Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회논문지)

The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An empirical study on analyzing the characteristics of R&D group effecting to convergence of R&D outputs: Advanced Research Center Projects

연구집단 특성이 융합연구 성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 실증 연구: 선도연구센터 지원사업 중심으로

  • Lee, Bong-Jae (Graduate School of Management of Technology, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • Park, Joo-Hyoung (Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials) ;
  • Lee, Hee-Sang (Graduate School of Management of Technology, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • Received : 2016.09.12
  • Accepted : 2016.11.10
  • Published : 2016.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently, the R&D paradigm has become oriented toward convergence technology and interdisciplinary research. In this study, to elucidate the characteristics of research groups that promote the performance of convergence research, we take into account the input characteristics, disciplinary characteristics and collaborative characteristics of research groups. For this study purpose, 5,217 SCI papers published from 104 centers in Advanced Research Center Projects are analyzed as research outputs. The research findings are that the disciplinary balance in the interdisciplinary characteristics and the number of partners in the collaborative characteristics are positively related to the convergence of R&D outputs. The research field of a group introduced as a control variable exerts a significant effect on the convergent R&D outputs. In conclusion, it is necessary to organize internally with the same number of each disciplinary researcher in a research group and to activate external collaboration with partners in order to produce more outputs of convergent research.

최근 연구개발의 패러다임은 다학제간 융합연구를 지향하고 있다. 본 연구는 융합연구 성과창출에 영향을 미치는 연구집단의 주요 특성을 발굴하기 위해, 연구집단의 투입 특성(연구비, 참여연구원 수, 연구집단 운영기간), 학제 특성(다종성, 균형성, 이질성), 협력 특성(협력파트너 수, 연구집단 위치, 성별 균형성)에 대해 분석하였다. 선도연구센터 사업의 104개 센터를 분석 대상으로 하였으며, 융합연구 성과는 센터에서 창출한 5,217건의 SCI 눈문을 대상으로 하였다. 분석 결과 연구집단의 학제 특성인 학제간 균형성, 연구집단의 협력 특성인 협력파트너 수는 융합 연구성과와 정(+)의 관계에 있는 것으로 나타났다. 의과학융합 분야와 이학공학 분야 등 통제변수로 도입한 연구집단의 연구분야는 융합연구 성과 창출을 달리하는 효과를 보였다. 융합연구는 연구의 목표를 달성하기 위한 수단으로써 인식해야 하며, 융합 연구성과 창출을 위해서는 연구집단 내 학제간 참여연구원의 구성 비율을 균형성 있게 구성하여 수평적인 협력 환경을 마련하고 연구집단 외부 연구주체들과 개방적 협력을 전략적으로 강화해야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. N. Corrocher, F. Malerba, F. Montobbio, "How do new technologies emerge? A patent-based analysis of ICT-related new industrial activities," Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 234-256, 2003. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/impp. 2003.5.2-3.234
  2. X. Wang, X. Zhang, Xu Shenmeng, "Patent co-citation networks of Fortune 500 companies," Scientometrics, 88, pp. 761-770, 2011. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0414-x
  3. W. Cha, S. Yi, "A Research Analysis on the Convergence Type of New Technology," Journal of Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society, vol. 8, no.3, pp. 682-696, 2007.
  4. S. Park, "A Prospective on the Evolution of Mobile Communications in Korea," paper presented to the PICMET-STEPI International Conference on Innovation Management in the Technology-Driven World, 31, July-2 August, 2004.
  5. J. E. Lee, "A Preliminary Study on the Promotion Strategy for IT Convergence: An Industrial Ecology Perspective," Journal of Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1327-1333, 2014. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2014.15.3.1327
  6. J. Y. Lee, D. Kim, S. Ahn, O. Kwon, Y. Moon, "A Comparative Study on the Trend of Technological Convergence," Journal of the Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 222-232, 2013. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7232/JKIIE.2013.39.3.222
  7. Ministry of Science, ICT and Futrue Planning, Action Strategy of Creative Basic Research, 2013.
  8. T. Dwyer, K. B. Jesen, J. Staiger, S. Hake, "Convergence: Essentially confused?," New Media & Society, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 502-508, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810397651
  9. H. Hwan, C. Kyeong, "Direction of Policy Development in Integrated Funding Program: The Case of SciSIP in NSF and NCCR in SNSF," Journal of Policy Development, vol. 10 no. 2, pp. 109-136, 2010.
  10. OECD, Interdisciplinarity in Science and Technology, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Paris: OECD, 1998. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.05.006
  11. M. Karvonen, T. Kassi, "Patent citations as a tool for analysing the early stages of convergence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 80, no. 6, pp. 1094-1107, 2013. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02459599
  12. M. Bordons, M. Zulueta, F. Romero, S. Barrigon, "Measuring interdisciplinary collaboration within a university: The effects of the multidisciplinary research programme," Scientometics, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 383-398, 1999. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02459599
  13. S. Hinze, "Collaboration and cross- disciplinarity in autoimmune diseases," Scientometrics, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 457-471, 1999. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02459604
  14. J. Qin, F. W. Lancaster, B. Allen, "Types and Levels of Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research in the Sciences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 893-916, 1997. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199710)48:10<893::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-X
  15. L. Qiu, "A Study of interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Evaluation, 2, pp. 169-175, 1992. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rev/2.3.169
  16. R. J. W. Tijssen, "A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: coclassification analysis of energy research," Research Policy, 21, pp. 27-44, 1992. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(92)90025-Y
  17. D. T. Tomov, H. G. Mutafov, "Comparative indicators of interdisciplinarity in modern science," Scientometrics, 37, pp. 267-278, 1996. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02093624
  18. F. Morillo, M. Bordons, I. Gomez, "An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators," Scientometics, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 203-222, 2001. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010529114941
  19. I. Rafols, M. Meyer, "Diversity measures and network centralities as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience," SPRU working paper, November 30th, 2006.
  20. T. Leinster, C. A. Cobbold, "Measuring diversity: the importance of species similarity," ECOLOGY, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 477-489, 2012. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/10-2402.1
  21. A. Yegros-Yegros, I. Rafols, P. D'Este, "Does Interdisciplinary Research Lead to Higher Citation Impact?, The Different Effect of Proximal and Distal Interdisciplinarity," PLOS ONE, Vol. 10, No. 8, 2015. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135095
  22. I. Rafols, L. Leydesdorff, A. O'Hare, P. Nightingale, A. Stirling, "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinarity. The case of innovation studies and business and management," Research Policy 41, pp. 1262-1282, 2012. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015
  23. J. Wang, B. Thijs, W. Glanzel, "Interdisciplinarity and Impact: Distinct Effects of Variety, Balance and Disparity" PLOS ONE. 2015. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127298
  24. A. L. Porter, I. Rafols, "Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time," Scientometrics, 81, pp. 719-745, 2009. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2
  25. I. Rafols I., M. Meyer, "Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience," Scientometrics, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 263-287, 2010. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0041-y
  26. L. Zhang, R. Rousseau, W. Glanzel, "Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Taking similarity between subject fields into account," Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, pp. 1257-1265, 2015.
  27. H. J. No, Y. Park, "Trajectory patterns of technology fusion: Trend analysis and taxonomical grouping in nanobiotechnology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 63-75, 2010. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.06.006
  28. J. S. Yu, Patent Analysis for Technology Covergence: the Case of Bioinformatics, Master Thesis, 2012.
  29. A. Verbeek, K. Debackere, M. Luwel, E. Zinnermann, "Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology-I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators," International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 179-211, 2002. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00083
  30. C. M. Noyons, Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 237-255, 2004.
  31. R. J. W. Tijssen, Cartography of science: Scientometric mapping with multidimensional scaling methods. Science studies. DSWO Press, Leiden, 1992.
  32. S. J. Pierce, "Boundary Crossing in Research Literatures as a Means of Interdisciplinary Information Transfer," Journal of the American Society for Information Science vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 271-279, 1992. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:3<271::AID-ASI10>3.3.CO;2-D
  33. A. Stirling, "A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society," Journal of the Royal Society Interface, vol. 4, no. 15, pp. 707-719, 2007. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2007.0213
  34. M. Bordons, F. Morillo, I. Gomez, Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 437-456, 2004.
  35. I. Rafols, Knowledge Integration and Diffusion: Measures and Mapping of Diversity and Coherence, In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau & D. Wolfram, editors, 2014.
  36. D. E. Drew, Strengthening Academic Science, New York: Praeger, 1985.
  37. N. Carayol, T. Thi, "Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research?," Research Evaluation vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 70-79, 2005. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154405781776355
  38. H. Park, K. Kim, Y. Yeo, "Characteristics of Input and Output of Scientific Research," Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 471-498, 2009.
  39. K. Lee, Analysis on the Status and the Characteristics of Convergence R&D, STEPI, 2013.
  40. Y. Ryu, An Analysis of the determinants of R&D performance, Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning, 2011.
  41. W. M. Cohen, D. Levinthal, "Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation," Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 128-152, 1990. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393553
  42. K. Lee, A Study on Establishing Investment strategy for Future Resources Development, Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning, 2014.
  43. D. Faems, B. V. Looy, K. Debackere, "Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach," Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, pp. 238-250, 2005. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00120.x
  44. L. Klomp, G. van Leeuwen, "Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach," International Journal of the Economics of Business, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 343-364, 2001. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13571510110079612
  45. F. Kodama, "Technology Fusion and The New R&D," HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, July-August, pp. 70-78, 1992.
  46. K. Lee, "Innovation Policy to Promote Technology Convergence," The Journal of Korean Institute of Communications and Information Sciences, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 18-22, 2008.
  47. G. Song, C. Lee, W. Yoo, D. Lee, "A Study on the Efforts of Technological Innovation by Academia-Industrial Collaboration for Venture Businesses," Journal of Korea Academia- Industrial cooperation Society, vol. 10, no.11, pp. 3340-3353, 2009. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2009.10.11.3340
  48. J. S. Katz, B. R. Martin, "What is research collaboration?" Research Policy, 26, pp. 1-18, 1997. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1
  49. J. P. Walsh, N. G. Maloney, "Collaboration Structure, Communication Media and Problems in Scientific Team Work," Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 712-732, 2007. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00346.x
  50. T. L. O'Brien, "Change in Academic Coauthorship, 1953-2003," Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 210-234, 2012. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243911406744
  51. R. J. W. Tijssen, "Co-authored research publications and strategic analysis of public-private collaboration," Research Evaluation, 21, pp. 204-215, 2012. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs013
  52. W. Wood, "Meta-Analytic Review of Sex Differences in Group Performance," Psychological Bulletin, 102, pp. 53-71, 1987. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.53
  53. J. B. Bear, A. W. Woolley, "The Role of Gender in Team Collaboration and Performance," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 146-153, 2011. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/030801811X13013181961473
  54. K. Kastenhofer, G. Roggla, "Is women scientists' approach to science more interdisciplinary?" Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, vol. 119, no. 21, pp. 678-678, 2007. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00508-007-0846-8
  55. F. J. van Rijnsoever, L. K. Hessels. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 463-472, 2011. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.001
  56. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ir28/book/excelmaps.
  57. N. Von Tunzelmann, M. Ranga, B. Martin, A. Geuna, "The effects of size on research performance: A SPRU review." Report prepared for the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry, 2003.