Transcript What is the added value of international collaboration?

The Social Capital of Global Ties in Science:
The Added Value of International
Collaboration
Dr. Julia Melkers, Associate Professor
Ms. Agrita Kiopa, Doctoral Student
School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, Georgia
Presented at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, March 31, 2011
Data analyzed in this presentation were collected in the 2005-09 project, Women in Science and
Engineering: Network Access, Participation, and Career Outcomes, a project funded by the National
Science Foundation (Grant # REC-0529642) Program Officer, Janice Earle.
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
The Globalization of Science
 Scientific research is increasingly global in nature.
 Collaborative ties cross sectoral, disciplinary and
national boundaries.
 “Big science”
 Shrinking globe
 Ease of communication, data sharing, and
other interaction.
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
S&E Capabilities: Maintaining US
Competitiveness
Source: National Science Foundation http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb1003/#s2
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
The U.S. in the Global Scientific
System
Source: Glanzel & Shubert, 2004)
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Network views of Social Capital:
Increasingly Collaborative Science
 Capacity issues highly relevant in increasingly collaborative
environment.




Research groups, centers
Diminishment of single investigator
Networked science
Global collaborative interaction
 Effective collaboration is a social process whereby researchers gain
new “knowledge value” as a result of their interaction (Bozeman and Rogers,
2001.)
 Researchers learn and gain the skills and knowledge of other
researchers through collaborative interactions. The “transfer of
skills” is an important and primary benefit of research collaboration.
(Katz and Martin,1987.)
 Funders have responded, with incentives and even requirements for
collaborative research.
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
The Value of Collaborative and
Interdisciplinary Research:
Findings from Prior Research
 Collaborative research has been shown to:
 Encourage cross-fertilization across disciplines
 Provide access to expertise, equipment & resources
 Encourage learning tacit knowledge about a technique
 Combine knowledge for tackling large and complex
problems
 Have a positive relationship with productivity
 Have a positive relationship with quality and impact of
publication
 Contribute to prestige or visibility
 International collaboration can provide access to a
broader set of collaborative and knowledge
resources – increases to social capital & capacity.
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Overall Research Questions:
 Which scientists are most likely to have
international collaborative ties?
 What do scientists gain from these ties?
(What is the added value of international
collaboration?)
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Methodology
 National Science Foundation-funded 3 Year Study.
 Online longitudinal survey, supplemented with
institutional and publication data.
 Statistical modeling of network-based ties and
related resources
Survey:
 Population of 25,000 faculty in CarnegieDesignated Research I universities
 Sample of 3500 stratified by rank, field and gender
 Six fields:
 Biology
 Chemistry
 Computer science
 Earth and atmospheric science
 Electrical engineering
 Physics
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Networks: Scope and
Operationalization
 Global/whole networks
 Allow for understanding
of nodes within certain
known boundaries
 Ego networks
 Treats network
information as individual
attribute data
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Survey Structure and Content
 Structure:
 Primarily close-ended
 Content
 Social network items:
 name generators
 collaborative and advice networks
 name interpreters
 origin and nature of relationship, resource
exchange





Career timeframe and experience
Research and teaching responsibilities
Productivity and collaboration
Work and institutional environment
Respondent background and demographics
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Survey Structure and Content
 Structure:
 Primarily close-ended
 Content
 Social network items:
 name generators
 collaborative and advice networks
 name interpreters
 origin and nature of relationship, resource
exchange





Career timeframe and experience
Research and teaching responsibilities
Productivity and collaboration
Work and institutional environment
Respondent background and demographics
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
NETWISE I Survey Themes
 What is the social structure?
 name generators
 Close research collaboration networks (within and outside of one’s
university)
 Research discussion networks
 Advice networks (career and departmental information)
 Mentor relationships
 What are the characteristics of each relationship?
 name interpreters







Characteristics of named alter (gender, skills)
Origin and nature of the relationship
Types of collaboration
Collaborative outcomes
Types of advice
Career resources (introductions, nominations, advice)
Connections between named alters
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Generating Network Data
1,598
Respondents
Individuals with whom discuss research but not collaborated
12,727 Named
Alters
Key distinction:
CLOSE networks
Specific dyadic ties
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Generating Network Data
1,598
Respondents
Individuals with whom discuss research but not collaborated
12,727 Named
Alters
Key distinction:
CLOSE networks
Specific dyadic ties
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Overall, 1598 usable responses
(47% response rate)
180
Gender
•54% women
•46% men
160
140
120
100
Men
Women
80
60
Rank
•27 % assistant
•28 % associate
•45 % full professor
40
20
0
Biological
Sciences
Chemistry
Computer Science
EAS
Electrical
Engineering
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Physics
Descriptive Findings: Who has at
least one close foreign collaborator?
 34% of respondents have a foreign tie
 No significant difference by citizenship
 More senior faculty
 No gender difference
 Field Variation






EAS
Phys
Bio
CS*
EE*
Chem
44%
39%
33%
30%
27%
26%
U.S. Federal
Lab or
Agency
9%
Industry
4%
Other
2%
Foreign
Institution
15%
U.S.
University
70%
All named formal and informal
collaborative alters (n=5870)
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Results: Close International
Collaborators
•48 Countries represented
•Some field variation
Chemistry and physics -- Europe
Biology & EAS – Canada
Electrical Eng – Asia
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Descriptive Findings: What resources are
accessed through international ties?
 Collaboration
 More domestic collaboration on grants
 More international collaboration on papers &
chapters
 ** Production! Faculty with foreign ties have a
higher mean number of journal articles
 Knowledge Resources
 More domestic review of papers & proposals
 Social Capital
 More international introduction to potential
collaborators
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Research Questions & Models
 Which scientists are most likely to have
international collaborative ties?
 International tie (0,1) = f (individual
characteristics, resources, network properties,
context)
 What do scientists gain from these ties?
 Resources gained through domestic or
international ties= f (individual characteristics,
resources network properties, context)
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Findings: Explaining International
Ties
 RANK & AGE:
Logistic Regression
 + full professors
Results
 - professional age
 FIELD:
 + EAS, Biological Sciences and Physics
 ORIGIN & EDUCATION:
 + foreign born/non-U.S. citizens
 - US citizens with foreign PhD
 + US or foreign postdoc
 OTHER:
 + Research network size
 - External collaborative tendencies
 + institutional effects of reputation and resources
 (descriptive) initial meetings at conferences
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Findings: Global Social Capital
Resources gained
 Collaboration, Expertise, Nominations, Introductions
 Variation in the breadth of resources gained from
foreign collaborative ties.
 Some benefit more (and gain broader resources)
 Full professors
 Foreign nationals with U.S. doctoral degrees
 Faculty with a higher proportion of external
research ties
 Relationships matter
 Close relationships gain more
 Detailed knowledge of expertise not as
important.
Multiple Regression
Results
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Findings: US Citizens vs Foreign-Born:
Do different factors matter in
developing close international ties?
 Some differences by national origin
Native
Naturalized
Foreign
Demographics
Female
Associate Prof
Full Professor
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Ed ucation
PhD from Foreign Univ
US Postdoc experience
Foreign Postdoc experience
Networks
External-Internal Ties
Research Discussion Network
Ins titutional Setting & Field
Grant Resources
Institutional Ranking
Biology
+
Chemistry
-
Comp Science
EAS
Physics
+
+
+
-
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Findings: US Citizens vs Foreign-Born:
Do different factors matter in resources
gained from international ties?
 Breadth of resources from foreign
collaborators:
Networks characteristics matter for US and
non-US born scientists.
 Research discussion networks work differently for
foreign vs domestic resources
Naturalized citizens: Associate level faculty
gain more, women gain less.
Close, well-developed relationships matter for
all.
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
Some Conclusions:
 International collaborators provide important
resources for faculty researchers.
 The ability to access those resources varies.
 Individual characteristics, education, and foreign
origin play a role.
 Naturalized citizens may have different access &
opportunities
 Professional conferences important.
 Institutional resources/reputation matters.
 More questions arise:
 What determines productive international ties?
 What sustains international ties?
 Others?
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science
The U.S. in the Global Scientific
System
Source: Glanzel & Shubert, 2004)
NETWISE: Networks for Women and Under-Represented Minorities in Academic Science