At the frontiers of scientific advancement: the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded principal investigators

This paper aims to unearth the factors that influence scientists in becoming and choosing to become publicly funded principal investigators (PIs). PIs are the linchpins of knowledge transformation and bridging triple helix actors, particularly academia-industry. At a micro level, PIs are at the nexus of engaging and interacting with other triple helix actors. No study to date has specifically focused on the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded PIs. For scientists taking on the role of a PI represents an important landmark in their research career. Set in an Irish research system we found two main categories of influencing factors—push and pull. Pull factors are where the PI has more choice in choosing to become a PI, where as push factors is where the PI has less choice in choosing to become a PI. Pull factors we identified were control, career ambition and advancement, personal drive and ambition. Pull factors we identified were project dependencies and institutional pressures.     

Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences

This paper explores scientists’ perspectives on the possible “unintended effects” of university patenting on the definition of academic research agendas, and the norms of open science. Based on a survey of life science researchers in Denmark, we found that a substantial proportion of scientists were skeptical about the impact of university patenting. The most skeptical respondents were scientists oriented towards basic research (particularly the less productive ones), recipients of research council grants, scientists with close relations to industry, and full professors. Highly productive scientists were less concerned. Our results have implications for understanding the ultimate success or failure of academic patenting policies, including how increased university patenting may be affecting how scientists conduct academic research.     

Scientists’ Participation in University Research Centers: What are the Gender Differences?

University-affiliated multidisciplinary research centers have grown in importance in academia. Most research to-date has focused on these centers from an institutional perspective, with recent work only beginning to explore the ways in which such centers affect the development of academic careers. Hence, little is known about how scientists who are center-affiliated differ from those who are not affiliated. Clearly, both selection and influence effects may be expected to operate in terms of research productivity, timing, and resources. A further puzzle is how center affiliation may differ between male and female scientists. In this study, we use a new, nationally representative dataset of scientists and engineers working in Carnegie Research Extensive universities to develop an understanding of how center-affiliated scientists differ from exclusively department-based academic scientists and engineers, and investigate the extent to which gender moderates the effects of centers. As expected, our national sample shows that women are younger, whiter, less likely to be tenured, and at a lower rank than their male colleagues. We find that women are as likely to join centers as men, and do so at a similar stage in their career. Most of the male–female differences observed in disciplinary settings are sustained in centers, but women appear to have greater research equality in them (compared to the departmental setting). In particular, men and women in centers spend the same amount of time writing grant proposals, conducting both grant-supported and unfunded research, and administering grants. This suggests that centers may constitute an institutional context in which some aspects of gender equity in science may be achieved.JEL Classification: C42, O32, Z13, E61     

Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs

Although principal investigators are key actors in scientific fields, there is little focus on what they actually do in shaping new scientific directions. This paper studies PIs practices to better understand their roles. Our central contribution is to identify the different ways in which PIs engage themselves in science, in implementing four main practices: ‘focusing in scientific discipline’, ‘innovating and problem solving’, ‘shaping new paradigms and models’ and ‘brokering science’. While ‘focusing’ and ‘innovating’ remain close to project management, ‘shaping’ and ‘brokering’ look more like entrepreneurial activities, shaping new horizons, reshaping boundaries between subfields and among organizations. External orientations to how they engage in different practices shapes PIs roles to articulate different worlds and to reshape the boundaries of organizations, knowledge and markets. Studying PIs’ practices and their combinations advances our knowledge about their roles in managing the interplay between science policies and scientific agendas more effectively highlighting their role as scientific entrepreneurs.     

The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research

Securing public funding to conduct research and leading it by being a principal investigator (PI) is seen as significant career development step. Such a role brings professional prestige but also new responsibilities beyond research leadership to research management. If public funding brings financial and infrastructure support, little is understood about the inhibiting factors that publicly funded PIs face given the research autonomy offered by publicly funded research. Our study finds that there are three key PI inhibiting factors (1) political and environmental, (2) institutional and (3) project based. Traditional knowledge, skills and technical know-how of publicly funded PIs are insufficient to deal with the increasing managerial demands and expectations i.e. growing external bureaucracy of public funding agencies. Public funding is no longer the ‘freest form of support’ as suggested by Chubin and Hackett (Peerless science: peer review and US science policy. Suny Press, New York, 1990) and the inhibiting factors experienced by publicly funded PIs limits their research autonomy. We also argue that PIs have little influence in overcoming these inhibiting factors despite their central role in conducting publicly funded research.     

PIs as boundary spanners,science and market shapers

The research program organization has been generalized to implement research policies in OECD countries. Principal investigators are the linchpin of the program based organization as they are developing research project to fit within programs. However, principal investigators are not only project managers but they also enact their environment, shape organization, heterogenous networks, research avenues, research communities and transepistemic arenas. Principal investigators are not only researchers they are also boundary spanners amongst academic and private sectors and amongst subfields and disciplines. Principal investigators, especially serial Principal investigators act as scientific entrepreneurs who enact their environment. It questions the relationship between principal investigators and their organization. It also questions the efficiency and effectiveness of program based research policy.     

Researchers’ Industry Experience and Productivity in University–Industry Research Centers: A “Scientific and Technical Human Capital” Explanation

We examine the impact of researchers’ previous industry experience on the research outputs and outcomes of university faculty affiliated with NSF and DOE research centers. Using a dataset combining curriculum vita and surveys, our results indicate significant differences between the researchers who have previous industry experience and those who do not. Using a simple model of research productivity, we found that academic researchers who had prior industry exposure produce fewer total career publications, but they support more students. Most important, and perhaps surprising, we could not establish any difference between the two groups’ publication activity when focusing on a five-year cross-section (years 1996–2000) rather than total career publications. We found statistical evidence that previous industry experience raised the annual publication productivity of junior faculty members and women researchers in our sample of research center personnel. We believe the unique blend of research center affiliation, academic post, and past industry experience gives an individual who embodies or possesses all three characteristics a diverse source of scientific and technical human capital and particular advantages over those who have no industry experience (though the “academic-only” set also has particular advantages in cumulative publishing productivity).     

Navigating the role of the principal investigator: a comparison of four cases

Principal investigators are the lead actors on projects at the forefront of nascent technologies, yet few studies have explored the personal actions and experiences of PIs as they navigate their roles. I investigated principal investigators and their approach to new boundary spanning and entrepreneurial roles. Following a multiple case study methodology with a combination of interviews and observation, four PIs in nanotechnology related fields are explored in three dimensions: career and institutional alignment, boundary spanning activities and the tensions created in the still largely uncharted waters of nanotechnology commercialization. I found that these PIs actively sought organizational alignment that allowed them “to make things happen” while keeping harmony between the university and enterprise. The PIs demonstrated boundary-spanning activities, in particular a propensity for welcoming strangers into their labs in the hopes of finding new knowledge and opportunities, and practicing “good grantsmanship” to convert these new relations into collaboration. I found that the PIs managed tensions related to academic progression and lack of institutional support. Through this study, I offer researchers an opportunity to hear the voice of PIs on these topics and seek to contribute to our understanding of PIs as critical actors in the pursuit of science.     

Faculty Entrepreneurs and Research Productivity

In this paper, we analyze the research productivity of faculty entrepreneurs at 15 research institutes using a novel database combining faculty characteristics, licensing information, and journal publication records. We address two related research questions. First, are faculty entrepreneurs more productive researchers (“star scientists”) compared to their colleagues? Second, does the productivity of faculty entrepreneurs change after they found a firm? We find that faculty entrepreneurs in general are more productive researchers than control groups. We use multiple performance criteria in our analysis: differences in mean publication rate, skewness of publication rate, and impact of publications (journal citation rate). These findings bring together previous work on star scientists by Zucker, Darby, and Brewer [Zucker, L. G., Darby M. R., &; Brewer M. B. (1998). The American Economic Review, 88, 290–306.] and tacit knowledge among university entrepreneurs by Shane [Shane, S. (2002). Management Science, 48, 122–137.] and Lowe [Lowe, R. A. (2001). In G. Libecap (Ed.) Entrepreneurial Inputs and Outcomes. Amsterdam: JAI Press, Lowe, R.A. (2006). Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 412–429]. Finally, we find that faculty entrepreneurs’ productivity not only is greater than their peers but also does not decrease following the formation of a firm.     

Academic patenting: the importance of industry support

This paper provides evidence that university-industry collaboration is important for turning commercial opportunities into patents. The results suggest that researchers who receive a large share of research grants from industry have a higher propensity to file a patent. Small dissemination grants generally exert a positive effect, whether they come from industry or not. It also finds that these interactions do not increase the number of industry owned patents alone but benefit universities’ commercialisation efforts in general.     

Pink‐Collar Representation and Budgetary Outcomes in US States

Legislatures worldwide are dominated by wealthy elites, who are often out of touch with the needs and problems of citizens. Research shows that the underrepresentation of the working class matters in terms of policy processes and outcomes. Yet the research on class has largely focused on blue‐collar representatives, who are primarily men. Working‐class women are more likely to hold pink‐collar jobs, or low‐status occupations dominated by women. We argue that pink‐collar legislators are uniquely positioned to legislate over education and social service policy. To test our argument, we combine a new coding of working‐class backgrounds that accounts for pink‐collar representation with state spending data on education and social services from US states over time. Modeling compositional budget data, we find that class and gender intersect to shape policy outcomes via state budget allocations, with women's pink‐collar representation associated with increased spending on both education and social services.     

Factors affecting likelihood of hiring private investigators (PI): Citizens' traits and attitudes toward police and PI

The aim of this study is to identify factors affecting citizens' likelihood of hiring private investigators (PI) for resolving their criminal and/or civil matters. Limited research has been conducted to investigate factors relevant to private investigators, but none of prior studies have studied citizens' characteristics and attitudes toward police and PI in this regard. To fill the void of the literature, this study utilized data collected from 225 Korean citizens. Factors examined include citizens' demographics, desire for personalized justice, attitudes toward PI's investigation, fear of crime, and attitudes toward public police. Findings indicate that citizens' desire for personalized justice was the most significant factor affecting likelihood of hiring PI for different types of cases. Results of the finding also showed that citizen's satisfaction with police work was negatively related with likelihood of hiring PIs for their criminal and/or civil cases. Based on results, policy implications for law enforcement were discussed.     

Public Health Service--Privacy Act of 1974. Notification of new system of records: "clinical research; records of subjects in intramural research, epidemiology, demography, and biometry studies on aging."

In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act, the Public Health Service (PHS) is publishing notice of a proposal to adopt a new system of records. "Clinical Research: Records of Subjects in Intramural Research, Epidemiology, Demography, and Biometry Studies on Aging." DHHS/NIH/NIA, 09-25-0142. These records will be used to accomplish scientific research conducted by intramural scientists employed by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), and by hospitals, universities, research centers and research foundation under contract with NIA. These research activities aim at determining the health status of individuals and changes in health status over time, the incidence and prevalence of certain diseases and problems of the aged in certain populations, and changes that take place as the individuals age who are under study.     

Performance-based funding and university research productivity: the moderating effect of university legitimacy

The introduction of competitive funding mechanisms in higher education is found to generally increase research productivity. However, the diversity within higher education systems may lead universities to behave in substantially different ways in response to the adoption of competitive funding criteria. In particular, we argue that the legitimacy of universities, defined as their level of recognition based on the adherence to socially accepted norms and expectations, is crucial in shaping their reaction. This paper investigates the change in research productivity experienced by Italian universities following the introduction of the first Performance-based Research Funding System (PRFS) in 2003, focusing on the moderating effect of university legitimacy. Using a sample of 75 universities observed during the period 1999–2011, we find that the introduction of PRFS leads to an increase in research productivity, and this increase is significantly more pronounced among more legitimate universities.     

Managing competition between individual and organizational goals in cross-sector research and development centres

Research of potential socio-economic value is commonly conducted within cross-sector (government, university, business) centres. Success depends on partners whose objectives and strategies may converge or compete. Yet little empirical evidence exists on: (a) how individual researchers perceive the benefits of their participation, (b) how far the structures and functions of particular collaborative R&D centres coalesce around of researchers’ expectations and, (c) what problems arise for researchers who opt for a ‘second job’ in the centre. The paper presents a qualitative analysis of a survey of respondents from public sector organizations involved in Australian Cooperative Research Centres. A novel frame for analysing these data is the study of inter-organizational relationships (IOR). We use the perspective of the individual research scientists to illuminate the important management issues of trust, governance, and competition between functional domains, which emerge from IOR and which have been inadequately recognised in the context of collaborative R&D centres. The findings have implications for the management and of the centres, for the careers of research scientists and for public policy.     

Closing the divide: accelerating technology commercialization by catalyzing the university entrepreneurial ecosystem with I-Corps™

In recent years, universities have seen an increasing amount of activity in entrepreneurship and commercialization, not only for students, but for faculty as well. Traditionally, these initiatives have been separate, such that programs and curriculum have been focused on supporting just students or just faculty. In 2012, the National Science Foundation (NSF) launched the NSF I-Corps? program, an innovative funding program that not only offered principle investigators (PIs) funding, but also exposed PIs to an innovation/entrepreneurship curriculum as well. The University of Michigan (U-M) was one of the first two NSF I-Corps? Nodes funded in 2012 and has leveraged the program to catalyze the entrepreneurial ecosystem. This paper describes the growth of this entrepreneurial ecosystem since 1983, the call of entrepreneurship in the U-M College of Engineering and describes the role the U-M NSF I-Corps? program has played across the university. The paper concludes with lessons learned and recommendations to administrators and policy makers considering more active promotion of academic entrepreneurship and commercialization in universities.     

Management knowledge and the organization of team science in university research centers

Increasingly, principal investigators are tasked by funding agencies not only to expand knowledge in a particular field of inquiry, but also to manage and coordinate sets of diverse actors, including researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds and with different institutional affiliations. This paper addresses how principal investigators organize and manage sets of diverse researchers in university research centers. The premise of the paper is that centers possessing “management knowledge”—as embodied in principal investigators themselves and in colleagues and subordinates (e.g. past experiences in centers, industry, formal management training and professional experience)—will demonstrate different structural and managerial characteristics when compared to centers without management knowledge. Based on interviews and documents for a purposive sample of centers established by the US National Science Foundation, the study investigates the organization and management of centers as a function of the presence and type of management knowledge of the center directors across multiple cases. Implications for addressing common challenges to team science in university research centers and comparable arrangements are discussed.     

Urgent issues and prospects at the intersection of culture,memory, and witness interviews: Exploring the challenges for research and practice

The pursuit of justice increasingly relies on productive interactions between witnesses and investigators from diverse cultural backgrounds during investigative interviews. To date, the role of cultural context has largely been ignored by researchers in the field of investigative interviewing, despite repeated requests from practitioners and policymakers for evidence-based guidance for the conduct of interviews with people from different cultures. Through examining cultural differences in human memory and communication and considering specific contextual challenges for investigative interviewing through the lens of culture, this review and associated commentaries highlight the scope for considering culture and human diversity in research on, and the practice of, investigative interviewing with victims, witnesses, and other sources. Across 11 commentaries, contributors highlight the importance of considering the role of culture in different investigative interviewing practices (e.g., rapport building, questioning techniques) and contexts (e.g., gender-based violence, asylum seeking, child abuse), address common areas of cultural mismatch between interviewer–interviewee expectations, and identify critical future routes for research. We call for an increased focus in the investigative interviewing literature on the nature and needs of our global community and encourage constructive and collaborative discussion between researchers and practitioners from around the world to better identify specific challenges and work together towards evidence-based solutions.     

Capturing Technological Opportunity Via Japan's Star Scientists: Evidence from Japanese Firms' Biotech Patents and Products

Using detailed data on biotechnology in Japan, we find that identifiable collaborations between particular university star scientists and firms have a large positive impact on firms' research productivity, increasing the average firm's biotech patents by 34 percent, products in development by 27 percent, and products on the market by 8 percent as of 1989–1990. However, there is little evidence of geographically localized knowledge spillovers. In early industry formation, star scientists holding tacit knowledge required to practice recombinant DNA (genetic engineering) were of great economic value, leading to incentives motivating their participation in technology transfer. In Japan, the legal and institutional context implies that firm scientists work in the stars' university laboratories in contrast to America where the stars are more likely to work in the firm's labs. As a result, star collaborations in Japan are less localized around their research universities so that the universities' local economic development impact is lessened. Stars' scientific productivity is increased less during collaborations with firms in Japan as compared to the U.S.