Organizational Unit:
School of Public Policy
School of Public Policy
Permanent Link
Research Organization Registry ID
Description
Previous Names
Parent Organization
Parent Organization
Organizational Unit
Includes Organization(s)
Organizational Unit
ArchiveSpace Name Record
Publication Search Results
Now showing
1 - 10 of 18
-
ItemLessons from Ten Years of Nanotechnology Bibliometric Analysis(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2016-09) Youtie, Jan ; Porter, Alan L. ; Shapira, Philip ; Newman, NilsThis paper summarizes the 10-year experiences of the Program in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy (STIP) at Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) in support of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU) in understanding, characterizing, and conveying the development of nanotechnology research and application. This work was labeled “Research and Innovation Systems Assessment” or (RISA) by CNS-ASU. RISA concentrates on identifying and documenting quantifiable aspects of nanotechnology, including academic, commercial/industrial, and government nanoscience and nanotechnology (nanotechnologies) activity, research, and projects. RISA at CNS-ASU engaged in the first systematic attempt of its kind to define, characterize, and track a field of science and technology. A key element to RISA was the creation of a replicable approach to bibliometrically defining nanotechnology. Researchers in STIP, and beyond, could then query the resulting datasets to address topical areas ranging from basic country and regional concentrations of publications and patents, to findings about social science literature, environmental, health, and safety research and usage, to study corporate entry into nanotechnology, and to explore application areas as special interests arose. Key features of the success of the program include: Having access to “large-scale” R&D abstract datasets Analytical software A portfolio that balances innovative long-term projects, such as webscraping to understand nanotechnology developments in small and medium-sized companies, with research characterizing the emergence of nanotechnology that more readily produces articles Relationships with diverse networks of scholars and companies working in the nanotechnology science and social science domains An influx of visiting researchers A strong core of students with social science, as well as some programming background A well-equipped facility and management by the principals through weekly problem-solving meetings, mini-deadlines, and the production journal articles rather than thick final reports.
-
ItemInnovation in Manufacturing: Needs, Practices, and Performance in Georgia 2016-2018(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2016) Youtie, Jan ; Shapira, Philip ; Li, Yin2016 report of the Georgia Manufacturing Survey (GMS) - a statewide study conducted every 2-3 years by Georgia Tech's Enterprise Innovation Institute and the School of Public Policy to assess the business and technological conditions of Georgia’s manufacturers. The theme of GMS 2016 is smart manufacturing.
-
ItemThe contribution of public funding to science: an investigation of research quality(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011-09-17) Shapira, Philip ; Wang, JueThis study attempts to investigate the impact of research funding on the quality of scientific publications using the funding acknowledgement analysis approach. A two-stage regression model is used to test the effect of funding on research quality. The results show that publications from funded research do exhibit higher quality in terms of both journal ranking and citation counts. In the meantime, different funding sources and patterns are of different implications to research quality.
-
ItemPerceptions and Actions: Examining the Relationship between Societal Perceptions and Citation Actions of Nanotechnology Scientists(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011-09-16) Carley, Stephen ; Corley, Elizabeth A. ; Scheufele, Dietram ; Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, JanThis study links survey data on scientists societal perceptions of nanotechnology with publication data to understand the extent of association between societal perspectives held by nanoscientists and publication actions. We find that perceptions about moral limits mediate citation actions whereas attitudes toward government regulation have no significant effect.
-
ItemCommercialization of New and Emerging Technologies:A Cross Country Comparison of Graphene Firms(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011-09-15) Arora, Sanjay ; Gao, Lidan ; Ma, TingTing ; Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, Jan L.This research employs a web-scraping methodology to 1) investigate country level differences among twenty graphene SMEs and 2) devise several measures that gauge the extent to which firm specialization in graphene coincides with other market factors. We identify three groups of SMEs to develop some early evidence of graphene commercialization.
-
ItemAssessment of fifteen nanotechnology science and engineering centers? (NSECs) Outcomes and impacts: their contribution to NNI objectives and goals(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011-03-31) Rogers, Juan D. ; Youtie, Jan L. ; Porter, Alan L. ; Shapira, Philip
-
ItemMOD measurement and analysis of highly creative research in the US and Europe(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011-02-04) Shapira, Philip ; Rogers, Juan D. ; Youtie, Jan
-
ItemThe Globalization of Innovation in Nanotechnology: Some Empirical Evidence for U.S., Japanese and European Firms(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Fernández-Ribas, Andrea ; Shapira, PhilipGlobalization of science and technology has long been a topic of interest to academics and policy makers. Despite extensive research, we know little about how and what firms globalize. Some recent studies suggest that the geographic distribution of inventive activities remain highly concentrated in industrialized countries. Arora and Yoon (2007) find that inventive activity in software remains concentrated in locations within the United States and among U.S. firms. MacHer, Mowery and Di Minin (2007) find similar results for the semiconductor industry. In a previous study, Fernandez-Ribas and Shapira (2009) show that the most technologically active U.S. corporations in nanotechnology develop an increasing number of inventions abroad. However, our results also indicate that the surge of new inventive locations outside the U.S. has not substituted the inventive activities developed at home. In fact, we find that nanotechnology inventions developed at home more than doubles the number of inventions developed abroad. By contrast, other studies suggest that R&D and innovation are moving to emerging markets. For example, Wadhwa et al. (2008) find that western pharmaceutical companies are shifting substantial preclinical and clinical-trial work to India and China. Several field studies show that indeed the globalization of knowledge, technology and capital is rapidly changing the way companies compete in the market. Increasingly companies appear to develop competitive advantages through intellectual property (Rivette and Kline 2000), open innovation approaches (Chesbrough 2003), global exploitation of technology (Archibugi and Iammarino 2002), and complex global value-chain relationships. These parallel processes suggests that globalization of innovation takes different forms, ranging from international research cooperation, international exploitation of technologies or global markets of technology, and has encouraged the emergence of new business relations. In this paper, we seek to contribute to this area by better understanding strategies of innovation by large businesses in new domains of technology characterized by rapid globalization. We focus on the emerging field of nanotechnology and study innovation strategies of the most active U.S., European and Japanese companies. We expand our previous work about the geographic distribution of inventive activities of U.S. firms (Fernandez-Ribas and Shapira, 2009), and investigate similarities and differences across companies. In addition, we investigate other characteristics of the inventive and innovation processes of nanotechnologies, including university-industry linkages, and the international exploitation of technologies. Our database is the nanotechnology publication and patent database developed by the Program in Research and Innovation Systems Assessment (CNS-ASU Center for Nanotechnology in Society) at Georgia Tech, complemented with WIPO PCT national phase reports and companies' profiles. Overall our sample consists of 60+ large multinational corporations and their subsidiaries. References Archibugi, D. and Iammarino, S. (2002) The globalization of technological innovation: definition and evidence, Review of International Political Economy. Arora, Ashish, Chris Forman, and Jiwoong Yoon (2007) Globalization of Software Innovation, Sloan Industry Studies Working Papers, 2007 Number WP-2007-2. Fernandez-Ribas, Andrea and Shapira, Philip (2009) Technological diversity, scientific excellence and the location of inventive activities abroad: the case of nanotechnology, The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 34/3, pp. 286-303. Jeffrey T. MacHer, David C. Mowery, Alberto Di Minin (2007) "Non-Globalization" of Innovation in the Semiconductor Industry, California Management Review, Vol. 50 (1) Chesbrough, H. W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Rivette, K.G and Kline, D. (2000) Discovering new value in Intellectual Property, Harvard Business Review January-February 2000: 54-66. Wadhwa, Vivek, Rissing, Ben, Gereffi, Gary, Trumpbour , John and Engardio, Pete (2008) The Globalization of Innovation: Pharmaceuticals: Can India and China Cure the Global Pharmaceutical Market.
-
ItemThe Role of Brazilian Firms in Nanotechnology Development(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Invernizzi, Noela ; Kay, Luciano ; Shapira, PhilipBrazil has been at the forefront of developing countries in implementing policies to promote the development of nanotechnologies, with the first programs implemented in 2001. Previous research has demonstrated that this country is also the leader in research and patenting activity in this field in Latin America, yet industry involvement in nanotechnology is relatively low considering its research output in terms of scientific publications and patents granted in recent years (Kay & Shapira, 2009). Yet, at the same time, nanotechnology policy in Brazil has promoted the development of research networks and suggested economic targets related to industrial development. For instance, the National Program of Nanotechnology includes goals like reaching one percent of the global markets for materials, products, and processes based on nanotechnology and exports of about $10 billion within 10 years (Goncalves da Silva, 2003). Although the existing evidence at the aggregate level suggests that Brazilian firms are not participating actively in nanotechnology development, when looking in detail the data show that several firms are involved to more or less extent in nanotechnology research and commercialization (Table 1). For example, some preliminary analyses show that at least 36 firms have published or co-authored nanotechnology articles in the last 15 years, more than 20 of them have applied for nanotechnology patents, and several others are mentioned in official data sources as institutions forming part of research networks supported by government programs (MCT, 2003, 2006). These more detailed data suggest some incipient industry activity in developing nanotechnologies, yet it is not clear what role these firms have in the overall process of nanotechnology development pursued by Brazil. At least two hypothetical paths of development of nanotechnology are suggested for Brazilian firms. Considering the important presence of state-owned firms in Brazil and the existing nanotechnology policy, it is expected for these firms to engage more in basic research in areas more aligned with social or broader economic goals, collaborating more with local research institutions than other types of firms. Meanwhile, Brazilian private firms and subsidiaries of foreign firms are expected to target research areas aligned with their overall commercial strategies, patenting their technologies after undertaking research in-house or in collaboration with local or foreign research institutions. For testing these hypothetical roles of firms, other variables like firm location and industry sector will be considered. Research question What is the role of Brazilian firms in the development of nanotechnology? What type of research and commercialization activities are they undertaking? Do they collaborate with other research institutions? Method Based primarily on Georgia Tech global databases of nanotechnology scientific publications and patents,[1] this work will identify the firms undertaking nanotechnology research and commercialization in Brazil. Their scientific publications and patents will be identified and matched to the industry sectors that those firms represent and to collaborations that they maintain with other national or foreign research institutions. In addition to this bibliometric analysis, this work will produce case studies of the leading Brazilian firms based on secondary data, describing in more detail their research and commercialization activities by analyzing thoroughly publication and patent records. Preliminary Results The levels of scientific publication and patenting by Brazilian firms are still very low compared to the overall nanotechnology research level in the country. The top-5 firms undertaking nanotechnology research and applying for nano-patents in Brazil were identified and shown in Table 1. The top four research firms are large state-owned firms in the sectors of agriculture, energy, and communications. Meanwhile, the top-5 patent applicants are private companies in the sectors of chemistry, medicine, electronics and optics, and engineering. In principle, these data suggest that the two hypothetical paths of nanotechnology development suggested before are plausible for Brazilian firms. That is, public firms may be more likely to target basic research in priority areas for the country, while private firms may be more likely to target the development and patenting of nanotechnologies related to their overall commercial strategies. [1] Primarily, ISI-WOS and Patstat databases.
-
ItemHighly Creative Nanotechnology Research: How Is It Defined and Organized(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-02) Heinze, Thomas ; Rogers, Juan D. ; Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, Jan L.Scientific and technological progress is propelled by creative research. Creative research is also a prerequisite for advances toward addressing critical societal challenges. However, we know and understand little about how creative research is conducted. Moreover, much of our knowledge is focused on individual prominent scientist, particular renowned laboratories, or national level indicators. This partial and fragmentary nature of knowledge about creative research limits our ability to develop policies that can enhance organizational and institutional factors to support and encourage novel, ambitious, and valuable work. Research Questions This paper reports on a study which is investigating characteristics at the meso-level of the research setting which advance highly creative and exceptional research activities in nanotechnology. We also compare these results with another emerging research domain, which is somewhat less multidisciplinary and has a longer - albeit still emerging - history, human genetics. Several research questions to be addressed in this study will be probed in this paper, including the following. Is highly creative research associated with a pattern of career choices, such as, postdocs under specific mentors, experience in non-academic institutions prior to a tenure track job in a university, an early job at a highly prestigious institution or one already populated with highly creative researchers? Do highly creative researchers demonstrate more mobility than a comparison group in the early career stage? Do highly creative researchers have or develop a stable set of collaborators that allowed them to pursue risky projects or what seem to be far-fetched ideas? Or, similarly, are highly creative researchers more or better networked in some sense within the research community? Is there a direct association of highly creative research with publication productivity? Does the timing of creative events have a systematic pattern within their career? Will creative events be associated with affiliation in universities or industry research organizations that are larger and more oriented to multi-disciplinary activities and approaches to problems? Do highly creative researchers have more stable sources of funding during the period prior to the creative event? Methods The study builds on previous research into highly creative scientists in these two scientific fields in the U.S. and Europe (1). It examines institutional, organizational, team, and career development features and directions of this highly creative research through quantitative comparison approaches. An initial effort involved development of a comparison group for highly creative researchers, based on publication data from the Science Citation Index (SCI) through the Web of Science (WOS). These data were extracted according to definitions in Porter et al (2008), for nanotechnology, and Heinze et al (2007) for human genetics (2). The core analysis is centered on gathering and using curriculum vitae (CV) to measure and code information on institutional, organizational, and career development factors. Insights are offered for research management, research funding, and organizational designs to stimulate highly creative research. Preliminary Results Preliminary results have been focused on the complex task of developing a robust method for creating a matched comparison group for the highly creative researchers. One method that was explored is propensity score matching of highly creative researchers to a large random sample of researchers in the nanotechnology or human genetics domains based on propensity scores. In this case, the propensity score is the predicted probability of being categorized as an HCR conditional on a set of covariates. A second method matches researchers based several early career characteristics such as (1) first year of publication of the HCRs, (2) subject category of the first publication, and (3) publication volume for the first six years. In addition, continental (i.e. US or EU) affiliation was also taken into consideration. We have found that the second method yields results with greater face validity. The heterogeneity of the random sample of researchers in the comparison group does not lend itself to propensity score matching as a readily as it does to the second, more purposive, approach. Moreover, we observe that nanotechnology appears to have less heterogeneity with respect to our primary matching feature - citations per year (logged) - than does human genetics. The purposive approach has been used to form the basis for development of a set of 8 to 10 comparison researchers to ensure there is at least 1 comparison researcher CV for each of the highly creative researchers in nanotechnology and human genetics. These matched researchers have been contacted and more than 100 CVs have been obtained and added to our dataset of existing CVs of creative researchers. We anticipate coding and analysis of the data will be completed in the first half of 2009. 1) See: Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Senker, J., and Kuhlmann, S., "Identifying Creative Research Accomplishments: Methodology and Results for Nanotechnology and Human Genetics," Scientometrics, Vol. 70, No. 1, 2007, pp. 125-152. 2) Porter, A.L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., and Schoeneck, D.J., Refining Search Terms for Nanotechnology, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 10 (5), 715-728, 2008.