Serendipity, the notion of researchers making unexpected and beneficial discoveries, has played an important role in debates about the feasibility and desirability of targeting public R&D investments. The purpose of this paper is to show that serendipity can come in different forms and come about in a variety of ways. The archives of Robert K Merton, who introduced the term to the social sciences, were used as a starting point for gathering literature and examples. We identify four types of serendipity (Walpolian, Mertonian, Browsing, Curiosity) together with four mechanisms of serendipity (Theory-led, Observer-led, Error-borne, and Network-emergent). We also discuss implications of the different types and mechanisms for theory and policy.
Serendipity是指研究人员做出意外的有益发现的概念，它在关于公共研发投资的可行性和可取性的辩论中发挥了重要作用。这篇文章的目的是为了说明意外发现可以以不同的形式和方式出现。将该术语引入社会科学的罗伯特·K·默顿(Robert K Merton)的档案被用作收集文献和实例的起点。我们确定了四种类型的意外发现(沃尔波利式，默顿式，浏览式，好奇心)以及意外发现的四种机制(理论主导，观察者主导，错误传播和网络突发)。我们还讨论了不同类型和机制对理论和政策的影响。
{"title":"Serendipity: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory","authors":"O. Yaqub","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2841236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2841236","url":null,"abstract":"Serendipity, the notion of researchers making unexpected and beneficial discoveries, has played an important role in debates about the feasibility and desirability of targeting public R&D investments. The purpose of this paper is to show that serendipity can come in different forms and come about in a variety of ways. The archives of Robert K Merton, who introduced the term to the social sciences, were used as a starting point for gathering literature and examples. We identify four types of serendipity (Walpolian, Mertonian, Browsing, Curiosity) together with four mechanisms of serendipity (Theory-led, Observer-led, Error-borne, and Network-emergent). We also discuss implications of the different types and mechanisms for theory and policy.","PeriodicalId":164651,"journal":{"name":"SPRU Working Paper Series","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125495976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper provides a comparative analysis of the development of the UK and Italian university research funding systems with a special focus on Peer Review-Based Research Assessment (PRBRA) and its cost. Much of the debate surrounding the value of performance-based allocation systems hinges on the disadvantages versus the benefits of their implementation, and there is very little evidence on either their absolute cost or their cost relative to other allocation systems. Our objective is to fill this gap, collating the best possible estimates of the costs of alternative research funding methods to inform the ongoing policy debate. First, we compare funding in the UK and Italy during the period 2005-2012 and analyze the development of performance-based allocation in the two systems. Second, based on public reports and documents collected from universities, we discuss the public agency and university costs of RAE2008 and REF2014 and provide some estimates for VQR2012. We find that RAE2008 costs accounted for less than 1% of the total performance allocation in the related period while the VQR2012 efficiency ratio is estimated at around 2.5%. Finally, we compare the costs and efficiency ratios of PRBRA with metrics-based assessment and Research Council allocations and show that costs increase going from metrics to PRBRA to Research Council allocation.
{"title":"Research Assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and Difficult, But Probably Worth (at Least for a While)","authors":"A. Geuna, M. Piolatto","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2744617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2744617","url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides a comparative analysis of the development of the UK and Italian university research funding systems with a special focus on Peer Review-Based Research Assessment (PRBRA) and its cost. Much of the debate surrounding the value of performance-based allocation systems hinges on the disadvantages versus the benefits of their implementation, and there is very little evidence on either their absolute cost or their cost relative to other allocation systems. Our objective is to fill this gap, collating the best possible estimates of the costs of alternative research funding methods to inform the ongoing policy debate. First, we compare funding in the UK and Italy during the period 2005-2012 and analyze the development of performance-based allocation in the two systems. Second, based on public reports and documents collected from universities, we discuss the public agency and university costs of RAE2008 and REF2014 and provide some estimates for VQR2012. We find that RAE2008 costs accounted for less than 1% of the total performance allocation in the related period while the VQR2012 efficiency ratio is estimated at around 2.5%. Finally, we compare the costs and efficiency ratios of PRBRA with metrics-based assessment and Research Council allocations and show that costs increase going from metrics to PRBRA to Research Council allocation.","PeriodicalId":164651,"journal":{"name":"SPRU Working Paper Series","volume":"135 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127380817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Consoli, Giovanni Marin, Alberto Marzucchi, F. Vona
This paper elaborates an empirical analysis of labour force characteristics that emerge as a response to the growing importance of environmental sustainability. Using data on the United States we compare green and non-green occupations to detect differences in terms of skill content and of human capital. Our empirical profiling reveals that green jobs use more intensively high-level cognitive and interpersonal skills compared to non-green jobs. Green occupations also exhibit higher levels of standard dimensions of human capital such as formal education, work experience and on-the-job training. While preliminary, our exploratory exercise seeks to call attention to an underdeveloped theme, namely the labour market implications associated with the transition towards green growth.
{"title":"Do Green Jobs Differ from Non-Green Jobs in Terms of Skills and Human Capital?","authors":"D. Consoli, Giovanni Marin, Alberto Marzucchi, F. Vona","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2744521","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2744521","url":null,"abstract":"This paper elaborates an empirical analysis of labour force characteristics that emerge as a response to the growing importance of environmental sustainability. Using data on the United States we compare green and non-green occupations to detect differences in terms of skill content and of human capital. Our empirical profiling reveals that green jobs use more intensively high-level cognitive and interpersonal skills compared to non-green jobs. Green occupations also exhibit higher levels of standard dimensions of human capital such as formal education, work experience and on-the-job training. While preliminary, our exploratory exercise seeks to call attention to an underdeveloped theme, namely the labour market implications associated with the transition towards green growth.","PeriodicalId":164651,"journal":{"name":"SPRU Working Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131072957","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cornelia Lawson, A. Geuna, A. Fernández-Zubieta, R. Kataishi, Manuel Toselli
This chapter analyses the mobility of academic biomedical researchers in the US and the UK. Both countries are at the forefront of research in biomedicine, and able to attract promising researchers from other countries as well as fostering mobility between the US and the UK. Using a database of 292 UK based academics and 327 US based academics covering the period 1956 to 2012, the descriptive analysis shows a high level of international mobility at education level (BA, PhD and Postdoc) with small, but significant transatlantic exchanges, and shows high levels of cross-border mobility amongst senior academics based in the UK. There is a high level of career mobility with 50% of the sample having changed jobs at least once, and 40% having moved within academia. There is no significant difference in job-job mobility between the two countries although there are some interesting institutional differences concerning international and cross-sector mobility. The empirical analysis focuses on the importance of postdoctoral training in the US and the UK. The results indicate that working in the US is correlated to higher researcher performance in terms of both publication numbers and impact/quality adjusted publications (in top journals and average impact). The publications of researchers with postdoctoral experience are generally of a higher average impact. This applies especially to postdoc experience at top-quality US institutions although a postdoc at a UK top institution is associated with higher top journal publications and higher average impact. In relation to the UK sample, we find that a US postdoc (especially in a top institution) is correlated to subsequent performance in the UK academic market. Finally, we see that US postdocs that stay in the US publish more and publications with higher impact/quality than those that move to the UK; however, these effects are stronger for those who studied for their PhD degree outside the US. Therefore, we find some evidence that the US is able to retain high performing incoming PhD graduates.
{"title":"International Careers of Researchers in Biomedical Sciences: A Comparison of the US and the UK.","authors":"Cornelia Lawson, A. Geuna, A. Fernández-Zubieta, R. Kataishi, Manuel Toselli","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2743217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2743217","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyses the mobility of academic biomedical researchers in the US and the UK. Both countries are at the forefront of research in biomedicine, and able to attract promising researchers from other countries as well as fostering mobility between the US and the UK. Using a database of 292 UK based academics and 327 US based academics covering the period 1956 to 2012, the descriptive analysis shows a high level of international mobility at education level (BA, PhD and Postdoc) with small, but significant transatlantic exchanges, and shows high levels of cross-border mobility amongst senior academics based in the UK. There is a high level of career mobility with 50% of the sample having changed jobs at least once, and 40% having moved within academia. There is no significant difference in job-job mobility between the two countries although there are some interesting institutional differences concerning international and cross-sector mobility. The empirical analysis focuses on the importance of postdoctoral training in the US and the UK. The results indicate that working in the US is correlated to higher researcher performance in terms of both publication numbers and impact/quality adjusted publications (in top journals and average impact). The publications of researchers with postdoctoral experience are generally of a higher average impact. This applies especially to postdoc experience at top-quality US institutions although a postdoc at a UK top institution is associated with higher top journal publications and higher average impact. In relation to the UK sample, we find that a US postdoc (especially in a top institution) is correlated to subsequent performance in the UK academic market. Finally, we see that US postdocs that stay in the US publish more and publications with higher impact/quality than those that move to the UK; however, these effects are stronger for those who studied for their PhD degree outside the US. Therefore, we find some evidence that the US is able to retain high performing incoming PhD graduates.","PeriodicalId":164651,"journal":{"name":"SPRU Working Paper Series","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116868627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper aims to integrate recent philosophy, history, sociology and economics of technology (Vincenti, 1990; Searle, 1995, 2001; Dupre, 1993; Houkes, 2009; 2006; de Vries, 2003; Nye, 2006; Rosenberg, 1976, 1990; Pavitt, 1987, 1999; Meijers, 2009) to explore six definitions of technology and two pathologies. It aims to clarify the relationship between different ways of understanding technology, and provide a preliminary overview of their relative strengths and weaknesses.
{"title":"What is Technology? Six Definitions and Two Pathologies","authors":"P. Nightingale","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2743113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2743113","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to integrate recent philosophy, history, sociology and economics of technology (Vincenti, 1990; Searle, 1995, 2001; Dupre, 1993; Houkes, 2009; 2006; de Vries, 2003; Nye, 2006; Rosenberg, 1976, 1990; Pavitt, 1987, 1999; Meijers, 2009) to explore six definitions of technology and two pathologies. It aims to clarify the relationship between different ways of understanding technology, and provide a preliminary overview of their relative strengths and weaknesses.","PeriodicalId":164651,"journal":{"name":"SPRU Working Paper Series","volume":"8 6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130841760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Manual offers basic advice on how to do multicriteria mapping (MCM). It suggests how to: go about designing and building a typical MCM project; engage with participants and analyse results – and get the most out of the online MCM tool. Key terms are shown in bold italics and defined and explained in a final Annex. The online MCM software tool provides its own operational help. So this Manual is more focused on the general approach. There are no rigid rules. MCM is structured, but very flexible. It allows many more detailed features than can be covered here. MCM users are encouraged to think for themselves and be responsible and creative.
{"title":"Multicriteria Mapping Manual. Version 1.0.","authors":"A. Stirling, Josie Coburn","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2742160","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2742160","url":null,"abstract":"This Manual offers basic advice on how to do multicriteria mapping (MCM). It \u0000suggests how to: go about designing and building a typical MCM project; engage \u0000with participants and analyse results – and get the most out of the online MCM tool. \u0000Key terms are shown in bold italics and defined and explained in a final Annex. \u0000The online MCM software tool provides its own operational help. So this Manual is \u0000more focused on the general approach. There are no rigid rules. MCM is structured, \u0000but very flexible. It allows many more detailed features than can be covered here. \u0000MCM users are encouraged to think for themselves and be responsible and creative.","PeriodicalId":164651,"journal":{"name":"SPRU Working Paper Series","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133855059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
"Community-based digital fabrication workshops (such as Hackerspaces, FabLabs and Makerspaces) are innovative spaces where people come together to learn about and use versatile digital design and manufacturing technologies and create things in collaborative projects. Some spaces are run voluntarily, whilst others receive institutional support (e.g. from universities and libraries), but all share an ethos towards providing workshops that can be freely (at least in parts) accessed by the wider public. Workshop members are involved in a variety of practices in these spaces, and that go beyond tinkering with technologies and making things, to include experiments in principled ideas for commons-based peer production that some observers claim might be relevant for a post-consumption society. Nowadays, workshops constitute a global network: they can be found in many major cities around the world; many of them network and share projects and knowledge through social media; and meet up physically at international events. Excited claims are made for community-based digital fabrication workshops. It is argued they address issues of democracy and inclusivity; topics of sustainable production and consumption; and cultivate more creative, skillful and innovative engagements with technology. Such claims appear highly speculative. After all, innovation as an activity involves risks and uncertainty, is destructive as well as creative, and – depending on who appropriates benefits - can exclude certain social interests. Conducting an in-depth literature review on grassroots digital fabrication, this working paper aims to examine existing analytical themes, methodologies and debates addressed by previous research work relevant to community-based digital fabrication workshops. Our review provides reflections on three critical issues: sustainability, inclusivity, and creativity. Conclusively, the paper draws out existing research challenges when examining community-based digital fabrication workshops and future research possibilities in relation to the three critical issues. Future research activity must be attentive to these critical issues confronting grassroots digital fabrication."
{"title":"Community-Based Digital Fabrication Workshops: A Review of the Research Literature.","authors":"S. Hielscher, Adrian Smith","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2742121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2742121","url":null,"abstract":"\"Community-based digital fabrication workshops (such as Hackerspaces, FabLabs and Makerspaces) are innovative spaces where people come together to learn about and use versatile digital design and manufacturing technologies and create things in collaborative projects. Some spaces are run voluntarily, whilst others receive institutional support (e.g. from universities and libraries), but all share an ethos towards providing workshops that can be freely (at least in parts) accessed by the wider public. Workshop members are involved in a variety of practices in these spaces, and that go beyond tinkering with technologies and making things, to include experiments in principled ideas for commons-based peer production that some observers claim might be relevant for a post-consumption society. Nowadays, workshops constitute a global network: they can be found in many major cities around the world; many of them network and share projects and knowledge through social media; and meet up physically at international events. Excited claims are made for community-based digital fabrication workshops. It is argued they address issues of democracy and inclusivity; topics of sustainable production and consumption; and cultivate more creative, skillful and innovative engagements with technology. Such claims appear highly speculative. After all, innovation as an activity involves risks and uncertainty, is destructive as well as creative, and – depending on who appropriates benefits - can exclude certain social interests. Conducting an in-depth literature review on grassroots digital fabrication, this working paper aims to examine existing analytical themes, methodologies and debates addressed by previous research work relevant to community-based digital fabrication workshops. Our review provides reflections on three critical issues: sustainability, inclusivity, and creativity. Conclusively, the paper draws out existing research challenges when examining community-based digital fabrication workshops and future research possibilities in relation to the three critical issues. Future research activity must be attentive to these critical issues confronting grassroots digital fabrication.\"","PeriodicalId":164651,"journal":{"name":"SPRU Working Paper Series","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124399142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Griliches’ seminal contribution on “Output measurement in the service sectors” (1992) is now more than twenty years old. The aim of this paper is to review and systematise the scholarship that has been produced since, to identify any step forward in the conceptualisation of service output, the measurement of service productivity and the account of technical change in affecting productivity in services that might have occurred. An agenda for both innovation and service scholars is proposed.
{"title":"Productivity in Services Twenty Years On. A Review of Conceptual and Measurement Issues and a Way Forward","authors":"N. Grassano, M. Savona","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2742087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2742087","url":null,"abstract":"Griliches’ seminal contribution on “Output measurement in the service sectors” (1992) is now more than twenty years old. The aim of this paper is to review and systematise the scholarship that has been produced since, to identify any step forward in the conceptualisation of service output, the measurement of service productivity and the account of technical change in affecting productivity in services that might have occurred. An agenda for both innovation and service scholars is proposed.","PeriodicalId":164651,"journal":{"name":"SPRU Working Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121496093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
"We review the theories of growth and economic development in which the industrial sector plays a role. We briefly discuss the theoretical arguments that have been put forward in each of them and summarise the explanation of how industrialisation promotes growth and economic development. We follow an (occasionally overlapping) chronological order and find it convenient to distinguish three main periods in development thinking: the theories of the stages of economic development; the classical theories of economic development; and the modern views. The paper shows that, with few exceptions, industrialisation has always been considered the driver of economic growth in economic theory. However, in much of the relevant literature, the superiority of industry is assumed or observed, rather than explained, suggesting that there are a number of unresolved issues behind the different theoretical arguments for industrialisation-led economic development. Any development policy that focuses on industrialisation should consider these arguments in relation to specific objectives and contexts, rather than taking them for granted."
{"title":"Theoretical Arguments for Industrialisation-Driven Growth and Economic Development.","authors":"Tommaso Ciarli, Michele Di Maio","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2736806","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2736806","url":null,"abstract":"\"We review the theories of growth and economic development in which the industrial sector plays a role. We briefly discuss the theoretical arguments that have been put forward in each of them and summarise the explanation of how industrialisation promotes growth and economic development. We follow an (occasionally overlapping) chronological order and find it convenient to distinguish three main periods in development thinking: the theories of the stages of economic development; the classical theories of economic development; and the modern views. The paper shows that, with few exceptions, industrialisation has always been considered the driver of economic growth in economic theory. However, in much of the relevant literature, the superiority of industry is assumed or observed, rather than explained, suggesting that there are a number of unresolved issues behind the different theoretical arguments for industrialisation-led economic development. Any development policy that focuses on industrialisation should consider these arguments in relation to specific objectives and contexts, rather than taking them for granted.\"","PeriodicalId":164651,"journal":{"name":"SPRU Working Paper Series","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129985500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：