inequality and heterogeneity. A primitive theory of social structure. The Free Press, New York, London Google Scholar
  3. Blau PM (1994) Structural contexts of opportunities. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London Google Scholar
  4. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2009) Forschung und Innovation für Deutschland [Research and innovation for Germany]. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Berlin Google Scholar
  5. Casper S (2009) Can new technology firms succeed in coordinated market economies? A response to Herrmann and Lange. Socio-Econ Rev 7:209–215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cioffi-Revilla C (2010) Computation social science. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Comput Stat 2:259–271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis JA (1970) Clustering and hierarchy in interpersonal relations: testing two graph theoretical models on 742 sociomatrices. Am Sociol Rev 35:843–851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Solla Price DJ (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 149:510–515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Etzkowitz H (2003) Public venture capital: the secret life of U.S. science policy. In: Biegelbauer PS, Borrás S (eds) Innovation policies in Europe and the U.S.: a new agenda. Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire, Burlington Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (1999a) Simulation as a method. In: Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (eds) Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, Buckingham; Philadelphia Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (1999b) Simulation and social science. In: Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (eds) Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, Buckingham; Philadelphia Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert N, Jager W, Deffuant G, Adjali I (2007) Complexities in markets: introduction to the special issue. J Bus Res 60:813–815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hagstrom WO (1970) Factors related to the use of different modes of publishing research in four scientific fields. In: Nelson CE, Pollock DK (eds) Communication among scientists and engineers. Heath Lexington Books D.C. Heath, Lexington Google Scholar
  14. Hancké B, Rhodes M, Thatcher M (2007) Introduction: beyond varieties of capitalism. In: Hancké B, Rhodes M, Thatcher M (eds) Beyond varieties of capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hedström P (2008) Studying mechanisms to strengthen causal inferences in quantitative research. In: Box-Steffensmeier JM, Brady HE, Collier D (eds) The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  16. Hüning L, Langer MF (2006) Der MASTERMARKT nach Bologna. Den Markt für Master-Programme verstehen, Strategien gestalten [The Market of Master Degrees after Bologna. Understanding the Market of Master Programs, Creating Strategies] (CHE Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung, Gütersloh) Google Scholar
  17. Jackson MO (2008) Social and economic networks. Princeton University Press, Princeton Google Scholar
  18. Jansen D, von Görtz R, Heidler R (2010) Is nanoscience a mode 2 field? In: Jansen D (ed) Governance and performance in the German public research sector. Springer, Dordrecht CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lotka AJ (1926) The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Wash Acad Sci 16:317–323 Google Scholar
  20. Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159:56–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moody J (2004) The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am Sociol Rev 69:213–238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mutschke P (2010) Zentralitäts- und Prestigemaße [Measures of centrality and prestige]. In: Stegbauer C, Häußling R (eds) Handbuch Netzwerkforschung. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden Google Scholar
  23. National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (2010) NNI Budget, 2009–2011 (Arlington, VA) Google Scholar
  24. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2008) NSF Award Search (Arlington, VA) Google Scholar
  25. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2010) Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (Arlington, VA) Google Scholar
  26. Pattison P, Robins G (2002) Neighbourhood-based models for social networks. Sociol Method 32:301–337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Owen-Smith J (2005) Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Am J Sociol 110:1132–1205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schweinberger M, Snijders TAB (2003) Settings in social networks: a measurement model. Sociol Method 33:307–341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schummer J (2007) The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: a bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy. Scientometrics 70:669–692 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Squazzoni F (2010) The impact of agent-based models in the social sciences after 15 years of incursions. Hist Econ Ideas 18:197–233 Google Scholar
  31. Steglich C, Snijders TAB, Pearson M (2010) Dynamic networks and behavior: separating selection from influence. Sociol Method 40:329–393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Streeck W, Thelen K (2001) Introduction: institutional change in advanced political economies. In: Streeck W, Thelen K (eds) Beyond continuity. institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  33. Thelen K (2004) How institutions evolve. the political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. VDI Technologiezentrum e.V. (2009) nano.DE-Report 2009 (Federal Ministry of Education and Research (German), Bonn; Berlin) Google Scholar
  35. Zucker LG, Darby MR (2001) Capturing technological opportunity via Japan’s star scientists: evidence from Japanese firms’ biotech patents and products. J Technol Transf 26:37–58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology IIBamberg UniversityBambergGermany
  2. 2.DFG-Graduate College “Markets and Social Systems in Europe”BambergGermany

Personalised recommendations