Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology
- 773 Downloads
There is increasing interest in assessing how sponsored research funding influences the development and trajectory of science and technology. Traditionally, linkages between research funding and subsequent results are hard to track, often requiring access to separate funding or performance reports released by researchers or sponsors. Tracing research sponsorship and output linkages is even more challenging when researchers receive multiple funding awards and collaborate with a variety of differentially-sponsored research colleagues. This article presents a novel bibliometric approach to undertaking funding acknowledgement analysis which links research outputs with their funding sources. Using this approach in the context of nanotechnology research, the article probes the funding patterns of leading countries and agencies including patterns of cross-border research sponsorship. We identify more than 91,500 nanotechnology articles published worldwide during a 12-month period in 2008–2009. About 67% of these publications include funding acknowledgements information. We compare articles reporting funding with those that do not (for reasons that may include reliance on internal core-funding rather than external awards as well as omissions in reporting). While we find some country and field differences, we judge that the level of reporting of funding sources is sufficiently high to provide a basis for analysis. The funding acknowledgement data is used to compare nanotechnology funding policies and programs in selected countries and to examine their impacts on scientific output. We also examine the internationalization of research funding through the interplay of various funding sources at national and organizational levels. We find that while most nanotechnology funding is nationally-oriented, internationalization and knowledge exchange does occur as researchers collaborate across borders. Our method offers a new approach not only in identifying the funding sources of publications but also in feasibly undertaking large-scale analyses across scientific fields, institutions and countries.
KeywordsFunding acknowledgement analysis Research funding Research sponsorship Nanotechnology Research outputs Publications Bibliometrics
Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)91B82 91C99
JEL ClassificationC81 H59 I28 O32 O38
- Adams, J. D., & Griliches, Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales d’Economie et de Statisque, 49/50, 127–162.Google Scholar
- Baird, D., & Shew, A. (2004). Probing the history of scanning tunneling microscopy. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
- Baker, S., & Aston, A. (2005). The business of nanotech. Business Week. Feb 14, 64–71.Google Scholar
- Campbell, D., Picard-Aitken, M., Cote, G., Caruso, J., Valentim, R., Edmonds, S., et al. (2010). Bibliometrics as a performance measurement tool for research evaluation: The case of research funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Drexler, E. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2004). Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. Brussels: DG Research.Google Scholar
- European Commission (2009). Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005–2009, Second Implementation Report 2007–2009. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/index_en.html.
- Griliches, Z. (1985). Productivity, R&D, and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. NBER Working Paper No. W1547. Boston, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- Hicks, D., Albert, M., Breitzman, T., & Cheney, P. (2002). Bibliometric analysis of core papers fundamental to tissue engineering. Haddon Heights: CHI Research, Inc.Google Scholar
- Joint Economic Committee. (2007). Nanotechnology: The future is coming sooner than you think. Washington: US Congress.Google Scholar
- Kearnes, M., & Wienroth, M. (2009). ‘Arm’s length’? Narratives of impact and autonomy in UK Research Councils. Working Paper. ESRC Project on Strategic Science: Research Intermediaries and the Governance of Innovation. UK: Department of Geography, Durham University.Google Scholar
- Lichtenberg, F. R. (1985). Assessing the impact of federal industrial r&d expenditures on private r&d activity. Papers commissioned for a workshop on the federal role in research and development. The National Academies Press, pp. 115–150.Google Scholar
- Lux Research. (2004). The nanotech report: investment overview and market research for nanotechnology. New York: Lux Research.Google Scholar
- Lux Research. (2006). The nanotech report (4th ed.): Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology. New York: Lux Research.Google Scholar
- Lux Research. (2007). Top nations in nanotech see their lead erode. New York: Lux Research.Google Scholar
- Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing. American Economic Review, 70(5), 863–873.Google Scholar
- Mansfield, E. (1981). How economists see R&D. Harvard Business Review, 59(6), 98–106.Google Scholar
- Martin, B., Salter, A., Hicks, D., Pavitt, K., Senker, J. Sharp, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (1996). The relationship between publicly funded basic research and economic performance: A SPRU review. Report prepared for HM treasury. University of Sussex, Brighton.Google Scholar
- McAllister, P.R., Narin, F., & Corrigan, J.G. (1983). Programmatic evaluation and comparison based on standardized citation scores. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-30, 4.Google Scholar
- OMB. (1993). Government Performance Results Act of 1993. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of Management and Budget.Google Scholar
- OTA. (1986). Research funding as an investment: Can we measure the returns? A technical memorandum. OTA-TMSET-36. Washington: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
- OTA. (1991). Federally funded research: Decisions for a decade. OTA-SET-490. Washington: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
- Paasi, M. (1998). Efficiency of innovation systems in the transition countries. Economic Systems, 22(3), 217–234.Google Scholar
- Payne, A. A., & Siow, A. (2003). Does federal research funding increase university research output? Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(1), Article 1.Google Scholar
- PCAST. (2005). The national nanotechnology initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the national nanotechnology advisory panel. Washington: The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).Google Scholar
- Peterson, C. (1991). Nanotechnology race: MITI adopts ‘Bottom-Up’ strategy. Foresight Update 12, August 1. http://www.foresight.org/Updates/Update12/index.html.
- Rigby, J. (2011). Systematic grant and funding body acknowledgement data for publications: An examination of new dimensions and new controversies for bibliometrics. Manchester Business School, Working Paper, No. 611. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
- Roco, M. C. (2007). National nanotechnology initiative—past, present, future. In W. A. Goddard, D. Brenner, S. E. Lyshevski, & G. J. Iafrate (Eds.), Handbook on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Sarewitz, D. (1997). Social change and science policy. Issues in Science and Technology, XIII(4), 29–32.Google Scholar
- Sargent, J. F. (2008). Nanotechnology and U.S: Competitiveness. Issues and Options. RL34493. Washington: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
- Science and Technology Committee. (2004). Science and technology—fifth report. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
- Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2007). R&D policy in the United States: The promotion of nanotechnology R&D. Monitoring and analysis of policies and public financing instruments conducive to higher levels of R&D investments—The “Policy Mix” Project. European Commission, DG Research (DG-RTD-2005-M-01-02). ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/pmcasestudy_us_nanotech11.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2010.
- Takemura, M. (2005). Strategic promotion of nanotechnology R&D in Japan. Tsukuba-City: National Institute for Materials Science.Google Scholar
- Terleckyj, N. E. (1974). Effects of R&D on the productivity growth of industries: An exploratory study. Washington: National Planning Association.Google Scholar
- Terleckyj, N. E. (1985). Measuring economic effects of federal R&D expenditures: Recent history with special emphasis on federal R&D performed in industry. Papers commissioned for a workshop on the federal role in research and development. Washington: The National Academies Press, pp. 151–172.Google Scholar
- Thomson Reuters. (2010). Funding acknowledgements. http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/fundingsearch. Accessed 2 May 2010.
- Uldrich, J., & Newberry, D. (2003). The next big thing is really small: How nanotechnology will change the future of your business. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
- Woolgar, L. (2010). ERAWATCH research inventory report for JAPAN. European Commission: ERAWATCH. http://cordis.europa.eu/erawatch/index.cfm?fuseaction=ri.content&topicID=4&countryCode=JP. Accessed 15 Mar 2010.