Rogers, Juan D.
ArchiveSpace Name Record
Publication Search Results
Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
ItemAssessing the impacts in industry of basic research(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006-06-14) Bozeman, Barry L. ; Rogers, Juan D. ; Georgia Institute of Technology. Office of Sponsored Programs ; Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Public Policy ; Georgia Institute of Technology. Office of Sponsored Programs
ItemThe CREA Project – Measuring and Analyzing Highly Creative Scientific Research(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011-01-24) Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, Jan L. ; Rogers, Juan D. ; Heinze, Thomas ; Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Public PolicyThis project investigates the features of the research environment that enable and foster highly creative research in nanotechnology and human genetics in the US and Europe. It also examines the influence of career patterns. The study contributes to the methodology of science studies by further developing and extending curriculum vita (CV) analysis. The identification of factors in the research environment has broader implications for research and human resource management, and the design and implementation of funding schemes. The use of comparative fields extends the range of impact to two different emerging fields. Public datasets containing variables related to the creative researcher nominees is made available for use by others.
ItemA New Technology Transfer Scheme for the Periphery: The case of INTA in Argentina(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011-09-15) Arnozis, Patricia Adriana ; Rogers, Juan D. ; Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Public Policy ; National Institute for Agricultural Technology (INTA)Argentina faces many productive problems that would benefit from scientific and technological contributions for their solution. INTA, a public R&D agricultural agency, has worked hard in solving them. In this paper, we will present a case study of a particular arrangement designed to accelerate technological transference to the productive sector.
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 ; Georgia Institute of Technology. Office of Sponsored Programs ; Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Public Policy ; Georgia Institute of Technology. Office of Sponsored Programs
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 ; Georgia Institute of Technology. Office of Sponsored Programs ; Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Public Policy ; Georgia Institute of Technology. Office of Sponsored Programs
ItemDevelopment of evaluation tools for assessing capabilities in health technology(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2010-09-29) Rogers, Juan D. ; Georgia Institute of Technology. Office of Sponsored Programs ; Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Public Policy ; Georgia Institute of Technology. Office of Sponsored Programs
ItemBlind Matching Versus Matchmaking: Comparison Group Selection for Highly Creative Researchers(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10) Rogers, Juan D. ; Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, Jan L. ; Georgia Institute of Technology. Enterprise Innovation Institute ; Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Public Policy ; Manchester Institute of Innovation ResearchThis research examines approaches for constructing a comparison group relative to highly creative researchers in nanotechnology and human genetics in the US and Europe. Such a comparison group would be useful in identifying factors that contribute to scientific creativity in these emerging fields. Two comparison group development approaches are investigated. The first approach is based on propensity score analysis and the second is based on knowledge from the literature on scientific creativity and early career patterns. In the first approach, the log of citations over the years of activity in the domains under analysis produces a significant result, but the distribution of matches is not adequate at the middle and high ends of the scale. The second approach matches highly creative researchers in nanotechnology and human genetics with a comparison group of researchers that have the same or similar early career characteristics were considered: (1) same first year of publication (2) same subject category of the first publication, (3) similar publication volume for the first six years in the specified emerging domain. High levels of diversity among the highly creative researchers, especially those in human genetics, underscore the difficulties of constructing a comparison group to understand factors that have brought about their level of performance.
ItemAssessment of Fifteen Nanotechnology Science and Engineering Centers’ (NSECs) Outcomes and Impacts: Their contribution to NNI Objectives and Goals(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011-09-17) Kay, Luciano ; Rogers, Juan D. ; Youtie, Jan L. ; Georgia Institute of TechnologyUS Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECs) were created to foster world-class science, commercialization, education, and responsible governance. Our evaluation of the NSEC program suggests that the NSECs have demonstrated strategic flexibility in evolving as the field has evolved, addressing multiple goals, influencing their host universities, and reorienting resources around key early career investigators.
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. ; Georgia Institute of Technology ; Manchester Business School ; Otto-Friedrich-Universitaet BambergScientific 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.