Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.22675/STIPR.2017.8.1.041

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

Jeong, Seongkyoon (Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology)
Cho, Sukmin (National Research Foundation of Korea)
Publication Information
STI Policy Review / v.8, no.1, 2017 , pp. 41-61 More about this Journal
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
research and development strategy; knowledge diffusion; media exposure of science and technology; science and technology communication;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Aronoff, C. (1975). Credibility of public relations for journalist. Public Relations Review, 1(3), 45-46.   DOI
2 Winter, E. (2004). Public communication of science and technology. Science Communication, 25(3), 288-293.   DOI
3 Arora, A., Forfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2), 419-451.   DOI
4 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.   DOI
5 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.   DOI
6 Besley, J. C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26(4), 347-367.   DOI
7 Blake, R. H., & Haroldson, E. O. (1975). A taxonomy of concepts in communication. New York: Hastings House.
8 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.
9 Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4-5), 627-655.   DOI
10 Bozeman, B. (2004). Scientists' collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599-616.   DOI
11 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.   DOI
12 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.
13 Chaffee, S. H., & Kanihan, S. F. (1997) Learning about politics from the mass media. Political Communication, 14, 421-430.   DOI
14 Burns, T. B., OʼConnor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003) Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183-202.   DOI
15 Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, 48(3), 231-264.   DOI
16 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.   DOI
17 Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009) Microeconometrics using stata. TX: Stata Press.
18 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.   DOI
19 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.   DOI
20 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.   DOI
21 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.
22 Dunwoody, S., & Ryan, M. (1983). Public information persons as mediators between scientists and journalist. Journalism Quarterly, 60(4), 647-656.   DOI
23 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.   DOI
24 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.   DOI
25 Frank, T. (2000). The expanding university universe: Like it or not, private colleges are eyeing your turf. University Affairs, 2(8), 18-20.
26 Fornell, C., Robinson, W. T., & Wernerfelt, B. (1985). Consumption experience and sales promotion expenditure. Management Science, 31(9), 1084-1105.   DOI
27 Gandy, O. H. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
28 Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399-417.   DOI
29 Greene, W. (2003). Econometric analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
30 Hijmans, E., Pleijter, A., & Wester, F. (2003). Converging scientific research in Dutch newspapers. Science Communication, 25(2), 153-176.   DOI
31 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.   DOI
32 Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322(5905), 1259-1262.   DOI
33 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.
34 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.
35 Kirp, D. L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36 Kittle, B. (2000). Institutional advertising in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(4), 37-52.   DOI
37 Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38 Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 41-58.   DOI
39 McComas, K. A., & Simone, L. M. (2003). Media coverage of conflicts of interest in science. Science Communication, 24(4), 395-419.   DOI
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.   DOI
42 Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How to press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
43 Kramer, D., & Wells, R. (2005). Achieving buy-in: Building networks to facilitate knowledge transfer. Science Communication, 26(4), 428-444.   DOI
44 Nieto, M. (1998). Performance analysis of technology using the S curve model: The case of digital signal processing (DSP) technologies. Technovation, 18, 439-457.   DOI
45 Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. The American Political Science Review, 77(1), 175-190.   DOI
46 Payne, J. (1995). Management of multiple simultaneous projects: A state-of-the-art review. International Journal of Project Management, 13(3), 163-168.   DOI
47 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.   DOI
48 Pellechia, M. G. (1997). Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 6(1), 49-68.   DOI
49 Petersen, A. (2001). Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science & Medicine, 52(8), 1255-1268.   DOI
50 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.   DOI
51 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.
52 Stephan, P. E. (2012). How Economics Shapes Science (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53 Roussel, P. A., Saad, K. N., & Erickson, T. J. (1991). Third generation R&D. New York: McGraw-Hill.
54 Shoemaker, P. J. (1991). Gatekeeping. Hills, CA: Sage Publication.
55 Soh, H., Reid, L. N., & King, K. W. (2007). Trust in different advertising media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(3), 455-476.   DOI
56 Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307-333.   DOI
57 Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164-193.   DOI
58 White, D. M. (1950). The "gate keeper": A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27(3), 383-390.