The triple helix and international collaboration in science

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.

[1]  R. Ponds,et al.  The limits to internationalization of scientific research collaboration , 2009 .

[2]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Cross-national preference in co-authorship, references and citations , 2006, Scientometrics.

[3]  Loet Leydesdroff Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization , 1989 .

[4]  Ah Chung Tsoi,et al.  Structure of the Internet? , 2001, Proceedings of 2001 International Symposium on Intelligent Multimedia, Video and Speech Processing. ISIMP 2001 (IEEE Cat. No.01EX489).

[5]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University–industry–government versus international coauthorship relations , 2009 .

[6]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Introduction: `Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge , 2003 .

[7]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[8]  Carlos Gershenson,et al.  Collaborations: The fourth age of research , 2013, Complex..

[9]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983–2003) An exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix , 2007, Scientometrics.

[10]  Ke Jiang,et al.  A multi-level network analysis of web-citations among the world’s universities , 2013, Scientometrics.

[11]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[12]  Á. M. Hernáez Borgatti, Stephen; Martin Everett i Lin Freeman. UCINET IV. Network Analysis Software. Version 1.0. Columbia: Analytic Technologies, 1992 , 1995 .

[13]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[14]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  The Emergence of Clusters in the Global Telecommunications Network , 2007 .

[15]  Jarno Hoekman,et al.  Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[16]  Ki-Seok KwonHan,et al.  Has globalization strengthened South Korea's national research system? National and international dynamics of the Triple Helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea , 2012 .

[17]  I. Wallerstein Open the Social Sciences , 1996 .

[18]  Ki-Seok Kwon,et al.  Government Policy and Internationalisation of Universities: The Case of International Student Mobility in South Korea , 2013 .

[19]  O. Persson,et al.  Understanding Patterns of International Scientific Collaboration , 1992 .

[20]  Sujin Choi Core-periphery, new clusters, or rising stars?: international scientific collaboration among ‘advanced’ countries in the era of globalization , 2011, Scientometrics.

[21]  A. Elzinga The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1997 .

[22]  Devan Rosen,et al.  The Structure of the Internet Flows in Cyberspace , 2001 .

[23]  Yeung Henry Wai-Chung Redressing the Geographical Bias in Social Science Knowledge , 2001 .

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

[25]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  Jae Eun Chung,et al.  Mapping International Film Trade: Network Analysis of International Film Trade Between 1996 and 2004 , 2011 .

[27]  Brian A. Jackson,et al.  Science and Technology Collaboration: Building Capability in Developing Countries , 2001 .

[28]  Tapio Varis,et al.  The International Flow of Television Programs , 1984 .

[29]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Shadows of the Past in International Cooperation: Collaboration Profiles of the Top Five Producers of Science , 2000, Scientometrics.

[30]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  The Role of the Global Telecommunications Network in Bridging Economic and Political Divides, 1989 to 1999 , 2004 .

[31]  R. Hanneman Introduction to Social Network Methods , 2001 .

[32]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[33]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Has globalization strengthened South Korea’s national research system? National and international dynamics of the Triple Helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea , 2011, Scientometrics.

[34]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Globalisation of science in kilometres , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[35]  George A. Barnett,et al.  Structural changes in the 2003–2009 global hyperlink network , 2011 .

[36]  Koen Frenken,et al.  The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration , 2007 .

[37]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Web-science communication in the age of globalization , 2006, New Media Soc..

[38]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  Longitudinal trends in networks of university-industry-government relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives , 2009, 0912.3100.

[39]  H. V. Lente,et al.  Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda , 2008 .

[40]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations , 1998, Scientometrics.

[41]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics , 2003, Scientometrics.

[42]  George A. Barnett,et al.  The structure of international music flows using network analysis , 2010, New Media Soc..

[43]  I. Wallerstein,et al.  開放社會科學 : 重建社會科學報告書 = Open the social sciences : report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the restructuring of the social sciences , 1997 .

[44]  Y. Gingras,et al.  The place of universities in the system of knowledge production , 2000 .