arrow drop search cross

SNIF

Scientific Networks and IDEX Funding


About the Project

Scientific collaboration networks play a crucial role in modern science. This simple idea underlies a variety of initiatives aiming to promote scientific collaborations between different research teams, universities, countries and disciplines. The recent French IDEX experience is one of them. By fostering competition between universities and granting few of them with a relatively small amount of additional resources (as compare to their global budget), public authorities aim to encourage them to deeply reshape the way academic activities are organized in order to significantly increase the quality of their research, educational programs and innovative activities. The development of new collaboration networks is one of the factors at the heart of this global reorganization. Promoting new international and/or interdisciplinary collaborations is supposed to increase researchers’ productivity and industry partnerships. This project aims to question the validity of this line of thought. To do this, we will develop both quantitative and qualitative comprehensive analyses. The quantitative analyses will use bibliometric and patent databases to build complex collaboration networks involving researchers of all French institutions that applied to the different waves of IDEX program. The shape and dynamics of these networks will be compared across IDEX applicants to determine if researchers affiliated to a university awarded with IDEX changed their collaborative behavior. Modern microeconometric methods will then be applied to detect if awarded universities benefited from a significant change in the quality of their scientific production (measured by publications and patents) and if this change can be attributed, at least partly, to the network transformation. Qualitative analyses will complement the quantitative ones by conducting semi-structured interviews with researchers involved in IDEX programs. The interviews will investigate the way the dramatic changes implied by the implementation of IDEX programs are perceived by the researchers, the challenges raised by interdisciplinary research collaborations, the researchers’ underlying motives to build scientific networks, and the fine-grained content of their informal information exchange. This qualitative research will shed a complementary light on the results that will emerge from the quantitative analysis.

Principal Investigator

Patrick Musso, GREDEG

Project's partners

  • I3S
  • Inria Sophia-Antipolis Méditerranée
  • SKEMA Business School

Project Duration

 

Total amount

 

Related documentation

  • Albert, R. and Barabási, A. (2000). Topology of evolving networks: local events and universality. Physical review letters, 85(24):5234.
  • Arora, A., David, P. A. and Gambardella, A. (2000). Reputation and competence in publicly funded science: estimating the effects on research group productivity. In The Economics and Econometrics of Innovation (pp. 141–176). Springer.
  • Arora, A. and Gambardella, A. (2005). The impact of NSF support for basic research in economics. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 91–117.
  • Azoulay, P., Zivin, J. S. G., Li, D. and Sampat, B. N. (2015). Public R&D investments and private-sector patenting: evidence from NIH funding rules. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Baer, M. (2010). The Strength-of-Weak-Ties Perspective on Creativity: A Comprehensive Examination and Extension. Journal of applied psychology 95(3): 592-601.
  • Börner, K., Contractor, N., Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Fiore, S. M., Hall, K. L., Keyton, J., … Uzzi, B. (2010). A Multi-Level Systems Perspective for the Science of Team Science. Science Translational Medicine, 2(49).
  • Brass, D. J. (1995). Creativity it's all your social networks. In C.M. Ford and D.A. Gioia (Eds) creative actions in organizations thousand Oaks C.A Sage 10.
  • Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110(2): 349–399.
  • Carayol, N., and Lanoë, M. (2017). The Impact of Project-Based Funding in Science: Lessons from the ANR Experience. mimeo. Retrieved from http://ncarayol.u-bordeaux4.fr/science_impact.pdf
  • Crescenzi, P., Grossi, R., Habib, M., Lanzi, L., and Marino, A. (2013). On computing the diameter of real-world undirected graphs. Theoretical Computer Science, 514, 84-95.
  • Conway, S. (1995). Informal Boundary-spanning Communication in the Innovation Process: An Empirical Study. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 7(3): 327.
  • Defazio, D., Lockett, A., and Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38(2), 293–305.
  • Fleming L, Mingo, S. and Chen D. (2007). Collaborative Brokerage, Generative Creativity, and Creative Success. Administrative Science Quarterly 52(3): 443-475.
  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G. and Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods 16(1): 15-31.
  • Gioia, D. A., Price, K. N., Hamilton, A. L., Thomas, J. B. (2010). Forging an identity: An insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative Science Quarterly 55: 1-46.
  • Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, 81.
  • Granovetter,M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology (78): 1360-1380.
  • Gush, J., Jaffe, A. B., Larsen, V. and Laws, A. (2015). The Effect of Public Funding on Research Output: the New Zealand Marsden Fund (Working Paper No. 21652). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B. and Trajtenberg, M. (2003). Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965-1988. International Library of Critical Writings in Economics, 165, 192–200.
  • Jackson, M. O. and Rogers, B. W. (2007). Meeting Strangers and Friends of Friends: How Random Are Social Networks? American Economic Review, 97(3), 890–915.
  • Jacob, B. A. and Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1168–1177.
  • Jaffe, A. B. (2002). Building Programme Evaluation into the Design of Public Research-Support Programmes. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 18(1): 22–34.
  • Katz, J. S. and Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.
  • Lane, J. and Bertuzzi, S. (2011). Measuring the results of science investments. Science, 331(6018), 678–680.
  • Kijkuit, B. and Van den Ende, J. (2010). With a little help from our colleagues: A longitudinal study of social networks for innovation. Organization Studies 31(4): 451-479.
  • Lee, S. and Bozeman, B. (2005). The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.
  • Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M. and Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87–102.
  • Luxburg, U. V. (2007). A tutorial on spectral clustering. Statistics and computing, 17(4): 395–416.
  • Nag, R., Corley K. G. and Gioia, D. A. (2007). The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge, and practice: attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 821-847.
  • McCabe, M. J. and Snyder, C. M. (2015). Does Online Availability Increase Citations? Theory and Evidence from a Panel of Economics and Business Journals, Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(1): 144-165.
  • Perry-Smith, J. E. and Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1): 89-106.
  • Reichardt, J., Bornholdt, S. (2006). Statistical Mechanics of Community Detection, Physical Review, E74.
  • Starkey, K., Barnatt, C., and Tempest, S. (2000). Beyond networks and hierarchies: Latent organizations in the UK television industry. Organization science, 11(3): 299-305.
  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F. and Uzzi, B. (2007). The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.
  • Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., Brass, D. J., Choi, J., and Zhang, Z. X. (2009). Social networks, personal values, and creativity: evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects. Journal of applied psychology, 94(6): 1544.