Growth of international collaboration in science: revisiting six specialties
International collaboration in science continues to grow at a remarkable rate, but little agreement exists about dynamics of growth and organization at the discipline level. Some suggest that disciplines differ in their collaborative tendencies, reflecting their epistemic culture. This study examines collaborative patterns in six previously studied specialties to add new data and analyze patterns over time. Our findings show that a global network of collaboration continues to add new nations and new participants; since 1990, each specialty has added many new nations to lists of collaborating partners. We also find that the scope of international collaboration is positively related to impact. Network characteristics for the six specialties are notable in that instead of reflecting underlying culture, they tend towards convergence at the global level. This observation suggests that the global level may represent next-order dynamics that feed back to the national and local levels (as subsystems) in a complex, networked hierarchy.
KeywordsNetwork structure Science Organization Hierarchy Nation Governance
- Adams, J. Black, G, Clemmons, R. Stephan, P. Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from U.S. universities, 1981–1999 (2005), Research Policy 34, 259-285.Google Scholar
- Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCInet for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
- De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek (Vol. 27). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Frenken, K., Hoekman, J., Kok, S., Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & van Vliet, J. (2009). Death of distance in science? A gravity approach to research collaboration. In Innovation networks (pp. 43-57). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
- Miquel, J. F., & Okubo, Y. (1994). Structure of international collaboration in sciences. Comparisons of profiles in countries using a link indicator, Scientometrics, 29, 271–294.Google Scholar
- Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
- Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1977). The organization of complex systems. In Models of discovery (pp. 245–261). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1991). The architecture of complexity. In G. Klir (Ed.), Facets of Systems Science. International Federation for Systems Research International Series on Systems Science and Engineering (Vol. 7, pp. 457–476). US: Springer.Google Scholar
- Whitley, R. (1984). The intellectual and social organisation of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007b). Supporting online materials for the increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1136099/DC1.