Advertisement

‘Getting out of the closet’: scientific authorship of literary fiction and knowledge transfer

  • Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro
  • Anabel Fernández-Mesa
  • Nicolás Robinson-García
Article

Abstract

Some scientists write literary fiction books in their spare time. If these books contain scientific knowledge, literary fiction becomes a mechanism of knowledge transfer. In this case, we could conceptualize literary fiction as non-formal knowledge transfer. We model knowledge transfer via literary fiction as a function of the type of scientist (academic or non-academic) and his/her scientific field. Academic scientists are those employed in academia and public research organizations whereas non-academic scientists are those with a scientific background employed in other sectors. We also distinguish between direct knowledge transfer (the book includes the scientist’s research topics), indirect knowledge transfer (scientific authors talk about their research with cultural agents) and reverse knowledge transfer (cultural agents give scientists ideas for future research). Through mixed-methods research and a sample from Spain, we find that scientific authorship accounts for a considerable percentage of all literary fiction authorship. Academic scientists do not transfer knowledge directly so often as non-academic scientists, but the former engage into indirect and reverse transfer knowledge more often than the latter. Scientists from History stand out in direct knowledge transfer. We draw propositions about the role of the academic logic and scientific field on knowledge transfer via literary fiction. We advance some tentative conclusions regarding the consideration of scientific authorship of literary fiction as a valuable knowledge transfer mechanism.

Keywords

Creative class Non-formal technology transfer channels Institutional logics Scientific writers 

JEL Classifications

O33 O34 Z11 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Project AICO/2016/A/107 of the Valencian Regional Government. Nicolás Robinson-Garcia was supported by a Juan de la Cierva-Formación Fellowship from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. We are indebted to Pablo Marín Liébana (supported by CSIC’s Fellowship JAE-INT 16/00455) for his work in the database, conducting interviews and sharing ideas, and to the authors interviewed for their patience and generosity. Some of them informed about their consent to be mentioned by name: Sergio R. Alarte (‘Tormentas de verano’), María Ángeles Chavarría (‘Mi otro yo’), Juan Pablo Heras (‘De fábula’), Xavier Minguez (‘Flor de carxofa’), Lluís Miret (L’ombra del mal’), Javier Navarro (‘Tableaux vivants’) and Fedosy Santaella (‘El dedo de David Lynch’). David Barberá-Tomás, Alejandra Boni, Elena Castro-Martínez and Richard Woolley provided invaluable feedback through informal talks, and other INGENIO colleagues during a seminar presentation. Thanks as well to attendants to the presentations of the paper at the 2016 Science and Technology Indicators Conference, the 2016 Technology Transfer Conference, the 2017 Bologna Workshop ‘University-Industry Collaborations and Academic Entrepreneurship’ and the 2017 Druid Conference for their participation and constructive comments, especially to our discussants Dipesh Sigdell, Carmelo Cennamo and Juan Antonio Candiani.

References

  1. Ayoub, M. R., Gottschalk, S., & Müller, B. (2016). Impact of public seed-funding on academic spin-offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, online first.Google Scholar
  2. Azagra-Caro, J. M., Aznar-Marquez, J., & Blanco, J. M. (2008). Interactive vs. non-interactive knowledge production by faculty members. Applied Economics, 40(10), 1289–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baccini, A., Barabesi, L., Cioni, M., & Pisani, C. (2014). Crossing the hurdle: the determinants of individual scientific performance. Scientometrics, 101(3), 2035–2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banou, C. (2013). The organization of book-publishing houses in a changing era. Logos, 24(1), 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbieri, E., Rubini, L., Pollio, C., & Micozzi, A. (2016). What are the trade-offs of academic entrepreneurship? An investigation on the Italian case. The Journal of Technology Transfer, online first.Google Scholar
  6. Benneworth, P. (2014). Tracing how the arts and humanities research translates, circulates and consolidates in society. How have scholars been reacting to diverse impact and public value agendas? Arts and Humanities Higher Education, 14(1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benneworth, P., Charles, D., & Madanipour, A. (2010). Building localized interactions between universities and cities through university spatial development. European Planning Studies, 18(10), 1611–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breznitz, S. M., & Feldman, M. P. (2010). The engaged university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(2), 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cassity, E., & Ang, I. (2006). Humanities-industry partnerships and the ‘Knowledge Society’: The Australian experience. Minerva, 44(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang, Y. C., Yang, P. Y., Martin, B. R., Chi, H. R., & Tsai-Lin, T. F. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities and research ambidexterity: A multilevel analysis. Technovation, 54, 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colardyn, D., & Bjornavold, J. (2004). Validation of formal, non-formal and informal learning: Policy and practices in EU member states. European Journal of Education, 39(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crozier, W. R. (1999). Age and individual differences in artistic productivity: Trends within a sample of British novelists. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deb, S. (2017). Trump proposes eliminating the Arts and Humanities endowments. The New York Times, Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/arts/nea-neh-endowments-trump.html
  18. Ehlenz, M. M. (2015). Neighborhood Revitalization and the Anchor Institution Assessing the Impact of the University of Pennsylvania’s West Philadelphia Initiatives on University City. Urban Affairs Review, 1078087415601220.Google Scholar
  19. Fähnrich, B. (2015). Science diplomacy: Investigating the perspective of scholars on politics–science collaboration in international affairs. Public Understanding of Science, 0963662515616552.Google Scholar
  20. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and social psychology review, 2(4), 290–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fier, H., & Pyka, A. (2014). Against the one-way-street: analyzing knowledge transfer from industry to science. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Goddard, J. (2009). Re-inventing the civic university. London: NESTA.Google Scholar
  24. Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2006). Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in Natural Sciences and engineering. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 561–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Madjar, N. (2008). Emotional and informational support from different sources and employee creativity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(1), 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MarketLine. (2016). MarketLine Industry Profile: Global Publishing. Rockville: MarketLine, www.marketline.com. Accessed May 28, 2017.
  30. McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to experience. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, 15, 257–273.Google Scholar
  31. Molas-Gallart, J., & Tang, P. (2011). Tracing ‘productive interactions’ to identify social impacts: An example from the Social Sciences. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD. (2000). Knowledge management in the learning society. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.Google Scholar
  34. OECD. (2007). Revised fields of science and technology. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  35. Olmos-Peñuela, J., Benneworth, P., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). What stimulates researchers to make their research usable? Towards an ‘openness’ approach. Minerva, 53(4), 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olmos-Peñuela, J., Castro-Martínez, E., & D’Este, P. (2014). Knowledge transfer activities in Social Sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents. Research Policy, 43(4), 696–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parker, I. (2015). Podemos as event or not: what it looks like from Manchester. Teknokultura, 12(1), 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perkmann, M., King, Z., & Pavelin, S. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research Policy, 40(4), 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shehu, E., Prostka, T., Schmidt-Stölting, C., Clement, M., & Blömeke, E. (2014). The influence of book advertising on sales in the German fiction book market. Journal of Cultural Economics, 38(2), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, H. L., & Bagchi-Sen, S. (2012). The research university, entrepreneurship and regional development: Research propositions and current evidence. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(5–6), 383–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor, B. J., Cantwell, B., & Slaughter, S. (2013). Quasi markets in U.S. Higher Education: The humanities and institutional revenues. The Journal of Higher Educations, 84(5), 675–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thelwall, M. (2017). Book genre and author gender: Romance > Paranormal-Romance to Autobiography > Memoir. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(5), 1212–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tijssen, R. J. W. (2006). Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy, 35(10), 1569–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Management ‘Juan José Renau Piqueras’University of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations