Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society (기술혁신학회지)

Korea Technology Innovation Society (한국기술혁신학회)
권호 표지

An Analysis of Research Productivity by Fields in Science and Engineering

이공계 분야별 연구생산성 분석

  • Received : 2014.10.14
  • Accepted : 2015.02.22
  • Published : 2015.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study will show the determinants of research productivity by fields in science and engineering. However, we present the differences between fields by personal attributes, research resources, and research productivities. The data includes 1,383 researchers who participated in the BK21 PLUS program during 2010-2012. The fields are physics, chemistry, biology, mechanics, electricity and electronics and chemical engineering. As for research productivity, 3 indices are used such as the number of papers publicized, patents and combination of papers and patents. As for explanation factors, two kinds of variables are used. The personal factors include sex, age, academic rank, location of affiliation, and country of PhD acquisition, and the resource factors are the number of graduate students, 3 types of research funds such as government fund, industrial fund and overseas fund. This study is unique in several aspects; Dealing with 3 productivity indices, and using massive official data, 6 different fields, and determinants of research productivity. The results are as follows; 1) there is a big difference in determinants by fields. 2) No variables affect the research productivity of all the fields at the same time. 3) In science, the number of determinants are quite low than engineering. 4) The ratio between papers and patents are different by fields. 5) The correlations between paper and patent by fields are different; no relationship in the field of physics and chemistry and positive relationship in the other 4 fields.

본 연구는 이공계 분야별로 연구산출에 미치는 영향요인을 규명하고자 한 것이다. 이를 위해 2010-2012년 기간 BK21플러스 사업에 참여한 물리 화학 생물 기계 전기전자 화학공학 6개 분야 교수 1,383명의 연평균 자료를 분석하였다. 연구생산성에 미치는 변수로 성별, 연령별, 직급별, 지역별, 박사학위취득 국가와 같은 개인변수와 석사과정 학생 수, 박사과정 학생 수, 정부연구비, 산업체연구비 및 해외연구비라는 자원변수를 설정하였다. 논문과 특허 및 이들의 종합지수라는 3개 변수를 연구산출로, 대규모 공식적인 데이터를 이용해, 6개 분야에서, 영향요인을 분석했다는 점에서 본 연구는 다른 연구와 차이가 있다. 분석결과는 다음과 같다. 연구생산성에 미치는 요인은 분야에 따라 크게 차이가 난다. 특히 어떠한 개인변수나 자원변수도 모든 분야에서 공통으로 영향을 미치는 경우는 없다. 또한 자연계의 연구산출에 유의한 설명변수 숫자는 공학계보다 적었다. 분야별로 논문과 특허 산출의 비중이 다르고, 이들 간의 상관관계도 큰 차이를 보였다. 물리 화학에서는 논문과 특허 간에 관계가 없고, 나머지 분야에서는 양의 관계가 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김병주 (2006), "BK21사업 재정지원의 상대적 효율성 분석", 교육재정경제연구, 15(2): 235-259.
  2. 김훈호.박환보 (2011), "교수의 개인 특성과 대학의 연구 환경이 연구 성과에 미치는 영향", 교육행정학연구, 29(2): 185-210.
  3. 배종태.유희숙 (1997), "이공계 대학교수의 연구생산성 영향요인 분석", 기술혁신연구, 5(1): 44-66.
  4. 송충한 (2003), "이공계 대학 연구경쟁력 살리기", 서울: 고대 출판부.
  5. 주삼환 (1993), "이공학계열 대학교수의 인적/ 학문적 배경특성과 연구생산성", 충남대 박사학위 논문.
  6. 최인엽.남궁근 (2010), "정부의 연구기반 구축사업이 교원의 연구성과에 미친 영향: 1단계 BK21사업 물리학 분야 SCI급 연구성과의 사례", 한국정책과학학회보, 14(3): 1-28.
  7. Agrawal, A. and Henderson, R. (2002), "Putting Patents in Context : Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT", Management Science, 48(1): 44-60. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.44.14279
  8. Babu, A. R. and Singh, Y. P. (1998), "Determinants of Research Productivity", Scientometrics, 43(3): 309-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457402
  9. Bland C. J., Center B. A., Finstad D. A., Risbey K. R. and Staples J. G. (2005), "A Theoretical, Practical, Predictive Model of Faculty and Department Research Productivity", Academic Medicine, 80(3): 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000-00006
  10. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E., Anderson, M., Causino, N. and Louis, K. (1996), "Withholding Research Results in Academic Lifescience: Evidence from a National Survey of Faculty", Journal of The American Medical Association, 277: 1224-1228.
  11. Carayol, N. and Matt, M. (2003), "Does Research Organization influence Academic Production? Laboratory Level Evidence from a large European University", Research Policy, 33(8): 1081-1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.03.004
  12. Carayol, N. (2004), "Academic Incentives and Research Organization for Patenting at a large French University", Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2): 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590600982855
  13. Chu, J. H. (2012), "Cumulative Advantage of Research Productivity: How Large Is It and Who Has It?", http://research.nus.biz/Documents/Research%20Paper%20Series/2012-009.pdf.
  14. Lewis and Dundar (1998), "Determinants of Research Productivity in Higher Education", Research in Higher Education, 39(6): 607-631. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018705823763
  15. Dietz and Bozeman (2005), "Academic Careers, Patents, and Productivity: Industry Experience as Scientific and Technical Human Capital", Research Policy, 34: 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.008
  16. Gonzalez-Brambila, C. and Veloso, F. M. (2007), "The Determinants of Research Productivity: A Study of Mexican Researchers", Research Policy, 36(7): 1035-1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.03.005
  17. Glanzel, W. and Schoepflin, U. (1999), "A Bibliometric Study of Reference Literature in the Sciences and Social Sciences", Journal Information Processing and Management: an International Journal archive, 35(1): 31-44.
  18. Hagstrom, W. O. (1965), The Scientific Community, New York: Basic Books.
  19. Hargens, L. L. (1975), Patterns of Scientific Research: a Comparative Analysis of Research in Three Scientific Fields, Washington DC: American Sociological Association.
  20. Jonkers, K. and Tijssen, R. (2008), "Chinese Researchers Returning Home: Impacts of International Mobility on Research Collaboration and Scientific Productivity." Scientometrics, 77(2): 309-333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1971-x
  21. Kim, K. H. (2014), "Determinants of Research Productivity: A Korean Case", Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy, 3(2): 193-215. https://doi.org/10.7545/ajip.2014.3.2.193
  22. Kim, S. J. and Byeon, S. C. (2012), "An Evaluation on the Effect of Brain Korea 21 Phase II Program", http://www.iiis.org/CDs2011/CD2011SCI/EISTA_2011/PapersPdf/EA787TA.pdf.
  23. Kotrlik, J. W., Bartlett, J. E., Higgines, C. C. and Williams, H. A. (2002), "Factors Associated with Research Productivity of Agricultural Education Faculty", Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(3): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.03001
  24. Kyvik, S. (1991), Productiviy in Academia. Scientific Publishing at Norwegian Universities. Oslo: Universi, tetsforlaget.
  25. Lariviere, V., Gingras Y. and Archambault, E. (2006), "Canadian Collaboration Networks: A Comparative Analysis of the Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and the Humanities", Scientometrics, 68(3): 519-533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0127-8
  26. Lehman, H. C. (1966), "The Most Creative Years of Engineers and Other Technologists", Journal of Genetic Psychology, 108(2): 263-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1966.10532784
  27. Levin, S. G. and Stephan, P. E. (1991), "Research Productivity over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists", American Economic Review, 81: 114-132.
  28. Mairesse, J. and Turner, L. (2005), "Individual Differences in Scientific Research Productivity : How Important are Non-individual Determinants? An Econometric Study of French Physicists' Publications and Citations (1986-1997)", http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Turner2005.pdf.
  29. Markiewicz, K. R. and DiMinin, A. (2004), "Commercializing the Laboratory: The Relationship Between Faculty Patenting and Publishing", IN-SAT Laboratory Working Paper Series, http://www.idm.sssup.it/wp/200402.pdf.
  30. Merton, R. K. (1957), "Priorities in Scientific Discovery: a Chapter in the Sociology of Science", American Sociological Review, 22: 635-659. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089193
  31. Obembe, O. B. (2012), "Determinants of Scientific Productivity among Nigerian University Academics", Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 5(2): 2155-2164.
  32. Owen-Smith, J. and Walter, W. P. (2003), "The Expanding Role of University Patenting in the Life Sciences: Assessing the Importance of Experience and Connectivity", Research Policy, 32(9): 1695-1711. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00045-3
  33. Payne, A. A. and Siow, A. (2003), "Does Federal Research Funding Increase University Research Output?", The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(1): 1-24. http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bejeap.2003.3.issue-1/bejeap.2003.3.1.1018/bejeap.2003.3.1.1018.xml?format=INT
  34. Reskin, B. F. (1980), "Age and Scientific Productivity, in the Demand for New Faculty in Science and Engineering. Proceedings of the Workshop of Specialists in Forecasts of Demand for Scientists and Engineers", (1979), In Michael S. M., National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C., 196-216., http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED193067.pdf.
  35. Roe, A. (1956), The Psychology of Occupations, New York: Wiley.
  36. Sandstrom, U. (2009), "Combining Curriculum Vitae and Bibliometric Analysis: Mobility, Gender and Research Performance", Research Evaluation, 18(2): 135-142. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820209X441790
  37. Seol, S. S. (2012), "A Model of University Reform in a Developing Country: The Brain Korea 21 Program", Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy, 1(1): 31-49. https://doi.org/10.7545/ajip.2012.1.1.031
  38. Shin, J. C. (2009), "Building World-Class Research University: The Brain Korea 21 project", High Educ, 58: 669-688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9219-8
  39. Stephan, P. E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A. J. and Grant, B. (2005), "Who's Patenting in the University? Evidence from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients", The Economics of Innovation and New Technology, www2.gsu.edu/-ecosgg/research/pdf/sgsb_eint.pdf.
  40. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2003), "The Use of Bibliometric Analysis in Research Performance Assessment and Monitoring of Interdisciplinary Scientific Developments." Technikfolgenabschatzung - Theorie und Praxis, 1: 20-29.
  41. Wong, P. K. and Annette, S. (2010), "University Patenting Activities and Their Link to the Quantity and Quality of Scientific Publications", Scientometrics, 83: 271-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0003-4