Scientometrics

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 811–830 | Cite as

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

Article

Abstract

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allison, P. D., Waterman, R. P. (2002), Fixed-effects negative binominal regression models, Sociological Methodology, 32: 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1996), Creativity in Context, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  3. Borgatti, S., Everett, M., Freeman, L. (2002), Ucinet 6 for Windows. Software for Social Network Analysis, Analytic Technologies, Natick.Google Scholar
  4. Burt, R. S. (1992), Structural Holes. The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press, London.Google Scholar
  5. Burt, R. S. (2004), Structural holes and good ideas, American Journal of Sociology, 110: 349–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cross, R., Cummings, J. N. (2004), Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work, Academy of Management Journal, 47: 928–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heinze, T. (2006), Die Kopplung von Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft. Das Beispiel der Nanotechnologie, Campus, Frankfurt/New York.Google Scholar
  8. Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Senker, J., Kuhlmann, S. (2007), Identifying creative research accomplishments: methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics, Scientometrics, 70: 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., Martin, B. R. (Eds) (2004), Creative Knowledge Environments. The Influences on Creativity in Research and Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  10. Hollingsworth, R. (2002), Research Organizations and Major Discoveries in Twenthieth-Century Science: A Case of Excellence in Biomedical Research., WZB Discussion Paper P02-003, Berlin.Google Scholar
  11. Hollingsworth, R. (2004), Institutionalizing excellence in biomedical research: The case of Rockefeller University. In: D. H. Stapleton (Ed.), Creating a Tradition of Biomedical Research. Contributions to the History of the Rockefeller University. Rockefeller University Press, pp. 17–63.Google Scholar
  12. Hullmann, A., Meyer, M. (2003), Publications and patents in nanotechnology. An overview of previous studies and the state of the art, Scientometrics, 58: 507–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee, S., Bozeman, B. (2005), The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity, Social Studies of Science, 35: 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rodan, S., Galunic, C. (2004), More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness, Strategic Management Journal, 25: 541–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simonton, D. K. (1999), Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Simonton, D. K. (2004), Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Sternberg, R. J. (2003), Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Sternberg, R. J., Ohara, L. A., Lubart, T. I. (1997), Creativity as investment, California Management Review, 40: 8–32.Google Scholar
  19. Weinert, F. E. (2000), Individuelle Kreativität und kollektives Ergebnis, Der Architekt. Zeitschrift des Bundes deutscher Architekten, 48: 24–31.Google Scholar
  20. Whitley, R. (2000), The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, 2ndedition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovations ResearchKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES)MannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations