[HN Gopher] The diffusion of scientific discovery
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The diffusion of scientific discovery
        
       Author : nerdlogic
       Score  : 30 points
       Date   : 2023-06-01 19:18 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (tchristos.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (tchristos.com)
        
       | nologic01 wrote:
       | There is something that rings true about the metaphor. Discovery
       | is mostly an incremental process of trial and error around a
       | neighborhood which occasionally probes a new opening and then
       | there is a rush of activity in that new plane.
       | 
       | The simplest mathematical model of this might be a Levy flight
       | [1].
       | 
       | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9vy_flight
        
       | smitty1e wrote:
       | I don't understand the need for a labyrinth. Why not simple
       | particles in solution?
        
         | BSEdlMMldESB wrote:
         | I don't understand it either, but I do think it reflects what
         | academia really feels like
         | 
         | and I imagine the closer the academic research is to real world
         | industry uses, the more obstacles there will be (due to 'trade
         | secrecy', and the like)
        
         | autonomousErwin wrote:
         | I think it's the metaphor for spending your research career
         | banging your head against a wall (in this case - literally)
        
       | unclesaamm wrote:
       | While I think simulations and models are interesting, this model
       | is just way too simplified to give any real insight. Here's an
       | example of a leading scholar in the field -- Allie Morgan --
       | developing a simple model on this exact question!
       | https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epj...
       | 
       | > Title: Prestige drives epistemic inequality in the diffusion of
       | scientific ideas
       | 
       | > Abstract: The spread of ideas in the scientific community is
       | often viewed as a competition, in which good ideas spread further
       | because of greater intrinsic fitness, and publication venue and
       | citation counts correlate with importance and impact. However,
       | relatively little is known about how structural factors influence
       | the spread of ideas, and specifically how where an idea
       | originates might influence how it spreads. Here, we investigate
       | the role of faculty hiring networks, which embody the set of
       | researcher transitions from doctoral to faculty institutions, in
       | shaping the spread of ideas in computer science, and the
       | importance of where in the network an idea originates. We
       | consider comprehensive data on the hiring events of 5032 faculty
       | at all 205 Ph.D.-granting departments of computer science in the
       | U.S. and Canada, and on the timing and titles of 200,476
       | associated publications. Analyzing five popular research topics,
       | we show empirically that faculty hiring can and does facilitate
       | the spread of ideas in science. Having established such a
       | mechanism, we then analyze its potential consequences using
       | epidemic models to simulate the generic spread of research ideas
       | and quantify the impact of where an idea originates on its
       | longterm diffusion across the network. We find that research from
       | prestigious institutions spreads more quickly and completely than
       | work of similar quality originating from less prestigious
       | institutions. Our analyses establish the theoretical trade-offs
       | between university prestige and the quality of ideas necessary
       | for efficient circulation. Our results establish faculty hiring
       | as an underlying mechanism that drives the persistent epistemic
       | advantage observed for elite institutions, and provide a
       | theoretical lower bound for the impact of structural inequality
       | in shaping the spread of ideas in science.
        
         | jacquesm wrote:
         | > We find that research from prestigious institutions spreads
         | more quickly and completely than work of similar quality
         | originating from less prestigious institutions.
         | 
         | That's a bit of a leap though, isn't it? How to establish that
         | the works are of 'similar quality'?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-06-03 23:01 UTC)