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

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
SE Capabilities Maintaining US Competitiveness
Source National Science Foundation
http//www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb1003/s2
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
The U.S. in the Global Scientific System
Source Glanzel Shubert, 2004)
7
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.

8
The Value of Collaborative and Interdisciplinary
ResearchFindings 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.

9
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?)

10
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

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
NETWISE I Survey Themes

• What is the social structure?
• name generators
• Close research collaboration networks (within and
  outside of ones 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

15
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

16
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

17
Response

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

18
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 44
• Phys 39
• Bio 33
• CS 30
• EE 27
• Chem 26

All named formal and informal collaborative
alters (n5870)
19
Results Close International Collaborators

• 48 Countries represented
• Some field variation
• Chemistry and physics -- Europe
• Biology EAS Canada
• Electrical Eng Asia

20
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

21
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)

22
Findings Explaining International Ties

• RANK AGE
• full professors
• - 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

Logistic Regression Results
Who has a close international collaborative tie?
23
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
24
Findings US Citizens vs Foreign-BornDo
different factors matter in developing close
international ties?

• Some differences by national origin

25
Findings US Citizens vs Foreign-BornDo
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.

26
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?

27
The U.S. in the Global Scientific System
Source Glanzel Shubert, 2004)