Twentyfirst century macrotrends in the instituti

Authors: Robert J W Tijssen Jos Winnink

Publish Date: 2016/07/02

Volume: 109, Issue: 3, Pages: 2181-2194

PDF Link

Abstract

Some say that world science has become more ‘applied’ or at least more ‘applicationoriented’ in recent years Replacing the illdefined distinction between ‘basic research’ and ‘applied research’ we introduce ‘research application orientation’ domains as an alternative conceptual and analytical framework for examining research output growth patterns To distinguish possible developmental trajectories we define three institutional domains ‘university’ ‘industry’ ‘hospitals’ Our macrolevel bibliometric analysis takes a closer look at general trends within and across some 750 of the world’s largest researchintensive universities To correct for database changes our timeseries analysis was applied to both a fixed journal set same research journals and conference proceedings over time and a dynamic journal set changing set of publication outlets We find that output growth in the ‘hospital research orientation’ has significantly outpaced the other two application domains especially since 2006/2007 This happened mainly because of the introduction of new publication outlets in the WoS but also partially because some universities—especially in China—seem to have become more visible in this domain Our analytical approach needs further broadening and deepening to provide a more definitive answer whether hospitals and the medical sector are becoming increasingly dominant as a domain of scientific knowledge production and an environment for research applicationsBoth ‘basic research’ and ‘applied research’ usually have highly ambiguous and politicized meanings—either within the setting of science governance debates as components in research funding models or as predefined strategic research management objectives Both concepts are often used imprecisely and may take on a range of connotations ‘Basic research’ entered the world of science statistics in the midtwentieth century but scientists and science policy makers have questioned this concept ever since and disagree about what it actually constitutes Godin 2003 Commonly used definitions of ‘basic research’ include “… experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts without any particular application or use in view” OECD 2002 and “… as systematic study directed toward fuller knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in mind” OMB 2009The OECD definition was operationalized by statistical offices in some countries but has never been generally adopted or implemented in all OECDzone countries—thus hampering any kind of large scale statistical assessment of scientific research in terms of curiositydriven discoveryoriented ‘basic research’ or other ‘applicationoriented’ types of scientific research Attempts to develop alternative concepts definitions and analytical frameworks have failed so far see Calvert and Martin 2001 for an overview Surveys among university researchers to classify themselves in terms of their type of research underscore the conceptual difficulties and the lack of applicability in reallife academic research settings Calvert and Martin 2001 Gulbrandsen and Kyvik 2010 Bentley et al 2015OECD definitions of ‘basic’ scientific research as well as various types of applicationcentric research lack analytical power to describe general patterns and macrolevel trends within science This gap in our understanding is unfortunate particularly in this a day and age where growing numbers of universities are under increasing pressure to become more ‘missiondriven’ rather than researcherdriven to engage in societal challenges and provide economic value We lack systemic information to gauge if and how these new ‘societal contracts’ are impacting on the way scientific research activity has evolved in recent years especially in terms of the degree research has become more application oriented outside the academic domainLarge researchintensive universities are among the key change agents in knowledgeintensive societies Rauhvargers 2011 These organizations create new knowledge technologies and human resources for societies and economies contributing and adapting to national policies and regulations while simultaneously reacting to international drivers and incentives with regards to worldwide competition and cooperation in modernday science Each university has a unique ‘institutional profile’ in terms of its disciplinary diversity and the distribution of the types of research done For most researchintensive universities being slowly evolving organizational entities one expects little annual change within their research profiles but identifiable and measureable shifts may occur over the course of a decade or longer The emergence of world university rankings which took off about 10 years ago has become an increasingly important driver of institutional change and strategic positioning of research universities National or regional policy initiatives may also exert an impact on how universities reorientate their research portfolio’s for example to better align them to ‘smart specialization’ strategies of European regions and associated needs for universities to engage in applicationcentric research of local relevance Foray 2015 How research universities respond to such externalities will differ some are more inclined to adapt and adjust than others Some might opt for unique ‘nichedriven’ development paths others might pursue catchingup strategies similar to leading universities in their home country or elsewhere The world’s largest comprehensive universities—often leading ‘global’ universities—are probably less willing to change drastically within a relatively brief period of time because of the benefits that accrue from their global branding and reputation and because of their economies of scale and scope that enable sustainable highlevel performance Mohrman et al 2008The previous 20 years have introduced at least two highprofile theoretical models of scientific knowledge production that enable us take a broader view of its responsiveness to societal change the Mode 2 model Gibbons et al 1994 and the Quadrant model Stokes 1997 Both models are based on notions of interactivity between knowledge production within sciencecentric organizations and knowledge usage in external environments Gibbons and colleagues assert that universitycentric ‘Mode 1’ knowledge production spaces with their traditional emphasis on basic research will gradually be replaced by more heterogeneous ‘Mode 2’ institutional structures with a larger contextdriven variety of knowledge production streams Gibbons et al 1994 Mode 2 science is “socially distributed applicationoriented problemfocused transdisciplinary and subject to multiple accountabilities” Nowotny et al 2003 Mode 2 includes not only the practice of applicationcentric research in universities and collaboration across institutional sectors but also the generation of researchbased knowledge elsewhere in society According to these authors universities will contribute increasingly smaller shares in knowledge production whereas research institutes hospitals think tanks and other institutions will become more prominent Gibbons et al 1994 p 85

Keywords: