Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
167 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation (2312.10476v1)

Published 16 Dec 2023 in econ.GN, cs.DL, and q-fin.EC

Abstract: This paper investigates the relationship between scientists' cognitive profile and their ability to generate innovative ideas and gain scientific recognition. We propose a novel author-level metric based on the semantic representation of researchers' past publications to measure cognitive diversity both at individual and team levels. Using PubMed Knowledge Graph (PKG), we analyze the impact of cognitive diversity on novelty, as measured by combinatorial novelty indicators and peer labels on Faculty Opinion. We assessed scientific impact through citations and disruption indicators. We show that the presence of exploratory individuals (i.e., cognitively diverse) is beneficial in generating distant knowledge combinations, but only when balanced by a significant proportion of exploitative individuals (i.e., cognitively specialized). Furthermore, teams with a high proportion of exploitative profiles tend to consolidate science, whereas those with a significant share of both profiles tend to disrupt it. Cognitive diversity between team members appears to be always beneficial to combining more distant knowledge. However, to maximize the relevance of these distant combinations of knowledge, maintaining a limited number of exploratory individuals is essential, as exploitative individuals must question and debate their novel perspectives. These specialized individuals are the most qualified to extract the full potential of novel ideas and integrate them within the existing scientific paradigm.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (82)
  1. A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4):1182–1193, 2018.
  2. J. Adams. The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451):557–560, 2013.
  3. Rescuing us biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(16):5773–5777, 2014.
  4. The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science, 36(2):140–154, 1990.
  5. At the origins of learning: Absorbing knowledge flows from within the team. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 134:374–387, 2017.
  6. Does it pay to do novel science? the selectivity patterns in science funding. Science and Public Policy, 48(5):635–648, 2021.
  7. Exploring trade-offs in the organization of scientific work: Collaboration and scientific reward. Management Science, 61(7):1473–1495, 2015.
  8. Are ideas getting harder to find? American Economic Review, 110(4):1104–44, 2020.
  9. M. A. Boden. Creativity and knowledge. Creativity in Education, pages 95–102, 2001.
  10. Do disruption index indicators measure what they propose to measure? the comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers. retrieved december 6, 2019, 2019a.
  11. Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? a validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on f1000prime data. Journal of Informetrics, 13(4):100979, 2019b.
  12. Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Science, 62(10):2765–2783, 2016.
  13. Y. Bramoulle and L. Ductor. Title length. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 150:311–324, 2018.
  14. A multi-dimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of scientific publications. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1901.09663, 2019.
  15. The right job and the job right: Novelty, impact and journal stratification in science. Impact and Journal Stratification in Science (March 5, 2019), 2019.
  16. The innovator’s dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change the way you do business. HarperBusiness Essentials New York, NY, 2003.
  17. Small groups, open doors: Fostering individual and group creativity within research communities, 2017.
  18. Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Research Evaluation, 20(2):145–158, 2011.
  19. Error detection in knowledge graphs: Path ranking, embeddings or both. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2002.08762, 2020.
  20. L. Fleck. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press, 2012.
  21. L. Fleming. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1):117–132, 2001.
  22. New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity. Research Policy, 49(7):104063, 2020.
  23. Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80(5):875–908, 2015.
  24. Funding risky research. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1(1):103–133, 2022.
  25. The sjr indicator: A new indicator of journals’ scientific prestige. arXiv Preprint arXiv:0912.4141, 2009.
  26. Text-based technological signatures and similarities: how to create them and what to do with them. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2003.12303, 2020.
  27. The diversity–innovation paradox in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(17):9284–9291, 2020.
  28. Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5):1016–1033, 2010.
  29. B. F. Jones. The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder? The Review of Economic Studies, 76(1):283–317, 2009.
  30. Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322(5905):1259–1262, 2008.
  31. Off the beaten path: What drives scientists’ entry into new fields? FEB Research Report MSI_2008, pages 1–42, 2020.
  32. Proximity dimensions and the emergence of collaboration: a hyptrails study on german ai research. Scientometrics, pages 1–22, 2021.
  33. T. S. Kuhn. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press, 1962.
  34. S. Kumar. Co-authorship networks: a review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 2015.
  35. Author similarity identification using citation context and proximity. In 2017 Second International Conference on Recent Trends and Challenges in Computational Models (ICRTCCM), pages 217–221. IEEE, 2017.
  36. Prize-based contests can provide solutions to computational biology problems. Nature Biotechnology, 31(2):108–111, 2013.
  37. E. Leahey. From sole investigator to team scientist: Trends in the practice and study of research collaboration. Annual Review of Sociology, 42:81–100, 2016.
  38. Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy, 44(3):684–697, 2015.
  39. C. H. Liao. How to improve research quality? examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks. Scientometrics, 86(3):747–761, 2011.
  40. Novelty, disruption, and the evolution of scientific impact. 2021.
  41. J. G. March. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1):71–87, 1991.
  42. Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach. Scientometrics, 2021.
  43. Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5):735–746, 2004.
  44. Diversity makes better science. APS Observer, 25, 2012.
  45. R. K. Merton. Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6):635–659, 1957.
  46. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3111–3119, 2013b.
  47. S. Milojević. Quantifying the cognitive extent of science. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4):962–973, 2015.
  48. B. Mueller. The building blocks of creativity and new ideas. RAUSP Management Journal, 54:242–246, 2019.
  49. J. Nahapiet and S. Ghoshal. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2):242–266, 1998.
  50. R. R. Nelson. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, 1985.
  51. I. Nonaka. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1):14–37, 1994.
  52. B. Nooteboom. Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. OUP Oxford, 2000.
  53. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36(7):1016–1034, 2007.
  54. OECD. Effective policies to foster high-risk/high-reward research. (112), 2021. doi: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/06913b3b-en. URL https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/06913b3b-en.
  55. S. Page. The difference. In The Difference. Princeton University Press, 2008.
  56. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press, 2003.
  57. Understanding the group size effect in electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 44(3):332–352, 2013.
  58. P. Pelletier and K. Wirtz. Novelpy: A python package to measure novelty and disruptiveness of bibliometric and patent data. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2211.10346, 2022.
  59. Grand challenges and emergent modes of convergence science. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1):1–15, 2021.
  60. G. Pruschak and C. Hopp. And the credit goes to…-ghost and honorary authorship among social scientists. Plos One, 17(5):e0267312, 2022.
  61. Influence flows in the academy: Using affiliation networks to assess peer effects among researchers. Social Science Research, 40(3):1001–1017, 2011.
  62. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1):92–96, 2012.
  63. Measuring novelty in science with word embedding. PloS One, 16(7):e0254034, 2021.
  64. S. J. Shin and J. Zhou. When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6):1709, 2007.
  65. P. E. Stephan. The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3):1199–1235, 1996.
  66. C. R. Sugimoto and V. Larivière. Measuring research: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press, 2018.
  67. I. Tahamtan and L. Bornmann. Creativity in science and the link to cited references: Is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references? Journal of Informetrics, 12(3):906–930, 2018.
  68. A. Taylor and H. R. Greve. Superman or the fantastic four? knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4):723–740, 2006.
  69. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157):468–472, 2013.
  70. W. G. Vincenti. What engineers know and how they know it analytical studies from aeronautical history. 1990.
  71. International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination. Research Policy, 48(5):1260–1270, 2019.
  72. D. Wang and A.-L. Barabási. The Science of Science. Cambridge University Press, 2021.
  73. Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46(8):1416–1436, 2017.
  74. J. Whitfield. Group theory; what makes a successful team? john whitfield looks at research that uses massive online databases and network analysis to come up with some rules of thumb for productive collaborations. Nature, 455(7214):720–724, 2008.
  75. U. Witt. Propositions about novelty. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(1-2):311–320, 2009.
  76. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566(7744):378–382, 2019.
  77. Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science. Journal of Informetrics, 16(2):101290, 2022.
  78. S. Wu and Q. Wu. A confusing definition of disruption, Apr 2019.
  79. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827):1036–1039, 2007.
  80. Y. Xie and A. A. Killewald. Is American science in decline? Harvard University Press, 2012.
  81. Flat teams drive scientific innovation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(23):e2200927119, 2022.
  82. Building a pubmed knowledge graph. Scientific Data, 7(1):1–15, 2020.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now