Competition between basic and applied research in the organizational behaviour of public research labs

Rivalry between Basic and Applied Research in Public Research Labs

National innovation systems and policies are confronted by many interrelated factors, including large socio-economic structural problems, globalisation, pressure to provide public research funding and changes in research communities driven by the Mode 2 paradigm. These changes challenge sectoral public research organisations (PROs). The role of universities and other policy organisations in innovation policy has been studied at length but there has been little investigation of PROs, despite their significance in developed and developing economies. This article fills this gap by exploring PROs in Finland, an open, industrialised and export-dependent economy. It draws several conclusions about the current state and future prospects of PROs in Finland. PROs are in transition in terms of their organisational, managerial and funding structures and their role in the internationalising national innovation system. Their rationale, legitimacy and strategies are also changing due to national innovation driven missions and internationalisation strategies. All PROs in Finland now engage in international cooperation. However, despite increasing funding from international sources and the globalisation of many aspects, PROs are still national organisations subject to national policies and governed by national bodies. Finnish PROs need to redefine their strategies at the international and European levels without forgetting their national role.

As observed from the reviewed literature, the execution of research and development (R and D) projects in Nigeria is challenged by many social, political and economic factors interacting in complex and dynamic ways. This interaction is reflected in the history of science and technology in Nigeria, its culture, legal systems, institutional frameworks and social capital. The economic and social development of Nigeria is critically dependent upon the ability to establish a competitive, productive and efficient industrial sector built on a strong technology base. This implies that her natural resources must be developed and utilised as inputs to industrial production and as direct products to improve the life of the population. Public research organisations (PROs) are considered to be critical to the survival of industries and to the achievement of self-reliance through the use of locally available raw materials. This thesis explores the application of strategic project management (SPM) practices in the execution of R and D projects in PROs in Nigeria. The research employed a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative research in order to capture the experiences of project management practitioners with SPM practices in PROs in Nigeria. Although areas of variations in practice were identified, the major findings highlighted that there was a gap in the practical implementation of SPM. The findings also revealed key determinants associated with the implementation of SPM and the factors that affected its application in PROs in Nigeria. The research findings were further synthesised into a framework, capturing ten key dimensions that must be taken into account in the execution of research and development projects. The determinants include having a project-based organisational structure, top management involvement in the project execution, strategic project leadership style, the appointment of a project team, the project team's competence, project alignment with organisational strategy, project prioritisation and selection, maximising R and D strategy, the project management process, and the SPM process. The framework validation was a follow-up discussion, which was conducted with project management practitioners in the selected research organisations in Nigeria. Reflecting on their experiences in the management of R and D projects, the participants acknowledged that the proposed SPM framework and its ten key variables were fundamental to the effective execution of R and D projects in PROs in Nigeria. It was concluded that the use of such a framework would highlight areas that needed to be addressed in order to achieve effective execution of R and D projects in these organisations.

This paper introduces a citation-based metholodology to characterize and measure the magnitude and intensity of knowledge flows and knowledge spillovers from the public research sector to basic and strategic research in the private sector. We present results derived from an interrelated series of statistical analyses based on Private-to-Public Citations (PrPuCs) within reference lists of the research articles produced by industrial researchers during the years 1996-2003. The first part of the results provides an overview of PrPuC statistics worldwide for OECD countries. Overall, 70% to 80% of those references within corporate research papers relate to papers produced by public research organizations. When controlling for the size of their public sector research bases, Switzerland and the United States appear to be the major suppliers of 'citable' scientific knowledge for industrial research - the value of their Corporate Citation Intensity (CCI) exceeds their statistically expected value by more than 25%. A country's CCI performance turns out to be closely related to the citation impact of the entire domestic science base. The second section deals with an exploratory case study devoted to Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications, one of the corporate sector's major research areas. The findings include a list of the major citing and cited sources at the level of countries and organizations, as well as an analysis of PrPuCs as a “missing link”connection intra-science citations and citations received from corporate science-based patents.

The Institute of Environmental Geosciences (IGE) is a public research laboratory in Earth and Environmental Sciences with a staff of about 300 people, which conducts research on climate, the anthropisation of our planet and environmental risks, combining glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, mechanics, atmospheric sciences and human sciences. An important part of its activity consists of field experiments in remote sites (Antarctica, Asia, South America, Africa), numerical simulations using significant computer resources (several million CPU hours/year), using expensive and sometimes energy intensive scientific equipment (e.g. 170 m² of cold rooms).In 2019, the laboratory collectively decided to adopt a strategy to reduce its Carbon Footprint (CFP) by 7% per year in order to achieve a 50% reduction by 2030 and thus to comply with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The first CFP budget (2018 and 2019, using the GES1point5 tool) showed a predominance of emissions from professional travels (~640 tCO2e out of 1850 tCO2e, i.e. 2.6 tCO2e/person). In this context, the strategy consisted in defining CO2 budgets for each of the 8 research teams of the IGE on the basis of the 2018/2019 emissions, imposing a 10% reduction per year from 2020. Given the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, the reduction targets for professional travel were easily achieved (-81% and -64%) and the reduction in 2022 was -39% compared to 2018/2019 instead of the targeted -27%.For all emission items (commuting, professional travel, heating, electricity, digital computing, purchasing, refrigerants), the reduction was -45% in 2020, -30% in 2021 and -15% in 2022. To consider the evolution of the number of people in the laboratory (and in the teams), the mean individual CFP has been defined as the ratio between the CO2 emissions and the number of people in the laboratory. The IGE's mean individual CFP was 7.22 tCO2e/person in 2018/2019 and 5.45 tCO2e/person in 2022 (for a target of 6.0 tCO2/person). It should be 3.61 tCO2e/person in 2030.The strategy (the long-term reduction trajectory and the team-based reduction objectives) is well received by the IGE laboratory staff, even if some staff are still reluctant to any form of reduction. To ease its implementation and check whether it is being kept, a bimonthly monitoring of the teams’ emissions and the mean personal CFP was set up. The IGE also proposes participation in awareness-raising tools (La Fresque du Climat, Ma Terre en 180'). Significant changes in travel habits have followed. For instance, out of the 30 members of the IGE who come to the EGU in Vienna each year, 90% came by plane and 10% by train (a 20-hour long journey) in 2018/2019, and this ratio was 25% by plane and 75% by train in 2022.To achieve our objective, further actions need to be identified to reduce the "purchase" and "digital computing" emission posts. What will help is that the insulation of the buildings was initiated in 2022, and the cold rooms which emitted a very strong greenhouse gas (refrigerant gas R508b) were changed in 2022 for a model operating with CO2.

A decade on, the situation portrayed in the influential report of a deteriorating US science and technology ecosystem has, if anything, worsened.

What is the countercultural potential of citizen science? As a participant in the wider citizen science movement, I can attest that contemporary citizen science initiatives rarely characterise themselves as countercultural. Rather, the goal of most citizen science projects is to be seen as producing orthodox scientific knowledge: the ethos is respectability rather than rebellion (NERC). I will suggest instead that there are resonances with the counterculture that emerged in the 1960s, most visibly through an emphasis on participatory experimentation and the principles of environmental sustainability and social justice. This will be illustrated by example, through two citizen science projects that have a commitment to combining social values with scientific practice. I will then describe the explicitly countercultural organisation, Science for the People, which arose from within the scientific community itself, out of opposition to the Vietnam War. Methodological and conceptual weaknesses in the authoritative model of science are explored, suggesting that there is an opportunity for citizen science to become anti-hegemonic by challenging the hegemony of science itself. This reformulation will be expressed through Deleuze and Guattari's notion of nomadic science, the means through which citizen science could become countercultural. Counterculture Before examining the countercultural potential of citizen science, I set out some of the grounds for identifying a counterculture drawing on the ideas of Theodore Roszak, who invented the term counterculture to describe the new forms of youth movements that emerged in the 1960s (Roszak). This was a perspective that allowed the carnivalesque procession of beatniks, hippies and the New Left to be seen as a single paradigm shift combining psychic and social revolution. But just as striking and more often forgotten is the way Roszak characterised the role of the counterculture as mobilising a vital critique of the scientific worldview (Roszak 273-274). The concept of counterculture has been taken up in diverse ways since its original formation. We can draw, for example, on Lawrence Grossberg's more contemporary analysis of counterculture (Grossberg) to clarify the main concepts and contrast them with a scientific approach. Firstly, a counterculture works on and through cultural formations. This positions it as something the scientific community would see as the other, as the opposite to the objective, repeatable and quantitative truth-seeking of science. Secondly, a counterculture is a diverse and hybrid space without a unitary identity. Again, scientists would often see science as a singular activity applied in modulated forms depending on the context, although in practice the different sciences can experience each other as different tribes. Thirdly, a counterculture is lived as a transformative experience where the participant is fundamentally changed at a psychic level through participation in unique events. Contrast this with the scientific idea of the separation of observer and observed, and the objective repeatability of the experiment irrespective of the experimenter. Fourthly, a counterculture is associated with a unique moment in time, a point of shift from the old to the new. For the counterculture of the 1960s this was the Age of Aquarius. In general, the aim of science and scientists is to contribute to a form of truth that is essentially timeless, in that a physical law is assumed to hold across all time (and space), although science also has moments of radical change with regard to scientific paradigms. Finally, and significantly for the conclusions of this paper, according to Roszak a counterculture stands against the mainstream. It offers a challenge not at the level of detail but, to the fundamental assumptions of the status quo. This is what “science” cannot do, in as much as science itself has become the mainstream. It was the character of science as the bedrock of all values that Roszak himself opposed and for which he named and welcomed the counterculture. Although critical of some of the more shallow aspects of its psychedelic experimentation or political militancy, he shared its criticism of the technocratic society (the technocracy) and the egocentric mode of consciousness. His hope was that the counterculture could help restore a visionary imagination along with a more human sense of community. What Is Citizen Science? In recent years the concept of citizen science has grown massively in popularity, but is still an open and unstable term with many variants. Current moves towards institutionalisation (Citizen Science Association) are attempting to marry growth and stabilisation, with the first Annual General Meeting of the European Citizen Science Association securing a tentative agreement on the common principles of citizen science (Haklay, "European"). Key papers and presentations in the mainstream of the movement emphasise that citizen science is not a new activity (Bonney et al.) with much being made of the fact that the National Audubon Society started its annual Christmas Bird Count in 1900 (National Audubon Society). However, this elides the key role of the Internet in the current surge, which takes two distinct forms; the organisation of distributed fieldwork, and the online crowdsourcing of data analysis. To scientists, the appeal of citizen science fieldwork follows from its distributed character; they can research patterns over large scales and across latitudes in ways that would be impossible for a researcher at a single study site (Toomey). Gathering together the volunteer, observations are made possible by an infrastructure of web tools. The role of the citizen in this is to be a careful observer; the eyes and ears of the scientist in cyberspace. In online crowdsourcing, the internet is used to present pattern recognition tasks; enrolling users in searching images for signs of new planets or the jets of material from black holes. The growth of science crowdsourcing is exponential; one of the largest sites facilitating this kind of citizen science now has well in excess of a million registered users (Zooniverse). Such is the force of the technological aura around crowdsourced science that mainstream publications often conflate it with the whole of citizen science (Parr). There are projects within citizen science which share core values with the counterculture as originally defined by Roszak, in particular open participation and social justice. These projects also show characteristics from Grossberg's analysis of counterculture; they are diverse and hybrid spaces, carry a sense of moving from an old era to a new one, and have cultural forms of their own. They open up the full range of the scientific method to participation, including problem definition, research design, analysis and action. Citizen science projects that aim for participation in all these areas include the Extreme Citizen Science research group (ExCiteS) at University College London (UCL), the associated social enterprise Mapping for Change (Mapping for Change), and the Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science (Public Lab). ExCiteS sees its version of citizen science as "a situated, bottom-up practice" that "takes into account local needs, practices and culture". Public Lab, meanwhile, argue that many citizen science projects only offer non-scientists token forms of participation in scientific inquiry that rarely amount to more that data collection and record keeping. They counter this through an open process which tries to involve communities all the way from framing the research questions, to prototyping tools, to collating and interpreting the measurements. ExCiteS and Public Lab also share an implicit commitment to social justice through scientific activity. The Public Lab mission is to "put scientific inquiry at the heart of civic life" and the UCL research group strive for "new devices and knowledge creation processes that can transform the world". All of their work is framed by environmental sustainability and care for the planet, whether it's enabling environmental monitoring by indigenous communities in the Congo (ExCiteS) or developing do-it-yourself spectrometry kits to detect crude oil pollution (Public Lab, "Homebrew"). Having provided a case for elements of countercultural DNA being present in bottom-up and problem-driven citizen science, we can contrast this with Science for the People, a scientific movement that was born out of the counterculture. Countercultural Science from the 1970s: Science for the People Science for the People (SftP) was a scientific movement seeded by a rebellion of young physicists against the role of US science in the Vietnam War. Young members of the American Physical Society (APS) lobbied for it to take a position against the war but were heavily criticised by other members, whose written complaints in the communications of the APS focused on the importance of scientific neutrality and the need to maintain the association's purely scientific nature rather than allowing science to become contaminated by politics (Sarah Bridger, in Plenary 2, 0:46 to 1:04). The counter-narrative from the dissidents argued that science is not neutral, invoking the example of Nazi science as a justification for taking a stand. After losing the internal vote the young radicals left to form Scientists and Engineers for Social and Political Action (SESPA), which later became Science for the People (SftP). As well as opposition to the Vietnam War, SftP embodied from the start other key themes of the counterculture, such as civil rights and feminism. For example, the first edition of Science for the People magazine (appearing as Vol. 2, No. 2 of the SESPA Newsletter) included an article about leading Black Panther, Bobby Seale, alongside a piece entitled “Women Demand Equality in Science.” The final articles

In the modern society, universities and research centres are directly involved in the process of country economic growth by spurring product development, by creating new industries, and by contributing to employment and wealth creation. Research based spin offs are often the best way to reach these goals. For this reason, the number of research based firms spurred by Public Research Organisations is remarkably increased in the last years both in United States and in European Countries. On the other hand, this growth is not homogeneously distributed among different countries. According to these considerations, the aim of this paper is to understand which characteristics of public research institutions can influence positively or negatively the rise of research spin offs and which policies the research organisations can adopt to favour the generation of research-based spin-offs.

Do technology entrepreneurship and external relationships always promote technology transfer? Evidence from Korean public research organizations

SITUATIONAL AND INTERACTIONIST LEADERSHIP THEORIES

A number of scholars consider innovations to emerge within a system through interactions between different economic actors such as the state, public agencies, firms, public laboratories, universities, civil society, etc. (Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993). Initially, such systems were considered at a national level (Porter, 1990), but increasing globalization of innovation processes has replaced the national focus with a more outward, internationalized, outlook, to include regional (Cooke, 1994; 2002) and sectoral (Malerba and Orsenigo, 1997) perspectives. In these innovation systems, universities, public research organizations directly sponsored by government and firms are the dominant players engaged in R&D activity. Together, they are instrumental in determining the "rate and direction of inventive activity." Therefore, collaboration between these actors is deemed particularly important for the build-up of capabilities in new science based sectors like nanotechnology. But what kinds of collaborations are most effective? Are there patterns which are most suitable for a specific context or a target than another? The existing literature is relatively silent on such issues. This leads to the query, since the race to acquire capabilities in nanotechnology is relatively recent, and public-private collaboration is important for the same: can different countries exhibit different patterns of cooperation between public laboratories and private firms? In this chapter we attempt to provide a partial answer to the above question, by identifying and comparing patterns in collaborative patents in Germany and South Korea.

Introduction The term “scientist” lacks a universally accepted definition, reflecting the evolving, interdisciplinary nature of scientific work and posing challenges for recognition, communication, and policy. This study aims to develop consensus-based definitions of the term “scientist” by engaging experienced scholars across diverse fields. Methods This study involved 156 scholars, each with at least 1,000 citations, recruited via convenience sampling. Fourteen scientist definitions, derived from literature and expert input, were assessed using a nine-point Likert scale via a structured google forms survey. The sample size was calculated using G*power (effect size = 0.5, power = 0.95), requiring at least 80 participants. Content Validity Index (CVI) was used for analysis. Definitions scoring ≥0.78 were accepted and included for final analysis, 0.70–0.78 were revised and re-evaluated, and <0.70 were excluded. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, ensuring ethical compliance and confidentiality. Results Of the 14 proposed definitions, six (42.9%) were excluded (CVI < 0.70), seven (50.0%) were accepted (CVI > 0.78), and one (7.1%) underwent revision (CVI 0.70–0.78). The highest-rated definitions were refined into two consensus-based versions: a short definition (“A scientist is a person who conducts research”) and a detailed one emphasizing hypothesis formulation and knowledge dissemination. Final validation yielded CVIs of 0.82 and 0.84, respectively, confirming strong expert agreement on both definitions. Conclusion This study developed two validated definitions of “scientist” emphasizing systematic research and knowledge dissemination. These definitions clarify the concept of scientific identity, providing a flexible yet rigorous framework applicable across academic, interdisciplinary, and policy-making contexts. Introduction The term "scientist" has undergone significant transformation since its inception, reflecting the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry and the evolving landscape of knowledge. This lack of clarity stems from the diverse roles and contributions of individuals in scientific fields, the evolving nature of research, and the interdisciplinary scope of modern science. Historically, figures such as Galileo and Newton were regarded as natural philosophers, a reflection of an earlier framework for knowledge production that has evolved alongside modern scientific advancements. Before twentieth century, the term "scientist" was commonly referred to as a "man of science," "natural philosopher," or by various other designations [1,2]. In contemporary contexts, scientists operate across a broad spectrum of fields, including medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, and social sciences, each employing methodologies tailored to their specific inquiries. For instance, biologists may design experiments to test hypotheses about living organisms, while social scientists might use qualitative methods to explore human behavior [3]. The Science Council defines a scientist as an individual who methodically collects and applies research and evidence to develop hypotheses, performs experiments, and shares results to advance knowledge in their field [4]. While National Cancer Institute defines a scientist as an individual with a background in science, particularly someone actively engaged in a specific area of research [5]. This diversity in practices underscores the challenge of defining "scientist" in a way that captures the breadth of their contributions. The plurality of definitions extends to global organizations and frameworks. For example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization highlights the critical role of scientists in addressing global challenges and promoting sustainable development. This definition broadens the scope to include individuals working in multidisciplinary teams or applying scientific knowledge to public policy and societal issues. Similarly, some academic discussions focus on the characteristics of a scientist, such as curiosity, skepticism, and a commitment to evidence-based conclusions, rather than formal qualifications or job titles [6]. Unlike well-defined professions such as medicine or engineering, where specific educational pathways and professional titles (e.g., "doctor" or "engineer") confer clear identities, the term "scientist" lacks a universally recognized credentialing system. This absence can lead to underrepresentation or misrepresentation of scientific expertise, especially in interdisciplinary and collaborative contexts [7]. For example, the growing integration of data science in biology or physics illustrates the importance of understanding who qualifies as a scientist to ensure effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders. The absence of a standardized definition poses practical challenges for scientific communication, policymaking, and inclusivity. This study aims to address this gap by engaging scholars across disciplines to develop a consensus-based definition of "scientist." By recognizing the diverse and interdisciplinary contributions of scientists, such a definition could enhance collaboration, improve public understanding, and inform policies that support the scientific community. Methods Study design and participants A total of 156 scholars (out of 300 invited) participated in this study. Eligibility was determined based on the scholars' substantial academic expertise, evidenced by the achievement of at least 1,000 citations within their respective fields. This criterion ensured that participants had significant research experience and were highly qualified to contribute to the formulation of a consensus-based definition of "scientist." Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling method, and data were collected via a structured survey administered through google forms. While convenience sampling was used due to the accessibility of high-citation scholars, efforts were made to ensure disciplinary diversity to mitigate potential bias. Personalized invitations were sent via email to each scholar to facilitate their inclusion in the study. Sample size determination The sample size was determined using G*power statistical software (version 3.1.9.7), employing a two-tailed goodness of fit test with an effect size of 0.5, an alpha error probability of 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.95. According to the calculations, a minimum of 80 participants were required to achieve statistically valid results. Consequently, 156 scholars were recruited to participate in the study, ensuring robust representation and adequate statistical power. Data collection Fourteen proposed definitions of "scientist," curated from existing literature and expert contributions, were presented to the enrolled scholars for evaluation (Table 1). Each definition included a Likert scale with nine response options, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Responses were systematically recorded and compiled in an Excel sheet for subsequent analysis. This process facilitated the systematic capture of scholarly consensus on each definition. Table 1. Respondent Agreement on Various 'Scientist' Definitions. Proposed Definitions Options A person studying or has expert knowledge of one or more natural or physical sciences. (Oxford Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert who studies or works in one of the sciences. (Cambridge Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person learned in science and especially natural science. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge. (Science Council) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who has studied science and whose job is to teach or do research in science. (Collins Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences. (Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person with some kind of knowledge or expertise in any of the sciences. (Vocabulary dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems. (Britannica Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who has studied science, especially one who is active in a particular field of investigation. (National Cancer Institute) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone who works or is trained in science. (Longman Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person whose profession is investigating in one of the natural sciences. (Your Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science. (Free Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone whose job or education is about science. (LanGeek Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person who researches to advance knowledge in an area of the natural sciences. (Wikipedia) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Data analysis The Content Validity Index (CVI) was employed to assess the relevance and agreement of the definitions. Definitions with a CVI below 0.70 were excluded, as they failed to meet the minimum threshold for consensus. Definitions with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 underwent a second round of evaluation, with refined wording sent back to the same scholars for further review. Definitions achieving a CVI above 0.78 were deemed sufficiently valid for inclusion in the final analysis [8]. These definitions formed the foundation for the development of a unified, consensus-based definition of "scientist." Ethical considerations Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and all responses were anonymized to preserve participant confidentiality. Results Initially, out of the 14 proposed definitions of the term "scientist," six (42.9%) received a CVI score below the threshold of 0.70 and were consequently excluded from further consideration. In contrast, seven definitions (50.0%) demonstrated strong content validity with CVI scores equal to or exceeding 0.78 and were therefore retained for subsequent synthesis and analysis. Only one definition (7.1%) fell within the intermediate range, with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 (Table 2). Table 2. Comparison of Agreement and CVI Across Proposed Definitions of 'Scientist'. Proposed Definition Agree Disagree Undecided CVI Status Science Council Definition 146 8 2 0.94 Accepted Britannica Dictionary Definition 136 16 4 0.87 Accepted Cambridge Dictionary 130 20 6 0.83 Accepted Wikipedia Definition 125 27 4 0.80 Accepted Free Dictionary Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted National Cancer Institute Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted Collins Dictionary Definition 122 31 3 0.78 Accepted Oxford Dictionary Definition 120 31 5 0.77 Revised Longman Dictionary Definition 104 42 10 0.67 Excluded Your Dictionary Definition 103 48 5 0.66 Excluded Dictionary (generic) Definition 91 52 13 0.58 Excluded Vocabulary dictionary Definition 88 58 10 0.56 Excluded Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition 81 64 11 0.52 Excluded LanGeek Dictionary Definition 79 67 10 0.51 Excluded CVI: Content Validity Index, CVI Thresholds: Accepted: ≥ 0.78, Revised: 0.70–0.78, Excluded: < 0.70 Through a rigorous, iterative evaluation process involving expert feedback, the definitions with the highest CVI scores (those above 0.78) were integrated and refined into two distinct, consensus-based definitions of the term "scientist." The first was a concise definition: “A scientist is a person who conducts research.” The second was a more comprehensive and elaborated definition: “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These two final definitions were subsequently circulated among the panel of scholars for a second round of evaluation, during which they were asked to rate the definitions for content validity. The short definition received a CVI of 0.82, while the more detailed definition attained a slightly higher CVI of 0.84, reflecting strong agreement among the experts. Although no additional formal qualitative feedback was solicited at this stage; minor wording adjustments were made based on informal suggestions received during this validation round. Discussion The role of a scientist extends far beyond the stereotypical image of an individual in a white coat working exclusively in a laboratory setting. Careers grounded in scientific expertise are remarkably diverse, encompassing domains such as research, education, industry, and regulatory affairs. The Science Council categorizes scientists into 10 different types, highlighting the diversity of scientific roles beyond the stereotypical lab-based researcher. It includes types such as experimental scientists, theoretical scientists, data scientists, and more, reflecting the broad spectrum of scientific work today [9]. Definitions of the term “scientist” vary, yet they generally converge on the principles of systematic inquiry, evidence-based investigation, and the pursuit of knowledge across various disciplines. For instance, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and the Britannica Dictionary emphasize formal training and research functions, typically within the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, or physics [10,11]. In contrast, contemporary perspectives, such as those discussed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2024, recognize a broader spectrum of scientific engagement, encompassing both professional researchers and individuals committed to understanding the world through observation, experimentation, and analysis [12]. In light of this diversity, the present study aimed to clarify and formalize the definition of a "scientist" through expert consensus. Two definitions were developed: a concise definition “A scientist is a person who conducts research”, and a comprehensive definition “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These definitions encapsulate the core activities and guiding principles of scientific inquiry, emphasizing both methodological rigor and the essential role of knowledge dissemination across disciplines. A key finding of this study lies in its recognition of the evolving tension between disciplinary specialization and the increasing importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. As highlighted in contemporary analyses of interdisciplinary research and development, scientists now frequently operate at the intersection of multiple fields, such as nanomedicine, where the diversity and dissimilarity of collaborators’ knowledge can significantly enhance research productivity [13]. The concise definition, "A scientist is a person who conducts research" captures this shift by avoiding constraints tied to specific disciplinary boundaries. In contrast, the more detailed definition explicitly incorporates the systematic formulation and testing of hypotheses, along with the dissemination of knowledge, thereby reinforcing the structured and communicative nature of scientific inquiry. These elements align closely with UNESCO’s 2019 call for stronger science-society engagement and underscore the ethical responsibilities inherent in modern scientific practice [14]. The study’s findings also contribute to ongoing debates surrounding professional identity within the scientific community. In contrast to regulated professions such as medicine, the absence of a universal credentialing system for scientists complicates formal recognition, particularly in non-academic and interdisciplinary contexts. This ambiguity is reflected in the National Cancer Institute’s pragmatic definition of a scientist, which emphasizes active participation in research rather than reliance on formal titles or qualifications [15]. By anchoring the term “scientist” in core research activities rather than occupational labels, the consensus-based definitions proposed in this study offer a more inclusive framework. This approach accommodates emerging roles in fields such as data science and applied research, thereby addressing the risk of under recognition in collaborative and cross-sector environments. The dual definitions, concise and comprehensive, offer flexibility for different contexts, a strategy aligned with the Science Council’s emphasis on methodological diversity [4]. The detailed definition’s focus on systematic inquiry and dissemination aligns with studies of interdisciplinary science, where “impassioned commitment” to shared goals drives innovation [13]. Simultaneously, the availability of a concise definition enhances clarity in public discourse and science communication, while the more detailed version provides the specificity necessary for institutional contexts such as policy development, research funding, and professional accreditation. Notably, the study’s findings also challenge enduring stereotypes of the “lone genius” scientist by highlighting the inherently collaborative and iterative nature of scientific practice. Contemporary frameworks, such as those emerging from computational biology, suggest that scientific identity is increasingly dynamic, pluralistic, and shaped by collective knowledge production [16]. The process undertaken in this study, involving successive refinement and expert validation of definitions, closely mirrors the recursive logic of the scientific method itself. This methodological alignment is particularly salient in fields like nutritional epidemiology, where the replication of findings remains a persistent challenge and iterative inquiry is essential for refining evidence [17]. Despite the methodological rigor and expert involvement, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study employed convenience sampling, which may introduce selection bias and limit the generalizability of the findings. Although participants were selected based on a minimum citation threshold to ensure scholarly expertise, this criterion may have inadvertently excluded emerging researchers or experts with significant practical contributions who have not yet achieved high citation metrics. Second, the use of an online survey format may have constrained participant engagement, as scholars with limited availability or preference for alternative formats may have been underrepresented. Additionally, response bias cannot be ruled out, as those with a particular interest in the topic or in defining scientific identity may have been more inclined to participate, potentially skewing the results. Future refinements of the definition should also consider voices from non-academic scientific contexts including those in industry, policy, and community-based science who are increasingly central to addressing complex global challenges. Conclusion By engaging experienced scholars across disciplines, this study establishes two validated definitions of “scientist” that emphasize systematic research activity and knowledge dissemination. These definitions offer a structured yet adaptable framework for understanding scientific identity, balancing clarity with flexibility. They help address the ambiguity surrounding the term “scientist,” providing a foundation for improved communication, interdisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-informed policy development. Importantly, they remain open to future refinement as scientific practice continues to evolve. Declarations Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Patient consent (participation and publication): Not applicable. Funding: The present study received no financial support. Acknowledgements: None to be declared. Authors' contributions: JG, MM, SB, BS, VS, ASN, SHM, HAH, AGH, ADS, RAK, WRR, AB, GB, SS, SN, CJ, PL, MSS, ZK, MC, AM, SK, FCT, FB, FRK, MAM, AA, VK, DH, PM, VRM, MSA, EA, and RV were significant contributors to the conception of the study, voting for the items. FHK, BAA, and AMM were involved in the literature review, manuscript writing, and data analysis and interpretation. FHK and AMM Confirmation of the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Use of AI: ChatGPT-3.5 was used to assist in language editing and improving the clarity of the manuscript. All content was reviewed and verified by the authors. Authors are fully responsible for the entire content of their manuscript. Data availability statement: Not applicable.

Purpose The aim of this paper is to map and scope the relationship between the literature on project management and public management to progress closer engagement between the two fields. The paper develops a framework outlining a set of conceptual linkages between the two literatures and outlines a research agenda to further the contribution of future scholarship. Design/methodology/approach A scoping literature review was conducted encompassing papers informing the interplay between project management and public management, identifying a set of connection points between shared thematic areas. Findings Our findings include the identification of conceptual connectors, defined as correspondences between thematic areas in the two fields of project management and public management, whereby theories and notions drawn from one can be adapted and applied to the other field. We have identified the following thematic areas in the respective fields as connectors: project stakeholder management AND partnership collaboration and multi-agency working; Project management levels (portfolio, programme and project) AND public policy implementation; Project innovation AND public innovation; Project leadership AND public leadership. We also examine how the ways in which the notion of time is conceptualized in project management can inform analyses in public management as another key connector point. The paper also provides an overview of the relationships between these two fields of scholarly inquiry; it is noticed that, while there is a longstanding relationship between them, recent critical approaches provide increased traction to integrate project management and public management scholarship. Research limitations/implications The paper is theoretical-conceptual in nature, from which mainly derive its limitations and implications: the paper can guide, and it would benefit of, the development of empirical research on the use of project management logics and techniques in the field of public management. Practical implications The article can provide valuable guidance for public managers/managers of public services for deepening and bettering the awareness and use of project management logics and techniques for tackling complex public affairs problems. Social implications The article aims at discussing and fostering awareness about a social-anthropological understanding of project management in the field of public sector and public services management, by developing a set of interconnections between the two fields. Originality/value This article makes three main contributions. First, it identifies conceptual connections between the fields of project management and public management, thereby further informing the literature in public management on change management and reform. Second, the study provides a valuable addition to public management scholarship by identifying the importance of the critical project management school for furthering public management theory and research. Finally, the study assists scholarship by identifying three phases between the project management and public management literature: a first phase characterized by mutual misunderstanding; a second phase in which the development of critical project management has enabled selective application of project management concepts to the field of public management; and a third and current phase which sees closer engagement between the two fields. The phases indicate project management is not a static technical discipline, but one increasingly informed by critical theories. The conceptual connections between the fields of project management and public management identified in this paper, and the research agenda whose contours are outlined, can enable progressing knowledge in a range of thematic areas in public management.

本研究探討員工知覺的轉型領導(TFL)及學習式目標導向(LGO)分別與其角色行為（創新行為和組織公民行為）之關係。再者，本研究也欲檢測員工LGO對於TFL與創新行為的關係之干擾效果是否會受到表現式目標導向(PGO)高低的干擾。最後，本研究亦欲檢驗員工LGO對於TFL與組織公民行為的關係之干擾效果是否會受到PGO高低的干擾。本研究之受測對象為台灣地區電子公司497位員工，實得有效問卷303份。結果顯示，員工知覺的轉型領導愈高，其愈會積極表現出創新行為，也愈會積極表現出組織公民行為。員工的學習式目標導向愈高，其亦愈會積極表現出組織公民行為。員工LGO對於TFL與其創新行為的關係之干擾效果會受到PGO高低的干擾。當員工PGO高時，LGO會對TFL與其創新行為之關係產生干擾效果。亦即，若員工PGO高且LGO低時，則員工知覺到的TFL與其表現出之創新行為呈顯著正相關；然而，若員工PGO高且LGO高時，則員工知覺到的TFL與其表現出創新行為之正向關聯性較低。相對而言，當員工PGO低時，LGO不會對TFL與其創新行為之關係生產干擾效果。最後，員工LGO對於TFL與其組織公民行為的關係之干擾效果亦會受到PGO高低的干擾。當員工PGO高時，LGO會對TFL與其組織公民行為之關係產生干擾效果。亦即，若員工PGO高且LGO低時，則員工知覺到的TFL與其表現出之組織公民行為呈顯著正相關；然而，若員工PGO高且LGO高時，則員工知覺到的TFL與其表現出組織公民行為之正向關聯性較低。相對而言，當員工PGO低時，LGO不會對TFL與其組織公民行為之關係產生干擾效果。

This paper explores the divergence in patterns of regional development in twin towns, one in France, Grenoble, and one in the UK, Oxford. Since the early 2000s, a number of changes in national policies in each country have had a direct effect on the dynamics of local technology-led economic development. Here the particular interest is in those that relate to interrelationships (dyads) between anchor organizations (public sector research laboratories) and major local firms. The paper’s focus is on how changes in policy effect strong local relationships and how multiple anchor organizations drive cluster development.