Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public funding in the academic field of nanotechnology: a multi-agent based model

  • SI: SNAMAS
  • Published:
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper simulates research networks in nanotechnology in Germany and the US. Agent-based modelling is used to analyse how public third-party funding influences the diffusion of a high technology by four different ways of funding. This diffusion is measured by the emerging number of nanoscientists. Next to the size of the national research systems and the number of scientists, the spread of nanotechnology is measured by interdisciplinarity and the probability of changing one’s disciplinary identity. The model is proper for the investigation of other high-technologies. Different ways of funding researchers can, according to the study results, influence the pattern of diffusion of a new technology in academia, in particular in the bigger research system of the US. While results are not significant for Germany, the way of funding researchers has significant effects in the US, with star scientists playing a crucial role for the distribution of public funding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a current issue on homophily, see the theoretical and methodological discussion on the mechanisms of influence (e.g. by peers) and selection (homophily) and the difficulty of differentiating between the two. A discussion from a statistical-methodological point of view is provided in Steglich et al. (2010)

References

  • Abbott A (2005) The disciplines and the future. In: Brint S (ed) The future of the city of intellect. The changing American university. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau PM (1977) Inequality and heterogeneity. A primitive theory of social structure. The Free Press, New York, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau PM (1994) Structural contexts of opportunities. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2009) Forschung und Innovation für Deutschland [Research and innovation for Germany]. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper S (2009) Can new technology firms succeed in coordinated market economies? A response to Herrmann and Lange. Socio-Econ Rev 7:209–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cioffi-Revilla C (2010) Computation social science. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Comput Stat 2:259–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JA (1970) Clustering and hierarchy in interpersonal relations: testing two graph theoretical models on 742 sociomatrices. Am Sociol Rev 35:843–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Solla Price DJ (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 149:510–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz H (2003) Public venture capital: the secret life of U.S. science policy. In: Biegelbauer PS, Borrás S (eds) Innovation policies in Europe and the U.S.: a new agenda. Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (1999a) Simulation as a method. In: Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (eds) Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, Buckingham; Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (1999b) Simulation and social science. In: Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (eds) Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, Buckingham; Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert N, Jager W, Deffuant G, Adjali I (2007) Complexities in markets: introduction to the special issue. J Bus Res 60:813–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom WO (1970) Factors related to the use of different modes of publishing research in four scientific fields. In: Nelson CE, Pollock DK (eds) Communication among scientists and engineers. Heath Lexington Books D.C. Heath, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancké B, Rhodes M, Thatcher M (2007) Introduction: beyond varieties of capitalism. In: Hancké B, Rhodes M, Thatcher M (eds) Beyond varieties of capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hedström P (2008) Studying mechanisms to strengthen causal inferences in quantitative research. In: Box-Steffensmeier JM, Brady HE, Collier D (eds) The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hüning L, Langer MF (2006) Der MASTERMARKT nach Bologna. Den Markt für Master-Programme verstehen, Strategien gestalten [The Market of Master Degrees after Bologna. Understanding the Market of Master Programs, Creating Strategies] (CHE Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung, Gütersloh)

  • Jackson MO (2008) Social and economic networks. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen D, von Görtz R, Heidler R (2010) Is nanoscience a mode 2 field? In: Jansen D (ed) Governance and performance in the German public research sector. Springer, Dordrecht

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka AJ (1926) The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Wash Acad Sci 16:317–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159:56–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody J (2004) The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am Sociol Rev 69:213–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutschke P (2010) Zentralitäts- und Prestigemaße [Measures of centrality and prestige]. In: Stegbauer C, Häußling R (eds) Handbuch Netzwerkforschung. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (2010) NNI Budget, 2009–2011 (Arlington, VA)

  • National Science Foundation (NSF) (2008) NSF Award Search (Arlington, VA)

  • National Science Foundation (NSF) (2010) Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (Arlington, VA)

  • Pattison P, Robins G (2002) Neighbourhood-based models for social networks. Sociol Method 32:301–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Owen-Smith J (2005) Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Am J Sociol 110:1132–1205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweinberger M, Snijders TAB (2003) Settings in social networks: a measurement model. Sociol Method 33:307–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer J (2007) The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: a bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy. Scientometrics 70:669–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squazzoni F (2010) The impact of agent-based models in the social sciences after 15 years of incursions. Hist Econ Ideas 18:197–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Steglich C, Snijders TAB, Pearson M (2010) Dynamic networks and behavior: separating selection from influence. Sociol Method 40:329–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streeck W, Thelen K (2001) Introduction: institutional change in advanced political economies. In: Streeck W, Thelen K (eds) Beyond continuity. institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen K (2004) How institutions evolve. the political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • VDI Technologiezentrum e.V. (2009) nano.DE-Report 2009 (Federal Ministry of Education and Research (German), Bonn; Berlin)

  • Zucker LG, Darby MR (2001) Capturing technological opportunity via Japan’s star scientists: evidence from Japanese firms’ biotech patents and products. J Technol Transf 26:37–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is thankful for comments and suggestions by Richard Münch, Björn-Christopher Witte, and Ali Abbas, as well as for financial support received by the German Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology II, Bamberg University, Bamberg, Germany

    Nadine Hoser

  2. DFG-Graduate College “Markets and Social Systems in Europe”, Lichtenhaidestr. 11, 96045, Bamberg, Germany

    Nadine Hoser

Authors
  1. Nadine Hoser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine Hoser.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 370 kB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoser, N. Public funding in the academic field of nanotechnology: a multi-agent based model. Comput Math Organ Theory 19, 253–281 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-013-9158-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-013-9158-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation