Difference between revisions of "Azoulay, Graff Zivin and Manso (2009)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
m (Andrew moved page Azoulay et al (2009) to Azoulay, Graff Zivin and Manso (2009) without leaving a redirect)
 
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Source
+
{{MainSource
|Author=Azoulay, Graff Zivin, Manso
+
|Source={{Source
|Title=Incentives and Creativity: Evidence From the Academic Life Science
+
|Name of Study=Azoulay, Graff Zivin and Manso (2009)
 +
|Author=Azoulay, P.; Graff Zivin, J.S.; Manso, G.
 +
|Title=Incentives and Creativity: Evidence From the Academic Life Sciences
 
|Year=2011
 
|Year=2011
 
|Full Citation=Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J. S., & Manso, G. (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. The RAND Journal of Economics, 42(3), 527-554.
 
|Full Citation=Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J. S., & Manso, G. (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. The RAND Journal of Economics, 42(3), 527-554.
Line 7: Line 9:
 
|Link=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2011.00140.x/abstract
 
|Link=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2011.00140.x/abstract
 
|Reference=John P. A. Ioannidis (2011)
 
|Reference=John P. A. Ioannidis (2011)
|Plain Text Proposition=- Compared the effectiveness of two different ways of funding research by the HHMI (Howard Hughes Medical Institute) and NIH (National Institute of Health). The NIH funding was given to projects while HHMI funding was given to an individual.
+
|Plain Text Proposition=Main results:
- Found that the individuals selected for HHMI funding produced more papers with higher amounts of citations then their counterparts in the NIH
+
 
- The reason for this seemed to be that HHMI funded individuals could abandon unfruitful project more easily and move onto something potentially more fruitful. In the NIH however the funding was given to the project which did not give researchers at the NIH the same level of freedom to switch projects when they were found to be potentially unsuccesful.
+
*Compared the effectiveness of two different ways of funding research by the HHMI (Howard Hughes Medical Institute) and NIH (National Institute of Health). The NIH funding was given to projects while HHMI funding was given to an individual.
- The HHMI also had a more flexible review process initially and a more generous termination process which gave the researcher a bit more security compared to a harsher review conducted on NIH researchers.
+
 
 +
*Found that the individuals selected for HHMI funding produced more papers with higher amounts of citations then their counterparts in the NIH
 +
 
 +
*The reason for this seemed to be that HHMI funded individuals could abandon unfruitful project more easily and move onto something potentially more fruitful. In the NIH however the funding was given to the project which did not give researchers at the NIH the same level of freedom to switch projects when they were found to be potentially unsuccesful.
 +
 
 +
*The HHMI also had a more flexible review process initially and a more generous termination process which gave the researcher a bit more security compared to a harsher review conducted on NIH researchers.
 
|FundamentalIssue=2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
 
|FundamentalIssue=2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
 
|EvidenceBasedPolicy=B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
 
|EvidenceBasedPolicy=B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
|Discipline=Economics, Publishing
+
|Intervention-Response=Policy implications:
 +
 
 +
*Changing the review process for grant winners could inrease total amount of papers published by scientists as there would be less pressure on researchers early in the project.
 +
 
 +
*Differences in the way projects are funded could allow scientists to publish more papers as since if an individual is funded it allows more flexibility to change or tweak projects compared to the project itself being funded, which does not necessarily allow for such flexibility.
 +
|Cross-country=No
 +
|Comparative=No
 +
|Government or policy=No
 +
|Literature review=No
 
|Method=Quantitative analysis,
 
|Method=Quantitative analysis,
|Intervention-Response=- Changing the review process for grant winners could inrease total amount of papers published by scientists as there would be less pressure on researchers early in the project.
 
- Differences in the way projects are funded could allow scientists to publish more papers as since if an individual is funded it allows more flexibility to change or tweak projects compared to the project itself being funded, which does not necessarily allow for such flexibility.
 
 
|Data=- Publishing Data
 
|Data=- Publishing Data
 +
}}
 +
|Dataset=
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 19:59, 24 August 2015

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Azoulay, Graff Zivin and Manso (2009)
Title: Incentives and Creativity: Evidence From the Academic Life Sciences
Author(s): Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J.S., Manso, G.
Year: 2011
Citation: Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J. S., & Manso, G. (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. The RAND Journal of Economics, 42(3), 527-554.
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description:
Data Type:
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
Funder(s):

Abstract

Despite its presumed role as an engine of economic growth, we know surprisingly little about the drivers of scientific creativity. We exploit key differences across funding streams within the academic life sciences to estimate the impact of incentives on the rate and direction of scientific exploration. Specifically, we study the careers of investigators of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), which tolerates early failure, rewards long-term success, and gives its appointees great freedom to experiment, and grantees from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who are subject to short review cycles, predefined deliverables, and renewal policies unforgiving of failure. Using a combination of propensity-score weighting and difference-in-differences estimation strategies, we find that HHMI investigators produce high-impact articles at a much higher rate than a control group of similarly accomplished NIH-funded scientists. Moreover, the direction of their research changes in ways that suggest the program induces them to explore novel lines of inquiry.

Main Results of the Study

Main results:

  • Compared the effectiveness of two different ways of funding research by the HHMI (Howard Hughes Medical Institute) and NIH (National Institute of Health). The NIH funding was given to projects while HHMI funding was given to an individual.
  • Found that the individuals selected for HHMI funding produced more papers with higher amounts of citations then their counterparts in the NIH
  • The reason for this seemed to be that HHMI funded individuals could abandon unfruitful project more easily and move onto something potentially more fruitful. In the NIH however the funding was given to the project which did not give researchers at the NIH the same level of freedom to switch projects when they were found to be potentially unsuccesful.
  • The HHMI also had a more flexible review process initially and a more generous termination process which gave the researcher a bit more security compared to a harsher review conducted on NIH researchers.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

Policy implications:

  • Changing the review process for grant winners could inrease total amount of papers published by scientists as there would be less pressure on researchers early in the project.
  • Differences in the way projects are funded could allow scientists to publish more papers as since if an individual is funded it allows more flexibility to change or tweak projects compared to the project itself being funded, which does not necessarily allow for such flexibility.



Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Green-tick.png
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Green-tick.png
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets