1 / 27

The Social Capital of Global Ties in Science: 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

denim
Download Presentation

The Social Capital of Global Ties in Science: The Added Value of International Collaboration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. S&E Capabilities: Maintaining US Competitiveness Source: National Science Foundation http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb1003/#s2

  4. The U.S. in the Global Scientific System Source: Glanzel & Shubert, 2004)

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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?)

  8. 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 Carnegie-Designated 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. Generating Network Data 12,727 Named Alters 1,598 Respondents Close collaborators within own institution Close collaborators outside own institution Individuals with whom discuss research but not collaborated Individuals from whom you seek advice about your career Individuals with whom you discuss departmental matters • Key distinction: • CLOSE networks • Specific dyadic ties

  14. Generating Network Data 12,727 Named Alters 1,598 Respondents Close collaborators within own institution Close collaborators outside own institution Individuals with whom discuss research but not collaborated Individuals from whom you seek advice about your career Individuals with whom you discuss departmental matters • Key distinction: • CLOSE networks • Specific dyadic ties

  15. Response: • Overall, 1598 usable responses • (47% response rate) • Gender • 54% women • 46% men • Rank • 27 % assistant • 28 % associate • 45 % full professor

  16. 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 • FieldVariation • EAS 44% • Phys 39% • Bio 33% • CS* 30% • EE* 27% • Chem 26% All named formal and informal collaborative alters (n=5870)

  17. Results: Close International Collaborators • 48 Countries represented • Some field variation • Chemistry and physics -- Europe • Biology & EAS – Canada • Electrical Eng – Asia

  18. 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

  19. 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)

  20. Findings: Explaining International Ties • RANK & AGE: • + full professors • - professional age • FIELD: • + EAS, Biological Sciences and Physics • ORIGIN & EDUCATION: • + foreignborn/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 Logistic Regression Results Who has a close international collaborative tie?

  21. 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

  22. Findings: US Citizens vs Foreign-Born:Do different factors matter in developing close international ties? • Some differences by national origin

  23. 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.

  24. 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?

  25. The U.S. in the Global Scientific System Source: Glanzel & Shubert, 2004)

More Related