Advertisement

A Bayesian Measure of Research Productivity

  • Lin Qin
  • Steven T. Buccola
Chapter
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)

Abstract

We use Bayesian probability theory to develop a new way of measuring research productivity. The metric accommodates a wide variety of project types and productivity sources and accounts for the contributions of “failed” as well as “successful” investigations. Employing a mean-absolute-deviation loss functional form with this new metric allows decomposition of knowledge gain into an outcome probability shift (mean surprise) and outcome variance reduction (statistical precision), a useful distinction, because projects scoring well on one often score poorly on the other. In an international aquacultural research program, we find laboratory size to moderately boost mean surprise but have no effect on precision, while scientist education improves precision but has no effect on mean surprise. Returns to research scale are decreasing in the size dimension but increasing when size and education are taken together, suggesting the importance of measuring human capital at both the quantitative and qualitative margin.

References

  1. Adams, J., and Z. Griliches. 1996. Measuring Science: An Exploration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 93: 12664–12670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alston, J.M., G.W. Norton, and P.G. Pardey. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practices for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca: Cornell University Press and ISNAR.Google Scholar
  3. Alston, J.M., M.C. Marra, P.G. Pardey, and T.J. Wyatt. 2000. Research Returns Redux: A Meta-Analysis of the Returns to Agricultural R&D. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 44 (2): 185–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alston, J.M., M.A. Andersen, J.S. James, and P.G. Pardey. 2011. The Economic Returns to US Public Agricultural Research. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93 (5): 1257–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger, J.O. 1985. Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CGIAR Science Council. 2009. Defining and Refining Good Practice in Ex-Post Impact Assessment – Synthesis Report. Rome: CGIAR Science Council Secretariat.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal. 1989. Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D. Economic Journal 99: 569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fontana, R., A. Nuvolari, H. Shimizu, and A. Vezzulli. 2013. Reassessing Patent Propensity: Evidence from a Dataset of R&D Awards, 1977–2004. Research Policy 42 (10): 1780–1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Griliches, Z. 1990. Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature 27: 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, B.H., A.B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. 2005. Market Value and Patent Citations. RAND Journal of Economics 36: 16–38.Google Scholar
  11. Hausman, J.A., B.H. Hall, and Z. Griliches. 1984. Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship. Econometrica 52 (4): 909–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huffman, W.E., and R.E. Evenson. 2006. Do Formula or Competitive Grant Funds Have Greater Impacts on State Agricultural Productivity? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (4): 783–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hurley, T.M., X. Rao, and P.G. Pardey. 2014. Re-Examining the Reported Rates of Return to Food and Agricultural Research and Development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96 (5): 1492–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Industrial Research Institute. 2016. 2016 Global Funding Forecast. R&D Magazine (Winter 2016 Supplement), 3–34.Google Scholar
  15. Kocher, M.G., M. Luptacik, and M. Sutter. 2006. Measuring Productivity of Research in Economics: A Cross-Country Study Using DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 40: 314–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lanjouw, J.O., and M. Schankerman. 2004. Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators. Economic Journal 114 (495): 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindley, D.V. 1956. On a Measure of the Information Provided by an Experiment. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 27: 986–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oettl, A. 2012. Reconceptualizing Stars: Scientist Helpfulness and Peer Performance. Management Science 58 (6): 1122–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pardey, P.G. 1989. The Agricultural Knowledge Production Function: An Empirical Look. The Review of Economics and Statistics 71: 453–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Polanyi, M. 1974. Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Robert, C.P. 2001. The Bayesian Choice. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Rynes, S.L., J.M. Bartunek, and R.L. Daft. 2001. Across the Great Divide: Knowledge Creation and Transfer between Practitioners and Academics. Academy of Management Journal 44 (2): 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schimmelpfennig, D.E., and G.W. Norton. 2003. What is the Value of Agricultural Economics Research? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schulze, A., and M. Hoegl. 2008. Organizational Knowledge Creation and the Generation of New Product Ideas: A Behavioral Approach. Research Policy 37 (10): 1742–1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shapira, P., J. Youtie, K. Yogeesvaran, and Z. Jaafar. 2006. Knowledge Economy Measurement: Methods, Results, and Insights from the Malaysian Knowledge Content Study. Research Policy 35 (10): 1522–1537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang, E.C., and W. Huang. 2007. Relative Efficiency of R&D Activities: A Cross-Country Study Accounting for Environmental Factors in the DEA Approach. Research Policy 36: 260–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. White, F.C., and J. Havlicek. 1982. Optimal Expenditures for Agricultural Research and Extension: Implications of Underfunding. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (1): 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Winkler, R.L. 1972. An Introduction to Bayesian Inference and Decision. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 1986. Expert Resolution. Management Science 32 (3): 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ———. 1994. Evaluating Probabilities: Asymmetric Scoring Rules. Management Science 40 (11): 1395–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.comScore, Inc.RestonUSA
  2. 2.Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations