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 project, Women in Science and Engineering: Network Access, Participation, and Career Outcomes, a project funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant # REC ) 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. S&E Capabilities: Maintaining US Competitiveness
Source: National Science Foundation

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 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.

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
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
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 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

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%
Rank Variation
50% full professor
24% associate professor
28% assistant professor
Gender
CS and EE: highest % of industry collaborators
47% women
Citizenship
61% U.S. citizen
Training
70% of individuals have held postdoc position
All named formal and informal collaborative alters (n=5870)

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-Born: Do different factors matter in developing close international ties?
Some differences by national origin

25. 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.

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)