IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v19y2010i3p173-184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life cycles of research groups: the case of CWTS

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Braam
  • Peter van den Besselaar

Abstract

By combining concepts from scientometrics and organisation studies, we hypothesise a basic ‘life cycle’ of organisational research units (institutes, laboratories or groups), if internal and external conditions are stable. Three output indicators enable a comparison of historical patterns with the lifecycle pattern, to reveal basic dynamics and changing conditions. We tested the model for a specific case: the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University. The ‘standard’ life cycle was found from the start of CWTS in the early 1980s until the beginning of this century. Then, a boost of activities indicates the start of a second life cycle, explained by increased demand for performance studies and increased ability of CWTS to deliver standardised products. Recent changes in funding and key membership are expected to start a third cycle with reorientation of CWTS's activity profile. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Braam & Peter van den Besselaar, 2010. "Life cycles of research groups: the case of CWTS," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 173-184, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:3:p:173-184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820210X503465
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olmos-Peñuela, Julia & Castro-Martínez, Elena & D’Este, Pablo, 2014. "Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 696-706.
    2. Gabriela Sarabia-Altamirano & Julio Martínez-Burnes & José A. Ramírez-de León, 2024. "Knowledge and Technology Transfer Channels Used by the Academy: Evidence from Mexico," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 63-87, March.
    3. Benedetto Lepori & Michael Wise & Diana Ingenhoff & Alexander Buhmann, 2016. "The dynamics of university units as a multi‐level process. Credibility cycles and resource dependencies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2279-2301, December.
    4. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, January.
    5. Robert Braam & Peter Besselaar, 2014. "Indicators for the dynamics of research organizations: a biomedical case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 949-971, June.
    6. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Anuska Ferligoj & Sandra Miguel & Luka Kronegger & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2012. "Blockmodeling of co-authorship networks in library and information science in Argentina: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 699-717, December.
    7. Edwin Horlings & Thomas Gurney, 2013. "Search strategies along the academic lifecycle," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1137-1160, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:3:p:173-184. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.