Person:
Hicks,
Diana
Hicks,
Diana
Permanent Link
Associated Organization(s)
Organizational Unit
ORCID
ArchiveSpace Name Record
Publication Search Results
Now showing
1 - 9 of 9
-
ItemBest Practices in Research Metrics: A Conversation With the Lead Author of the Leiden Manifesto(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2020-10-13) Hicks, DianaJoin Professor Diana Hicks of the Georgia Tech School of Public Policy for a conversation about the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics. There will be a high level overview of the 10 principles to guide research evaluation followed by a participant driven Q&A with Professor Hicks. This event is hosted by the Georgia Tech Library and the School of Public Policy.
-
ItemBig Data( 2015-09-25) Hicks, Diana ; Banzhaf, Melissa R. ; Youtie, Jan L. ; Forman, Chris M.This event featured opening remarks from Professor Diana Hicks (School of Public Policy) and presentations from ARDC Administrator Melissa R. Banzhaf, Adjunct Associate Professor Jan Youtie (Public Policy), and Professor Chris Forman (Scheller College of Business). The speakers discussed various ARDC projects involving the statistical analysis of economic, demographic and health Census data. They also fielded questions and gave advice pertaining to how Georgia Tech students and faculty can utilize the ARDC for their own projects.
-
ItemSystemic Data Infrastructure for Innovation Policy(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011-09-17) Hicks, DianaProgress on the vision laid out in the Science of Science Policy Roadmap requires a move to system level thinking and analysis in the study of technology development. System level analysis will require systemic data infrastructure. The need for such an infrastructure is increasingly explicitly recognized at the national level. This paper will review infrastructure efforts including previous US-based infrastructure, national research documentation systems used in systemic evaluations, the Community Innovation Survey in Europe, Lattes in Brazil, the NRC ranking of US graduate programs. The strengths and weaknesses of each approach will be compared, and key issues will be identified.
-
ItemA Review of National University Research Evaluation and Funding Systems(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011-09-15) Hicks, DianaThis paper aims to provide an overview of performance-based funding systems for public research in research intensive universities. It explores the types of performance-based funding systems in use, their rationale, goals and features. The design and administration of the systems is also examined, specifically, the level of consultation and negotiation that takes place with the tertiary institutions, and how the funding systems interact with other facets of the funding environment. Finally the paper explores the arguments that have emerged for and against the different types of funding systems, and whether any consensus is emerging as to a state-of-the-art system.
-
ItemResearch Performance and Resource Allocation(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-02) Hicks, Diana ; Katz, SylvanIn this paper we analyze an unacknowledged tension in decision making about the distribution of resources for research and innovation. There is tension because while decision makers accept that there is inequality in research performance, and that resources should be distributed according to merit, the resulting inequality in the allocation of public money seems so extreme that it violates deeply held principles of equity in a democratic society. We will pursue this argument by considering how resources and performance are distributed. Specifically we will examine the properties of probability distributions - power law and normal - and the felt experience of "living within" these distributions. The argument proceeds as follows. The paper begins by discussing the distinctions commonly made between probability distributions and then proposes a metaphorical classification of the shape of distributions. There follows a review of the empirical evidence that a power law distribution characterizes research performance. Next, equity in the merit-based distribution of resources is discussed and recent results from experimental economics are brought to bear on the question of the felt experience of resource distribution. This is used to argue that the normal distribution of resources will feel more comfortable than the power law distribution of resources both to those distributing resources and to those receiving resources. Unfortunately, we find that in research the comfortable distribution of resources creates an incentive structure that may suppress excellence. We believe there is a fundamental tension in between equity and excellence that can suppress incentives for excellence in innovation when equity is a concern in distributing resources. Although using merit based evaluation as a criterion for research funding would seem likely to resolve this tension, we argue here that this is not the case. Merit based decision making alone is insufficient because of inequity aversion, a fundamental tendency of people to avoid extremely unequal distributions. The distribution of performance in innovation is extremely unequal, and no decision maker with the power to establish a distribution of public money among recipients would dare to match that level of inequality. In fact, decision makers are likely unaware of the issue, as they no doubt operate with distributional assumptions of normality that guide our everyday intuitions. Further research is needed to ascertain how best to resolve the tension, though innovative funding mechanisms such as prizes hold promise. Second, avoiding a system in which one decision maker or decision making committee makes a comprehensive allocation of resources may help. The U.S. exemplifies this situation in that the total Federal research support received by any state, university or department is allocated through many competitive decisions each of comparatively minor consequence. It is possible that many small, inequity averse, merit based decisions may accumulate into a distribution that provides innovators with appropriate incentives. However, further research is needed to confirm this point.
-
ItemEvolving regimes of multi-university research evaluation(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008-03) Hicks, DianaSince 1980, national university departmental ranking exercises have developed in several countries. This paper reviews exercises in the U.S., U.K. and Australia to assess the state-of-the-art and to identify common themes and trends. The findings are that the exercises are becoming more elaborate, even unwieldy, and that there is some retreat from complexity. There seems to be a movement towards combining peer evaluation with bibliometric measures. The exercises also seem to be effective in enhancing university focus on research strategy.
-
ItemKISTI: Emerging technology assessment and training(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005-10-29) Cozzens, Susan E. ; Porter, Alan L. ; Hicks, Diana ; Gatchair, Sonia ; Kim, Kyung-Sup ; Ordonez, Gonzalo
-
ItemThe Maturation of Global Corporate R & D: Theory and Evidence(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005) Hicks, Diana ; Hegde, DeepakThis industry-level study examines the impact of foreign country factors like market size, technological strength, and science and engineering (S&E) capability on the conduct of U.S. overseas R&D during the 1991-2002 period. We find that while overseas markets primarily predict the entry of U.S. R&D, the S&E knowledge base of nations critically determines the level and sophistication of U.S. foreign subsidiaries' innovative activity. We also find important interindustry differences: U.S. electrical, electronics, computers, and communication industries are strongly drawn towards overseas S&E capability; industries including machinery, automobiles, and transport equipment are primarily attracted by the technological strength of foreign nations; U.S. R&D in chemicals mostly follows overseas markets.
-
ItemHighly innovative small firms in the markets for technology(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005) Hicks, Diana ; Hegde, DeepakLong-lived small firms with a substantial, public record of innovative success are the focus of this paper. We label such firms "serial innovators" and argue that they are often specialist suppliers in markets for technology. To survive as specialist suppliers, firms must produce technology that is broadly tradable. Using Arora, Fosfuri and Gambardella's markets-for-technology framework, we hypothesize that such technology has certain characteristics. It is: high quality, general purpose, broadly based, quite basic, and concentrated in newer generations of technology. We find that serial innovators, survivors among the specialist technology suppliers, have mastered innovating in technology with these characteristics. This helps explain why these firms have become serious players in these markets—at least for a few years until a new generation of technology emerges.