The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities

Thu Oct 29 18:09:31 EDT 2009

Dear Chris,

I know the literature well enough to know that it does not support your 
claim. You are proposing a major reorganization of the institutions of 
science. Yours is a cause, not a finding. I have no doubt that you can find 
case studies that support your cause, but there are many that do not. More 
importantly, compiling friendly cases is not science. You need to pick a 
population of institutions, categorize them by organizational form, measure 
their breakthrough output, then turn the crank to see if your thesis holds. 
Otherwise you are simply cherry picking data to support your cause.

Best of luck,
David

At 10:43 AM 10/29/2009, you wrote:
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
>Dear David,
>
>It would be nice if you looked at the literature. Case studies and 
>interviews may not be the kind of methods you favour, but there are 
>notable scholars (not me) who have looked at decades of evidence, 
>conducted detailed case studies of organizations and interviewed hundreds 
>of scientists that have achieved recognized breakthroughs.
>
>Best, Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David E. Wojick
>Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 16:23
>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research 
>organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite 
>targets, money and policy to foster these activities
>
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
>Dear Chris,
>
>Bear in mind that this list is populated by people who study science
>scientifically. You appear to be making strong empirical claims based
>on anecdotal evidence. I seriously doubt that there is a strong
>statistical correlation between breakthroughs and forms of
>organization, but I would be willing to look at the scientific
>studies, if there are any. The same is true for "conducive working
>environments," whatever that means. In the case you describe the
>determining factor is probably money, not the form of organization.
>The best schools bid for the best people and produce the best work
>(but not necessarily breakthroughs). Organization is not a factor.
>
>My best,
>David
>
>
>Dear David,
>
>no claim is made that we can causally explain or quantify
>breakthroughs. Yet, it is possible to describe with a good degree of
>accuracy what organizations look like that have been - repeatedly! -
>the site of a recognized breakthrough. Also, we can describe what
>places look like that impede or discourage such efforts.
>
>Rather than thinking about this in terms of revolutions and normal
>science, what about a very pragmatic approach that revolves, for
>example, around advising junior scientists where to go? My bet would
>be that in 'fostering organisations' the job satisfaction of
>researchers will be much higher than in the miserable places (e.g.
>compare Rockefeller University to any underfunded university in
>Europe). Why? Even though we cannot quantify breakthroughs very well
>and most researchers do not receive the Nobel Prize, we all do have a
>pretty clear idea about what a conducive working environment is in
>which you can meaningfully contribute to the progress of science...
>
>One way to go about building more and better knowledge is to describe
>and analyse the sites at which recognized breakthroughs occur,
>although this will always have to be historical. Another is to track
>the experience of those recently awarded flagship grants, and
>contribute towards removing the organizational obstacles... This is
>not rocket science, but possibly rather close to what business and
>management schools do and what is known as organizational
>restructuring. Yet, I think it would be more than worthwhile.
>
>Best, Chris
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick
>Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 13:02
>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when
>research organizations impede scientific and technological
>breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these
>activities
>
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
><<http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
>Dear Chris,
>
>I am skeptical of your claim that "it is known what kind of
>organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological
>breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive
>forward organizational restructuring." (But I have not seen your
>paper.)
>
>First, I am not aware of any empirical model of breakthroughs that is
>sufficiently well developed to support such a precise claim. It would
>require being able to identify and quantify breakthroughs, and I
>don't think we can do that (yet). How many breakthroughs were there
>last year? One, ten, ten thousand, a million? I don't think we know,
>because the concept is still wildly imprecise.
>
>Second, following Kuhn, I would argue that producing breakthroughs is
>not the job of most scientists, so science should not be organized
>around this goal. That is, each breakthrough depends upon a great
>deal of prior work, which must first be funded. In fact I think that
>this purported "breakthrough race" is based on a mistaken concept of
>how science works. One can't fund just the breakthroughs. Would that
>we could, but science does not work that way.
>
>Still it is a wonderful question, which I too am working on. See for example:
><<http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/leaping_concepts_and_global_discovery>http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/leaping_concepts_and_global_discovery>http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/leaping_concepts_and_global_discovery
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>David Wojick, Ph.D.
>Senior consultant for innovation
>Office of Scientific and Technical Information
>US Dept. of Energy
>
>Oct 29, 2009 06:50:56 AM, SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU wrote:
>
>===========================================
>
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example
>unsubscribe):http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.htmlRE:
>[SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research
>organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs
>despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities
>Dear Loet,
>
>One could indeed infer that the ERC organizes the power of the
>European scientific elite - only that the ERC review (by members of
>that very same elite) heavily criticized the lack of transparency
>that comes with it, e.g. in the selection of peer reviewers.
>
>The ERC is also a signal that, at the European level, research is now
>an important issue (even as innovation remains the main focus). And
>yes, there is a struggle over how large the FP8 budget will be, what
>'joint programming' etc. means. Yet, the ERC is part of 'The New
>Renaissance Dream' whereby Europe seeks to foster scientific and
>technological breakthroughs. Also, in the past decade the Commission
>has intervened on the question of university and research
>organizations and, at least nominally, these organizations have
>responded by organizing themselves (e.g. EUA, EUROHORCS, EIROfroum)
>and by espousing a call for restructuring in pursuit or excellence,
>i.e. new breakthroughs. Also, at the national  level this is an
>issue, e.g. German Excellence Initiative.
>
>The paper addresses these broad issues and suggests that Europe and
>the national governments, but above all the research organizations
>and universities must concentrate on organization restructuring (not
>targets, money & policy). Minimally they must do this to avoid being
>left behind by North America, East Asia and India. But also in terms
>of the articulated European Research Dream - which is shared by many
>leading scholars (c.f. those organising the ERC or Euroscience or
>those advising the EC) - the organizational restructuring for more
>autonomy, more scientific leadership, more mission-oriented
>flexibility, more intellectual diversity etc. should be the
>imperative governing their actions.
>
>Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: When Research
>Organizations Impede Scientific and Technological Breakthroughs
>Despite Targets, Money and Policy to Foster these Activities.
>(October 27, 2009). Available at SSRN:
><<http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534>http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534>http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534
>
>Best, Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff
>Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 08:22
>To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu
>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when
>research organizations impede scientific and technological
>breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these
>activities
>
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
><<http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
>Dear Chris,
>
>The situation is very interesting. National research councils
>traditionally organize the power of the scientific elite (Mills,
>Mulkay) and given the subsidiarity principle this power cannot be
>taken away easily by a European organization. The EU therefore in the
>1980s decided to focus not on science, but on innovation (Jaques
>Delors). The Framework Programmes were defined in terms of the
>precompetitive technosciences. This terrain was yet unoccupied by
>national research councils.
>
>With the shift of attention to science as central to the
>knowledge-base of an economy (e.g., the US program SciSIP, but mainly
>China), this arrangement may have to be revised (for economic
>reasons). Thus, we are witnessing in my opinion a power struggle
>rather than a conundrum. At issue is who controls the allocation of
>research funds and to which extend: national research councils or the
>EU?
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Loet
>
>On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Armbruster, Chris
>   wrote:
> >  Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> >
> ><<http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitn 
> ey/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >
> >  Dear colleagues,
> >
> >  Please find the abstract and the link to a new working paper on the 
> European
> >  Research Conundrum. Comments are welcome. I would be interested to 
> hear from
> >  colleagues interested in this issue.
> >
> >  Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: when research
> >  organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite
> >  targets, money and policy to foster these activities. (October 27, 2009).
> >
> >  Available at SSRN:
> ><<http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534>http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534>http: 
> //ssrn.com/abstract=1494534
> >
> >  Abstract
> >  The European Research Conundrum may be described thus: In the interest of
> >  the European Research Dream, the structure and culture of the research
> >  organization should be adapted to the mission of achieving scientific and
> >  technological breakthroughs but, alas, this mission is first 
> overwhelmed and
> >  then deformed by the existing structure and culture of the 
> organization. The
> >  conundrum has been highlighted publicly by the high-level review of the
> >  European Research Council (ERC), which "found fundamental problems related
> >  to rules and practices regarding the governance, administration and
> >  operations of the ERC that are not adapted to the nature of modern
> >  'frontier' science management." The organization threatens to defeat the
> >  mission, even though the ERC is new, corresponds to targets, and is well
> >  funded.
> >  This paper advances three arguments. Firstly, the prevalent focus on
> >  targets, money and policy is criticized because it does little to bring
> >  about the required organizational restructuring while allowing the
> >  organization to overwhelm the mission, thus threatening a lock-in of 
> ERA as
> >  second rate. Secondly, it is shown that it is known what kind of
> >  organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological
> >  breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward
> >  organizational restructuring. Thirdly, some practical suggestions are made
> >  how to gather empirical evidence about barriers and challenges in the
> >  European Research Area by tracking the experience of grantees of European
> >  flagship programmes in a multiple case-study design, which may be extended
> >  to innovation systems.
> >  To also speak to those who think that targets, money and policy should
> >  remain the focus, the research may be designed in a fashion that
> >  accommodates alternative and competing hypotheses as to what is 
> conducive to
> >  or impedes scientific and technological breakthroughs and innovations
> >  systems.
> >
> >  Keywords
> >  Scientific breakthroughs, technological inventions, innovation systems,
> >  European Research Area, European Research Council, scientific excellence,
> >  research university, research funding, research policy, R&D targets
> >
> >
> >  Chris Armbruster
> >  Executive Director, Research Network 1989
> >
> ><<http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/>http://www.cee-socialscience.net 
> /1989/>http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/
> >
> >  Publications and working papers available in Open Access
> > 
> <<http://ssrn.com/author=434782>http://ssrn.com/author=434782>http://ssrn.com/author=434782
> >
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Loet Leydesdorff
>Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
>Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
>Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
>loet at leydesdorff.net ; 
><<http://www.leydesdorff.net/>http://www.leydesdorff.net/>http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>---------------------------------------
>Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured,
>Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20091029/497e67f1/attachment.html>