Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating returns to scope of research fields in universities

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For policy-makers and managers of research organizations, improvement in performance is a constant objective. The potential presence of returns to scope of fields of research could influence decisions in planning the fields of activity of the research organization and the spatial positioning of its researchers in function of their specializations. We investigate the possible presence of returns to scope and the relation between scope of fields in an organization and intensity of interdisciplinary collaboration. The results, from analyzing the scientific collaborations of Italian university researchers over the years 2004–2008, seem to indicate that in general the scope of the research fields has no impact on the productivity of research or the intensity of interdisciplinary collaboration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The complete list is accessible at http://cercauniversita.cineca.it/php5/settori/index.php, last accessed on June 13, 2013.

  2. As an example, we quote the SDS description for FIS/03-Materials physics: “The sector includes the competencies necessary for dealing with theory and experimentation in the state of atomic and molecular aggregates, as well as competencies suited to dealing with properties of propagation and interaction of photons in fields and with material. Competencies in this sector also concern research in fields of atomic and molecular physics, liquid and solid states, semiconductors and metallic element composites, dilute and plasma states, as well as photonics, optics, optical electronics and quantum electronics”.

  3. www.orp.researchvalue.it. Last accessed on June 13, 2013.

  4. http://cercauniversita.cineca.it/php5/docenti/cerca.php. Last accessed on June 13, 2013.

  5. In the Italian academic system, the hard sciences are matched in nine UDAs: mathematics and computer sciences; physics; chemistry; earth sciences; biology; medicine; agricultural and veterinary sciences; civil engineering; industrial and information engineering.

  6. As frequently observed in literature (Lundberg 2007), standardization of citations with respect to median value rather than to the average is justified by the fact that distribution of citations is highly skewed in almost all disciplines.

  7. The subject category of a publication corresponds to that of the journal where it is published. For publications in multidisciplinary journals, the standardized value of citations is obtained averaging the standardized values for each subject category .

  8. The weighting values were assigned following advice from Italian professors in the life sciences. The values could be changed to suit different practices in other national contexts.

  9. Considering, for publications in the life sciences, the position of authors in the list and the character of the co-authorship (intra-mural or extra-mural).

  10. A “non-active” scientist is one having nil FSS.

  11. A “top” scientist is one with position above 80th percentile in ranking by FSS, among all national colleagues of the same SDS and academic rank. “Top scientist concentration” greater than 20 % indicates that, for the research staff in an SDS of an individual university, the percentage of top scientists is greater than the national average value.

  12. Kendal’s tau-b index assumes values between -1 (maximum discordance) and +1 (maximum concordance), with neutral value of 0 in cases of absence of association.

  13. AGR/02_AGR/04, AGR/09_FIS/05, BIO/03_BIO/01, BIO/13_BIO/11, VET/01_MED/17.

  14. Simple count of publications, fractional count based on number of coauthors, average impact.

  15. For details, see http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/output/stata_logistic.htm, last accessed on June 13, 2013.

References

  • Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2012a). The dispersion of research performance within and between universities as a potential indicator of the competitive intensity in higher education systems. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2012b). Revisiting size effects in higher education research productivity. Higher Education, 63(6), 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level. Scientometrics, 86(2), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Cicero, T. (2012c). What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics, 93(3), 1005–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2008). Assessment of sectoral aggregation distortion in research productivity measurements. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2011). Research productivity: are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones? Scientometrics, 88(3), 915–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2012d). Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of co-authors of scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2206–2222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University-industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29(6–7), 498–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, S. J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., Paula, E., & Stephan, P. E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from U.S. universities, 1981–1999. Research Policy, 34(3), 259–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. J., & Fustfeld, A. R. (1975). Research laboratory architecture and the structuring of communications. R&D Management, 5(2), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Coco, A. (2004). International partnerships for knowledge in business and academia: A comparison between Europe and the USA. Technovation, 24, 517–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, E., Rhine, S. L. W., & Santos, M. C. (1989). Institutions of higher education as multi-product firms: Economies of scale and scope. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(2), 284–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36(10), 1620–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Angelo, C. A., Giuffrida, C., & Abramo, G. (2011). A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in large-scale bibliometric databases. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 257–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1995). Departmental productivity in American Universities: Economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education review, 14(2), 119–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U., Igelsböck, J., Schikowitz, A., & Völker, T. (2013). Growing into what? The (un)disciplined socialisation of early stage researchers in transdisciplinary research. Higher Education, 65(4), 511–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gertler, M. S. (2003). Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2008). Seven myths in bibliometrics about facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2(1), 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & DeRouen, K, Jr. (2003). Science from the periphery: Collaboration, networks and periphery effects in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1995–2000. Scientometrics, 53(3), 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallowell, E. (1999). The human moment at work. Harvard Business Review, 77(1), 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, T., & Kuhlmann, S. (2008). Across institutional boundaries? Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience. Research Policy, 37(5), 888–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1996). Scale, scope and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND Journal of Economics, 27(1), 32–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. Journal of Economic Perspective, 10(3), 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographic proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K., Bradford, B., & Chavas J. P. (2005). Research and Development at U.S. Research Universities: An analysis of scope economies. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American agricultural economics association annual meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, 24–27 July, 2005.

  • Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 116–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koshal, R. K., & Koshal, M. (1999). Economies of scale and scope in higher education: A case of comprehensive universities. Economics of Education review, 18, 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Brownstein, J. S., Mills, R. G., & Kohane, I. S. (2010). Does collocation inform the impact of collaboration? PLoS ONE, 5(12), e14279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Mansfield, E. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to modern innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25(7), 1047–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown—citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macher, J. T., & Boerner, C. S. (2006). Experience and scale and scope economies: Tradeoffs and performance in development. Strategic Management Journal, 27(9), 845–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (2004). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhagen, G. M., & Baschung, L. (2013). New organisational structures and the transformation of academic work. Higher Education,. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9612-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. (2010). Measuring innovation, a new perspective: Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research. ISBN 9789264059474.

  • Palmer, C. L. (1999). Structures and strategies of interdisciplinary science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 242–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponomariov, B. L., & Boardman, P. C. (2010). Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39(5), 613–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, J., Lancaster, F. W., & Bryce, A. (1997). Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 893–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sá, C. M. (2008). ‘Interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. research universities. Higher Education, 55(5), 537–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanz, L., Bordons, M., & Zulueta, M. A. (2001). Interdisciplinarity as a multidimensional concept: Its measure in three different research areas. Research Evaluation, 10(1), 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D., Fuqua, J., Gress, J., Harvey, R., Phillips, K., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., et al. (2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5(Suppl 1), S21–S39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G. (1991). The functions of technology infrastructure in a competitive economy. Research Policy, 20(4), 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, A., DeMarie, S., & Hendrickson, A. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travaille, A. M., & Hendriks, P. H. J. (2010). What keeps science spiralling? Unravelling the critical success factors of knowledge creation in university research. Higher Education, 59(4), 423–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Joann Keyton, J., Rafols, I., Börner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.

  • Waltman, L., Tijssen, R. J. W., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). Globalisation of science in kilometres. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 574–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. A. (1976). Improved likelihood ratio tests for complete contingency tables. Biometrika, 63(1), 33–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woelert, P., & Millar, V. (2013, forthcoming). The ‘paradox of interdisciplinarity’ in Australian research governance. Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9634-8.

  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Studies of Research and Technology Transfera at the Institute for System Analysis and Computer Science, National Research Council of Italy (IASI-CNR), Viale Manzoni 30, Rome, 00185, RM, Italy

    Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa

  2. Department of Engineering and Management, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Via del Politecnico 1, 00133, Rome, Italy

    Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo

Authors
  1. Giovanni Abramo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Flavia Di Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Abramo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A. & Di Costa, F. Investigating returns to scope of research fields in universities. High Educ 68, 69–85 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9685-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9685-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation