, Volume 115, Issue 2, pp 785–815 | Cite as

Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy

  • Gita Ghiasi
  • Matthew Harsh
  • Andrea Schiffauerova


Policymakers and scholars are increasingly concerned with how nanotechnology can reduce inequalities and provide benefits for disadvantaged and poor communities. This paper simultaneously addresses two concerns related to nanotechnology and equity: the lack of research and development focused on nanotechnology applications that benefit developing nations (pro-poor R&D) and the lack of women in nanotechnology fields. The paper focuses on Canada, an affluent country committed to both pro-poor and gender responsive policies. Social network analysis is used to examine the relationship between gender and collaboration patterns of authors and inventors whose work is related to pro-poor applications of nanotechnology. Findings reveal that female first-authored papers have a lower citation rate and are published in higher ranked journals compared to those papers first-authored by men. Nevertheless, when women are last or corresponding authors, their papers receive equal or higher citation rates and are published in lower or similar ranked journals. Women are as, or more, collaborative as their male peers in their co-authorship and co-inventorship networks. While the majority of male authors and male inventors collaborate exclusively with men, those involved in a mixed-gender team outperform male-only teams. Women, as both authors and inventors, are involved in more gender-balanced collaboration teams. The study calls for development and implementation of gender-related policies in Canada to increase the prevalence of female scientists in collaboration networks, and to support the participation of women in pro-poor areas.


Nanotechnology Gender Pro-poor Social network analysis 


  1. Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., Uddin, S., & Rasmussen, K. J. (2011). Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: Multi-levels and cross-time analysis. Scientometrics, 89(2), 687–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 811–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barirani, A., Agard, B., & Beaudry, C. (2013). Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: A patent co-citation network perspective. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1111–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bassecoulard, E., & Zitt, M. (2004). Patents and publications. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 665–694). Dordrecht: Springer. Scholar
  6. Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In International AAAI conference on weblogs and social media.Google Scholar
  7. Beaudry, C., & Schiffauerova, A. (2011). Impacts of collaboration and network indicators on patent quality: The case of Canadian nanotechnology innovation. European Management Journal, 29(5), 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beaver, D. D. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics, 60(3), 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bentley, P. (2012). Gender differences and factors affecting publication productivity among Australian university academics. Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 85–103. Scholar
  10. Berryman, S. E. (1983). Who will do science? Trends, and their causes in minority and female representation among holders of advanced degrees in science and mathematics. a special report.Google Scholar
  11. Boccaletti, S., Latora, V., Moreno, Y., Chavez, M., & Hwang, D.-U. (2006). Complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Physics Reports, 424(4), 175–308.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cassiman, B., Glenisson, P., & Van Looy, B. (2007). Measuring industry-science links through inventor-author relations: A profiling methodology. Scientometrics, 70(2), 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clement, T. P. (2013). Authorship matrix: A rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(2), 345–361. Scholar
  15. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2011). Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective. Scientometrics, 88(1), 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cozzens, S. (2012). The distinctive dynamics of nanotechnology in developing nations. In N. Aydogan-Duda (Ed.), Making it to the forefront, innovation, technology, and knowledge management (pp. 125–138). New York: Springer. Scholar
  17. Cozzens, S., Cortes, R., Soumonni, O., & Woodson, T. (2013). Nanotechnology and the millennium development goals: Water, energy, and agri-food. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(11), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cozzens, S., & Wetmore, J. (2011). Nanotechnology and the challenges of equity, equality and development (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daar, A. S., Martin, E., Acharya, T., Singer, P. A., & others. (2004). Will prince charles et al diminish the opportunities of developing countries in nanotechnology. Nanotechweb. org.Google Scholar
  20. Davarpanah, M. R., & Moghadam, H. M. (2012). The contribution of women in Iranian scholarly publication. Library Review, 61(4), 261–271. Scholar
  21. de Price, D. J. S., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duque, R. B., Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D.-B. S., & Shrum, W. (2005). Collaboration paradox scientific productivity, the internet, and problems of research in developing areas. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 755–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eslami, H., Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2013). Effect of collaboration network structure on knowledge creation and technological performance: The case of biotechnology in Canada. Scientometrics, 97(1), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghiasi, G., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2015). On the compliance of women engineers with a gendered scientific system. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0145931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guan, J., & Liu, N. (2014). Measuring scientific research in emerging nano-energy field. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 16(4), 2356. Scholar
  26. Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harsh, M., & Woodson, T. (2012). Pro-poor nanotechnology applications for water: Characterizing and contextualizing private sector research and development. Nanotechnology Law and Business, 9(3), 232–252.Google Scholar
  28. Ho, Y.-S. (2012). Top-cited articles in chemical engineering in science citation index expanded: A bibliometric analysis. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 20(3), 478–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hobson, D. W. (2009). Commercialization of nanotechnology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology, 1(2), 189–202. Scholar
  30. Hu, G., Carley, S., & Tang, L. (2012). Visualizing nanotechnology research in Canada: Evidence from publication activities, 1990–2009. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 550–562. Scholar
  31. Hunter, L., & Leahey, E. (2008). Collaborative research in sociology: Trends and contributing factors. The American Sociologist, 39(4), 290–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jordan, C. C., Kaiser, I., & Moore, V. C. (2014). 2013 nanotechnology patent literature review: Graphitic carbon-based nanotechnology and energy applications are on the rise. Nanotechnology Law and Business, 11(2), 111–125.Google Scholar
  33. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim, J., Lee, S., & Marschke, G. (2014). Impact of university scientists on innovations in nanotechnology. In S. Ahn, B. H. Hall, & K. Lee (Eds.), Intellectual property for economic development (pp. 141–158). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Glynn, C. J. (2013). The Matilda effect-role congruity effects on scholarly communication: A citation analysis of communication research and journal of communication articles. Communication Research, 40(1), 3–26. Scholar
  36. Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(1), 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Larivière. (2014). Femmes et sciences: les premières données mondiales valident l’inégalité | Acfas | magazine Découvrir | mars 2014. Scholar
  39. Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211–213. Scholar
  40. Lawani, S. (1986). Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research. Scientometrics, 9(1–2), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Long, J. S. (1990). The origins of sex differences in science. Social Forces, 68(4), 1297–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71(1), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maraut, S., & Martínez, C. (2014). Identifying author–inventors from Spain: Methods and a first insight into results. Scientometrics, 101(1), 445–476. Scholar
  45. Marx, W., & Bornmann, L. (2015). On the causes of subject-specific citation rates in Web of Science. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1823–1827. Scholar
  46. Mattsson, P., Sundberg, C. J., & Laget, P. (2011). Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics, 87(1), 99–105. Scholar
  47. Meng, Y., & Shapira, P. (2011). Women and patenting in nanotechnology: Scale, scope and equity. In S. E. Cozzens & J. Wetmore (Eds.), Nanotechnology and the challenges of equity, equality and development (pp. 23–46). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy, 35(10), 1646–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2), 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miller, B. P., Duque, R., & Shrum, W. (2012). Gender, ICTs, and productivity in low-income countries panel study. Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(1), 30–63. Scholar
  51. Moazami, A., Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). A network perspective of academiaindustry nanotechnology collaboration: A comparison of Canada and the United States. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 9(2), 263–293. Scholar
  52. Muchie, M., & Demissie, H. T. (2013). 43. Making sense of techno-optimism? The social science of nanotechnology and sustainability. Conditions and visions for change and sense-making in a rapidly changing world, 295.Google Scholar
  53. Nahata, M. C. (2008). Tips for writing and publishing an article. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 42(2), 273–277. Scholar
  54. Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404–409.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Nikulainen, T., & Palmberg, C. (2010). Transferring science-based technologies to industry—Does nanotechnology make a difference? Technovation, 30(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. NNI. (2014). National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. Retrieved January 5, 2017, from
  57. NSERC. (2010). Women in science and engineering in Canada. Retrieved August 2, 2016, from
  58. OECD. (2013). ‘Nanotechnology R&D’. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. Ozel, B., Kretschmer, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2014). Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender. Scientometrics, 98(1), 703–723. Scholar
  60. Palmberg, C., Dernis, H., & Miguet, C. (2009). Nanotechnology: An overview based on indicators and statistics. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Parveen, S., & Sreevalsan-Nair, J. (2013). Visualization of small world networks using similarity matrices. In V. Bhatnagar, & S. Srinivasa (Eds.), Big data analytics. BDA 2013 (Vol. 8302). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  62. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2009). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 95–98. Scholar
  63. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009a). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009b). Where does nanotechnology belong in the map of science? Nature Nanotechnology, 4(9), 534–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pravdic, N., & Oluic-Vukovic, V. (1986). Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaborator/scientific output relationship. Scientometrics, 10, 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Prpić, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55(1), 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roco, M. C. (2011). The long view of nanotechnology development: the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(2), 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rodrigues, R., Lodwick, T., Sandler, R., & Kay, W. D. (2007). Nanotechnology and the global poor: United States policy and international collaborations. In Presented at the 2007 NSTI Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show—NSTI Nanotech 2007, Technical Proceedings (vol. 1, pp. 593–596).Google Scholar
  69. Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Salamanca-Buentello, F., Persad, D. L., Martin, D. K., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2005). Nanotechnology and the developing world. PLoS Medicine, 2(5), e97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schiffauerova, A., & Beaudry, C. (2012). Collaboration spaces in Canadian biotechnology: A search for gatekeepers. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 29(2), 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schultz, L. I. (2011). Nanotechnology’s triple helix: A case study of the University at Albany’s College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(5), 546–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schummer, J. (2007). Identifying ethical issues of nanotechnologies. In H. ten Have (Ed.), Nanotechnologies, ethics and politics, Ethics series. Paris, France: UNESCO Pub.Google Scholar
  74. SCImago Research Group. (2007). Description of SCImago journal rank indicator. Retrieved March 3, 2018, from
  75. Sugimoto, C. R., Ni, C., West, J. D., & Larivière, V. (2015). The academic advantage: Gender disparities in patenting. (A. R. Hernandez Montoya, Ed.) PLOS ONE, 10(5): e0128000.
  76. Tahmooresnejad, L., Beaudry, C., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). The role of public funding in nanotechnology scientific production: Where Canada stands in comparison to the United States. Scientometrics, 102(1), 753–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tang, J. (1997). The glass ceiling in science and engineering. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 26(4), 383–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2011). China–US scientific collaboration in nanotechnology: Patterns and dynamics. Scientometrics, 88(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2015). The engagement gap: Exploring gender differences in University-Industry collaboration activities. Research Policy, 44(6), 1176–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biology, 5(1), e18. Scholar
  81. Uddin, S., Hossain, L., Abbasi, A., & Rasmussen, K. (2012). Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network. Scientometrics, 90(2), 687–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. UNESCO. (2014). Report of the international bioethics committee on the principle of non-discrimination and non-stigmatization., pp. 23–7. Retrieved June 13, 2016, from
  83. Villanueva-Felez, A., Woolley, R., & Cañibano, C. (2015). Nanotechnology researchers’ collaboration relationships: A gender analysis of access to scientific information. Social Studies of Science, 45(1), 100–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 700–711.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wei, W., Pfeffer, J., Reminga, J., & Carley, K. M. (2011). Handling weighted, asymmetric, self-looped, and disconnected networks in ORA. DTIC Document. Retrieved February 28, 2018, from
  86. West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e66212. Scholar
  87. Whittington, K. B., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2005). Gender and commercial science: Women’s patenting in the life sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(4), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wiek, A., Foley, R. W., & Guston, D. H. (2012). Nanotechnology for sustainability: What does nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14(9), 1093. Scholar
  89. Zamzami, N., & Schiffauerova, A. (2017). ‘The impact of individual collaborative activities on knowledge creation and transmission’, Scientometrics, 1–29.Google Scholar
  90. Zehavi, A., & Breznitz, D. (2017). Distribution sensitive innovation policies: Conceptualization and empirical examples. Research Policy, 46(1), 327–336. Scholar
  91. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1995). Virtuous circles of productivity: star bioscientists and the institutional transformation of industry. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved February 28, 2018, from
  92. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(23), 12709–12716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (2005). Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: Initial results and nanobank. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved January 6, 2014, from
  94. Zweig, K., Neuser, W., Pipek, V., Rohde, M., & Scholtes, I. (2014). Socioinformatics—The social impact of interactions between humans and IT. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical, Industrial & Aerospace EngineeringConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Engineering in SocietyConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering (CIISE)Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations