Highlighted Selections from:

The Triple Helix and International Collaboration in Science


DOI: 10.1002/asi.23165

Choi, Sujin, Joshua SungWoo Yang, and Han Woo Park. “The Triple Helix and International Collaboration in Science.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (2014): 1-11. Print.

p.1: A sharp rise has occurred in the number of international scientific collaborations (Glänzel & Schubert, 2005; Luukkonen, Persson, & Sivertsen, 1992). In Nature, Adams (2013) reported, in his analysis of research articles and reviews published between 1981 and 2012, that internationally coauthored publications were more highly cited than domestic studies because of their higher research quality. This finding, in addition to the rapid increase in the sheer number of internationally coauthored papers, highlights the importance of examining international scientific collaboration. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.1: Previous studies of international scientific collaboration have rarely gone beyond revealing the structural relationships between countries. Considering how scientific collaboration is actually initiated, this study focuses on the organization and sector levels of international coauthorship networks, going beyond a country-level description. Based on a network analysis of coauthorship networks between members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), this study attempts to gain a better understanding of international scientific collaboration by exploring the structure of the coauthorship network in terms of university-industry-government (UIG) relationships, the mode of knowledge production, and the underlying dynamic of collaboration in terms of geographic, linguistic, and economic factors. The results suggest that the United States showed overwhelming dominance in all bilateral UIG combinations with the exception of the government-government (GG) network. Scientific collaboration within the industry sector was concentrated in a few players, whereas that between the university and industry sectors was relatively less concentrated. Despite the growing participation from other sectors, universities were still the main locus of knowledge production, with the exception of 5 countries. The university sector in English-speaking wealthy countries and the government sector of non–English-speaking, less-wealthy countries played a key role in international collaborations between OECD countries. The findings did not provide evidence supporting the institutional proximity argument. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.2: It might be difficult for the present study as well as other studies to completely ignore the state-centric framework, since scientific collaboration with other countries is based on national research policies, domestic socioeconomic backgrounds, and country-specic problems that affect research agendas, but we attempt to make a further step toward understanding the complex structure of international scientic collaboration by moving away from the state-centric approach. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.2: Kwon et al. (2012) and Leydesdorff and Sun (2009) applied the TH model to international coauthorship in a single country, not to collaboration between countries. Acknowledging this gap in the literature, in this work we examine the network structure of international scientific collaboration by exploring various bilateral UIG relationships between countries (i.e., UU, II, GG, UI, UG, and GI relationships); for example, we examined the collaboration between U.S. universities and U.K. industries. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.2: Furthermore, very little is known about the modes of knowledge production used during international scientific collaboration. Two types of knowledge production are available: Mode 1 and Mode 2. Mode 1 involves “disciplinary research institutionalized largely in universities.” Mode 2 is “transdisciplinarity and institutionalized in a more heterogeneous and flexible socially distributed system” (Gibbons et al., 1994, p.11). The argument that Mode 1 is a traditional way of knowledge production is contested (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000), but the gradual increase in Mode 2 knowledge production has been described as indicating the movement toward the “new production of knowledge,” which is also partly captured by several terms such as strategic science, innovation systems, and postacademic science (Hessels & Van Lente, 2008). -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.2: Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons (2003, p.181) explained that “the steering of research priorities,” “the commercialization of research,” and “the accountability of science” changed the research environment and fostered the rise of the new production of knowledge. Specically, whereas Mode 1 has been developed to justify “autonomy for science” with a theoretical orientation, Mode 2 has relied on the “material base of science” with an application orientation to serve the needs of diverse actors such as industries and government agencies (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 116). -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.3: Despite the in-depth conceptualization of Mode 1 and Mode 2, in this study we address the mode of knowledge production in the context of TH, considering that the collaboration among university, industry, and government sectors corresponds to the idea of Mode 2 knowledge production (Hessels & Van Lente, 2008). -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.3: a body of literature has addressed physical proximity (i.e., geographic closeness) as an important factor in the determination of research collaboration patterns (Frenken et al., 2009; Ponds, 2009). These studies found that countries that were geographically closer were more likely to collaborate. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.3: According to Frenken, Hardeman, and Hoekman (2009), institutional proximity exists in scientific collaboration, which means that collaboration tends to occur between organizations that share similar institutional backgrounds such as research goals and incentive structures; that is, universities collaborate more frequently with universities, rather than with industries or governments. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.4: for the analysis, we obtained 3,228 unique organizations from 30 OECD countries and divided them into 1,767 universities, 771 industries, and 690 governments. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.6: The United States participated in international scientific collaboration primarily through the university sector, whereas France participated through the government sector. This clear contrast may stem from differences that exist in organizational traditions as well as science and technology policies. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.9: Previous studies (Ponds et al., 2007; Ponds, 2009) found an inverse relationship between geographical and institutional proximities: In other words, when organizations are located at great distances from one another, a greater likelihood exists that organizations in the same sector will collaborate. However, in the present study we did not find evidence to support the existence of this relationship in international scientific collaboration between OECD members: Based on the previous finding, compared to intracontinental blocks, intercontinental blocks should have higher densities in the cases of UU, II, and GG and lower densities in the cases of UI, UG, and GI; but, the pattern was not clear and consistent in the present analysis. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.9: Based on the results of block modeling, English-speaking wealthy countries and non–English-speaking, less-wealthy countries demonstrated the same patterns of certain bilateral UIG relationships, indicating that they were connected to each other. For instance, in the GG relationship, we found strong collaborations between non-English/non-English blocks as well as between less-wealthy/less-wealthy blocks. Based on this pattern, we compared the number of coauthored papers per organization for English-speaking wealthy countries with that for non–English-speaking, less-wealthy countries. As shown in Table 8, the university sector was the main source of international coauthorship for English-speaking wealthy countries, whereas the government sector was the key driver of international collaboration for non–English-speaking, less-wealthy countries. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.10: Scientific collaboration between industries was concentrated in a limited number of players, whereas that between universities and industries was less concentrated. This implies that industries in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom were preferred coauthors with which many other countries hoped to collaborate, whereas collaboration between universities and industries was not restricted to a few countries but included relatively diverse coauthors from different countries. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.10: In line with Godin and Gingras (2000), despite the diversication of actors engaged in knowledge production, the presence of universities might actually be increasing because of their growing collaborations with industry and government sectors, as well as with universities in other countries. The present finding captures a part of Mode 2, only considering the engagement of industry and government sectors in the process of knowledge production, but may have implications for the current shape of the mode of knowledge production in the international context. Future studies might consider how socially and geographically diversied modes of knowledge production can be empirically examined to better understand the changing research environment. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.10: With respect to economic development, coauthorship between wealthy/wealthy countries or between wealthy/less-wealthy countries was a popular type of collaboration, but in the GG relationship, collaboration was more likely to occur between less-wealthy countries. The government sector in less-wealthy countries frequently coauthored papers with universities and industries in wealthy countries. This may have occurred, in part, because the government sector in less-wealthy countries tend to invite overseas universities or industry research centers to collaborate on the development of research agendas or to seek out scholarly advice on addressing societal problems. Other interpretations can also be suggested that industries in wealthy countries collaborate with the government sector in less-wealthy countries by outsourcing clinical trials to avoid legislation issues in their own countries and achieve financial benefits by recruiting cheaper human subjects. In addition, the fact that many students in less-wealthy countries go abroad to study in universities of wealthy countries might have contributed to this collaboration pattern (Jiang, 2014; Kwon, 2013). -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014

p.11: Future research might also consider a longitudinal approach to address the question of how the roles of universities, industries, and governments in international scientific collaboration have changed over time. -- Highlighted jun 2, 2014