STI Policy Review

Science & Technology Policy Institute (과학기술정책연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Who Speaks for Innovations?: An Analysis of the Media Exposure of R&D Outputs

  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The literature in research policy extensively addresses the interaction between public R&D and the society. Scholars have paid particular attention to the way science and technology are diffused into the society and industry with the aim of substantiating their potential value. In practice, having recognized the importance of the said interaction, R&D entities and governmental organizations promote scientific and technological innovations that result from their R&D activities. Yet, the nature of news media exposure as their primary channel to promote R&D outcomes has been remarkably understudied. Using the results of R&D projects supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), this study examines R&D entities' strategic use of the news media to publicize their outcomes. The empirical results suggest that the scale of an R&D project positively affects the counts of media exposure of its R&D outcomes, whereas the level of technology readiness and the technology life-cycle do not have significant influence. In addition, the results suggest that, compared to senior researchers, young researchers are more likely to publicize their R&D outcomes and that R&D outcomes from highly ranked universities are more likely to be publicized than those from lower-ranking universities despite our control for R&D outcomes. The aforementioned results suggest that in promoting the diffusion of science and technology, especially to the public, policymakers should be concerned about incentives for those who provide techno-scientific information, such as researchers. The social need for the diffusion of techno-scientific information into the public (e.g., technology transfer and diffusion) is an insignificant factor in determining the media exposure of such information, whereas personal benefits and sensitive issues related to a researcher's own R&D activities (e.g., justification for R&D activities) drive researchers to publicize their R&D outcomes. This paper suggests that policymakers, especially those concerned with better diffusion of scientific and technological innovations need to design a proper incentive system to maximize the societal benefits of media exposure.

Keywords

References

  1. Aronoff, C. (1975). Credibility of public relations for journalist. Public Relations Review, 1(3), 45-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(75)80023-3
  2. Arora, A., Forfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2), 419-451. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.2.419
  3. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287
  4. Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. (2011). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 644-659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511418743
  5. Besley, J. C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26(4), 347-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005275443
  6. Blake, R. H., & Haroldson, E. O. (1975). A taxonomy of concepts in communication. New York: Hastings House.
  7. Bolland, E. J. (1989). Advertising vs public relations: A comparison using cost-per-thousand for print ads and PR placements. Public Relations Quarterly, 34(3), 10-12.
  8. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4-5), 627-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1
  9. Bozeman, B. (2004). Scientists' collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008
  10. Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (2011). Assessing the scientific and technological outcome of EU framework programmes: Evidence from the FP6 projects in the ICT field. Scientometrics, 88(1), 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0378-x
  11. Brewer, D. J., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2002). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  12. Burns, T. B., OʼConnor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003) Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004
  13. Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, 48(3), 231-264. https://doi.org/10.2307/3625196
  14. Butler, L. (2003) Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications: The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00007-0
  15. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009) Microeconometrics using stata. TX: Stata Press.
  16. Carmeli, A., & Waldman, D. A. (2010) Leadership, behavioral context, and the performance of work groups in a knowledge-intensive setting. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(4), 384-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9125-3
  17. Chaffee, S. H., & Kanihan, S. F. (1997) Learning about politics from the mass media. Political Communication, 14, 421-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846097199218
  18. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273
  19. Debackere, K., Verbeek A., Luwel, M. & Zimmermann, E. (2002) Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology - II: The multiple uses of technometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00085
  20. Dunwoody, S. (1986). The science writing inner club: a communication link between science and the lay public. In S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News (pp. 155-169). New York: Free Press.
  21. Dunwoody, S., & Ryan, M. (1983). Public information persons as mediators between scientists and journalist. Journalism Quarterly, 60(4), 647-656. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908306000410
  22. Durack, K. (2004). Tacit knowledge in patent applications: Observations on the value of models to early US Patent Office practice and potential implications for the 21st century. World Patent Information, 26(2), 131-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2003.11.001
  23. Frank, T. (2000). The expanding university universe: Like it or not, private colleges are eyeing your turf. University Affairs, 2(8), 18-20.
  24. Fornell, C., Robinson, W. T., & Wernerfelt, B. (1985). Consumption experience and sales promotion expenditure. Management Science, 31(9), 1084-1105. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.9.1084
  25. Gandy, O. H. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  26. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
  27. Gonzalez-Brambila, C., & Veloso, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36(7), 1035-1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.03.005
  28. Greene, W. (2003). Econometric analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  29. Hijmans, E., Pleijter, A., & Wester, F. (2003). Converging scientific research in Dutch newspapers. Science Communication, 25(2), 153-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547003259559
  30. Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J. (2011). The determinants of research collaboration modes: exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics, 89(3), 967-983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0474-y
  31. Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322(5905), 1259-1262. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158357
  32. Kim, C. S. (2008). A study on news frame of science and technology R&D outcome. The Korean Journal of Advertising and Public Relations, 10(2), 98-123.
  33. Kirp, D. L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  34. Kittle, B. (2000). Institutional advertising in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(4), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v09n04_03
  35. Kramer, D., & Wells, R. (2005). Achieving buy-in: Building networks to facilitate knowledge transfer. Science Communication, 26(4), 428-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005275427
  36. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  37. Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090706
  38. Logan, R. A. (1991). Popularization versus secularisation: Media coverage of health. In L. Wilkins & P. Patterson (Eds.), Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk, and public policy. New York: Greenwood Press.
  39. McComas, K. A., & Simone, L. M. (2003). Media coverage of conflicts of interest in science. Science Communication, 24(4), 395-419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547003024004001
  40. Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) (2001). The Korean public understanding of science and technology: A national survey (Policy research 2001-3). Seoul: Ministry of Science and Technology.
  41. Moed, H. F. (2008). UK research assessment exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74(1), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0108-1
  42. Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How to press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
  43. Nieto, M. (1998). Performance analysis of technology using the S curve model: The case of digital signal processing (DSP) technologies. Technovation, 18, 439-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(98)00021-2
  44. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. The American Political Science Review, 77(1), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956018
  45. Payne, J. (1995). Management of multiple simultaneous projects: A state-of-the-art review. International Journal of Project Management, 13(3), 163-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(94)00019-9
  46. Pellechia, M. G. (1997). Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 6(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/6/1/004
  47. Petersen, A. (2001). Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science & Medicine, 52(8), 1255-1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00229-X
  48. Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and communication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(4), 429-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/713698499
  49. Roberts, M. R., Reid, G., Schroeder, M., & Norris, S. P. (2011). Causal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 22(5), 624-641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511420511
  50. Rogers, C. L. (1985). The practitioner in the middle. In S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody & C. Rogers (Eds.), Scientist and Journalists: Reporting Science as News (pp. 42-54). New York: Free Press.
  51. Roussel, P. A., Saad, K. N., & Erickson, T. J. (1991). Third generation R&D. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  52. Shoemaker, P. J. (1991). Gatekeeping. Hills, CA: Sage Publication.
  53. Soh, H., Reid, L. N., & King, K. W. (2007). Trust in different advertising media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(3), 455-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900708400304
  54. Stephan, P. E. (2012). How Economics Shapes Science (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  55. Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307-333. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912557
  56. Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023002005
  57. White, D. M. (1950). The "gate keeper": A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27(3), 383-390.
  58. Winter, E. (2004). Public communication of science and technology. Science Communication, 25(3), 288-293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547003262665