Across institutional boundaries?: Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience

Research collaboration is a key mechanism for linking distributed knowledge and competencies into novel ideas and research venues. The need for effective inter-institutional knowledge flows is of particular importance in emerging domains of research, and also a challenge for public research systems with a high degree of institutional differentiation. Motivated by concerns about favorable institutional conditions for the conduct of scientific research, we analyze research collaboration in the emergent domain of nanoscience within the highly segmented German public research system. Drawing on multiple data sources, such as co-publications, macro research statistics, and in-depth interviews, we identify governance structures that support or hinder scientists’ efforts to engage in collaborative work relations across institutional boundaries.

[1]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity , 2005 .

[2]  Thomas Heinze,et al.  Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective , 2007, Scientometrics.

[3]  Marijk van der Wende,et al.  International Comparative Analysis , 2004 .

[4]  H. Hohn.  Kognitive Strukturen und Steuerungsprobleme der Forschung: Kernphysik und Informatik im Vergleich , 1998 .

[5]  G. Laudel.  What do we measure by co-authorships? , 2002 .

[6]  N. Luhmann.  Soziologische Aufklärung/2 , 1975 .

[7]  D. Simon,et al.  Inter-Disziplinieren : Erfolgsbedingungen von Forschungskooperationen , 2004 .

[8]  Philippe Larédo,et al.  Research and Innovation Policies in the New Global Economy: An International Comparative Analysis , 2001 .

[9]  Joachim Schummer,et al.  Discovering the nanoscale , 2004 .

[10]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Future governance of innovation policy in Europe — three scenarios , 2001 .

[11]  G. Ahuja.  Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study , 1998 .

[12]  M. Newman,et al.  Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  Elizabeth A. Corley,et al.  Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies , 2006 .

[14]  A. Hullmann.  Who is winning the global nanorace? , 2006, Nature nanotechnology.

[15]  W. Powell,et al.  Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences1 , 2005, American Journal of Sociology.

[16]  Luke Georghiou,et al.  Global cooperation in research , 1998 .

[17]  A. Gillison,et al.  Research Partnerships , 2007 .

[18]  H. Boer,et al.  Orchestrating creative minds. The governance of higher education and research in four countries compared , 2005 .

[19]  Olle Persson,et al.  Studying research collaboration using co-authorships , 1996, Scientometrics.

[20]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Publications and patents in nanotechnology , 2003, Scientometrics.

[21]  G. Laudel.  The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions , 2006 .

[22]  Susanne Lütz.  Governance in der politischen Ökonomie — zum Stand der Debatte , 2003 .

[23]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations , 2004, Scientometrics.

[24]  Thomas Heinze,et al.  Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in Europe : Analysis of Publications and Patent Applications including Comparisons with the United States , 2004 .

[25]  P. Patel,et al.  University-industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends , 2003 .

[26]  G. Melin.  Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level , 2000 .

[27]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors , 2007, Scientometrics.

[28]  J. Schummer,et al.  Interdisciplinary Issues in Nanoscale Research , 2003 .

[29]  J. S. Katz,et al.  What is research collaboration , 1997 .

[30]  Nabil Amara,et al.  The impact of transaction costs on the institutional structuration of collaborative academic research , 1998 .

[31]  J. Hollingsworth,et al.  Contemporary Capitalism: Coordination of Economic Actors and Social Systems of Production , 1997 .

[32]  G. Laudel,et al.  What are institutional boundaries and how can they be overcome? Germany's collaborative research centres as boundary-spanning networks , 1998 .

[33]  Svein Kyvik,et al.  The Bureaucratisation of Universities , 1998 .

[34]  M. Newman.  1 Who is the best connected scientist ? A study of scientific coauthorship networks , 2004 .

[35]  Philip Shapira,et al.  Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation , 2001 .

[36]  M. Scheu,et al.  Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach , 2006 .

[37]  U. Schimank,et al.  Konflikte und Gleichgewichte im Forschungssystem: Akteurkonstellationen und Entwicklungspfade in der staatlich finanzierten außeruniversitären Forschung , 1990 .

[38]  J. Youtie,et al.  Refining search terms for nanotechnology , 2008 .

[39]  R. Whitley.  The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Second Edition: with new introductory chapter entitled 'Science Transformed? The Changing Nature of Knowledge Production at the End of the Twentieth Century') , 1984 .

[40]  Arlette Jappe,et al.  Explaining international collaboration in global environmental change research , 2007, Scientometrics.

[41]  Ulrich Dolata,et al.  [Rezension:] Heinze, Thomas: Die Kopplung von Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft: Das Beispiel Nanotechnologie (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2006) , 2008 .

[42]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences , 2001 .

[43]  D. Eberle.  Governance in der politischen Ökonomie II: Corporate Governance , 2010 .

[44]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and its study): Past, Present, and Future , 2001, Scientometrics.

[45]  J. Senker.  REFLECTIONS ON THE TRANSFORMATION OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC-SECTOR RESEARCH , 2006 .

[46]  Veronika Pähl,et al.  Förderung der Empirischen Bildungsforschung durch das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) , 2005 .

[47]  Bernward Joerges,et al.  The Transverse Science and Technology Culture: Dynamics and Roles of Research-technology , 2002 .

[48]  M. Lengwiler.  Between charisma and heuristics: four styles of interdisciplinarity , 2006 .

[49]  W. Glänzel,et al.  Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-Authorship , 2004 .

[50]  U. Schmoch,et al.  Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields , 1998 .

[51]  H. Kevin Steensma,et al.  Acquiring technological competencies through inter-organizational collaboration: An organizational learning perspective , 1996 .