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