1 / 16

James D. Adams, University of Florida and NBER Grant C. Black, Georgia State University

Patterns of Research Collaboration in U.S. Universities, 1981-1999 AAAS Meetings Denver, Colorado February 18, 2003. James D. Adams, University of Florida and NBER Grant C. Black, Georgia State University Roger Clemmons, University of Florida Paula E. Stephan, Georgia State University.

roana
Download Presentation

James D. Adams, University of Florida and NBER Grant C. Black, Georgia State University

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. Patterns of Research Collaboration in U.S. Universities, 1981-1999AAAS MeetingsDenver, ColoradoFebruary 18, 2003 James D. Adams, University of Florida and NBER Grant C. Black, Georgia State University Roger Clemmons, University of Florida Paula E. Stephan, Georgia State University

  2. Overview • This is a study of collaboration in university research over the period 1981-1999. • The topic is important for at least two reasons: (1) collaboration is a means by which knowledge spills over, and (2) collaboration is linked to the division of labor. • So one might think that the economic efficiency of the knowledge-creating industries is related to collaborative activities.

  3. Overview • The study includes 110 leading U.S. universities and all major sciences in these universities. • The primary data set includes 2.4 million scientific papers and 18.8 million citations to these papers. • Also included is information on field and the number and location of authors. • 12 fields are represented: agriculture, astronomy, biology, chemistry, computer science, economics, earth science, engineering, mathematics, medicine, physics, and psychology. • The data source is the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI).

  4. Principal Findings on Collaboration • Research output of the U.S. university system expanded by 50% over the period but grew at a faster rate in the 1980s than in the 1990s. • Research collaboration grew in each of the three dimensions that we measure. • Authors per paper increased from 2.8 to 4.2 over the period 1981-1999. • Top 110 institutions per paper increased 1.1 to 1.2, while the share of foreign authors increased from 5% to 15% over the same time period. • Exhibits 1-3 illustrate.

  5. Comparative Trends in Main Forms Of Scientific Collaboration • Exhibit 4 brings the three dimensions of collaboration together, normalizing each dimension on its 1981 value. • Team size (number of authors) is growing faster than U.S. institutional collaboration (number of top 110 schools). • The share of foreign addresses is rising faster than the other two indicators. These patterns are robust across fields of science. • The rise in international collaboration has taken place in the recent past.

  6. Trends in International Collaboration by Size of Team • We now explore cross-sectional patterns in the trends of the internationalization of science. • As the measure of internationalization we again use the foreign share of addresses on scientific papers. • We normalize on the 1981 value in order to compare growth patterns. • Exhibit 5 shows that smaller teams, while less international, are becoming more international at a faster rate.

  7. Trends in International CollaborationBy Field • Exhibits 6 and 7 compare the growth of internationalization by field. • The most international fields are astronomy, mathematics, and physics. The least international are agriculture, biology, and medicine. Exhibit 6 points out the differences in natural units. • Exhibit 7 normalizes the fields on 1981 values. This shows that the least international fields are becoming more international at a faster rate.

  8. Conclusions • Over time, scientific research has invited the use of larger teams. • In recent years research teams have become increasingly internationalized. • There is convergence in the size distribution: team sizes that are the least international are becoming international at a faster rate. • There is convergence across scientific fields: the least international of fields are becoming more international at a faster rate.

  9. Conclusions • Why is this happening? • Is it because of an increasing range of complementary skills and equipment needed to do the research, coupled with rising specialization? • Or is it due to a decline of the cost of research conducted at a distance? • Or to the rise of scientific research outside the U.S.? • Probably it is the last two explanations that are the most compelling, given the speed of the change that we observe.

More Related