The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 1292–1306 | Cite as

International research collaboration among women engineers: frequency and perceived barriers, by regions

  • Mary Frank Fox
  • Mary Lynn Realff
  • Diana Roldan Rueda
  • Jillian Morn
Article

Abstract

International research collaboration is on the rise—and at the same time, women face potential barriers. Based on responses to surveys conducted among groups of women engineers, this article addresses (1) women’s frequency of international research collaboration; (2) the barriers to collaboration reported for both self and for other women; and (3) the patterns among women students as well as professionals, by national regions. Findings of this study have implications for policies to broaden participation in the increasingly important arena of international research collaboration, based on women in engineering, the scientific field in which women are most underrepresented. This makes the case focal for the study of women, science, and policy.

Keywords

Women Research collaboration International Engineering Science Policy 

JEL Classification

O32 O35 O38 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation (award #1047714). For comments on an earlier draft of this article, we thank Carolina Canibano.

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The role of information asymmetry in the market for university-industry research collaboration. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 811–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackers, L. (2008). Internationalization, mobility and metrics: A new form of indirect discrimination? Minerva, 46, 411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagshaw, D., Lepp, M., & Zorn, C. (2007). International research collaboration: Teams and managing conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24, 433–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bastedo, M., & Gumport, P. (2003). Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in US public higher education. Higher Education, 46, 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaver, D. D. B. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52, 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40, 1393–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bozeman, B., Kay, D., & Slade, C. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The state-of-the-art. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, J. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognitions, 4, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caprile, M., Addis, E., Castaño, C., Klinge, I., Larios, M., Meulders, D., et al. (2012). Meta-analysis of gender and science research: Synthesis report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  12. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 924–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Childress, L. (2010). The twenty-first century university: Developing faculty engagement in internationalization. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, B. (1997). Small worlds, different worlds: The uniqueness and troubles of the american academic profession. Daedalus, 126, 21–42.Google Scholar
  15. Corley, E. (2005). How do career strategies, gender, and work environment affect faculty productivity in university-based science centers? Review of Policy Research, 22, 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellemers, N., van den Heuvel, H., Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engels, A., & Ruschenburg, T. (2008). The uneven spread of global science: Patterns of international research collaboration in global environmental change research. Science and Public Policy, 35, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2007). The European research area: New perspectives. Green Paper, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/era-greenpaper_en.pdf
  19. European Commission. (2009). Drivers of international collaboration in research. Luxembourg: Directorate-General for research, Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  20. Finkelstein, M., Walker, E., & Chen, R. (2009) The internationalization of American Faculty. Presented at conference on the changing academic profession over 1992–2007: International, comparative, and quantitative perspectives, Hiroshima, Japan.Google Scholar
  21. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fox, M. F. (2008). Institutional transformation and the advancement of women faculty: The case of academic science and engineering. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 23). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fox, M. F., & Faver, C. (1984). Independence and cooperation in research: The advantages and costs of collaboration. Journal of Higher Education, 55, 347–359.Google Scholar
  24. Fox, M. F., & Mohapatra, S. (2007). Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 78, 542–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9, 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frehill, L. M., & Zippel, K. (2010). Survey of doctoral recipients, 2006: Findings on gender and international collaborations of academic scientists and engineers. Report to the National Science Foundation, October 2010.Google Scholar
  27. Garrison, E. (1991). A history of engineering and technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
  28. Gaughan, M. (2006). Institutional assessment of women in science: Introduction to the symposium. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glanzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51, 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Glanzel, W., & de Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinational measures of international research collaboration. Scientometrics, 54, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grayson, L. (1993). The making of an engineer. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Henkel, R. (1976). Tests of significance. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hennemann, S., Rybski, D., & Liefner, I. (2012). The myth of global science collaboration—Collaboration patterns in epistemic communities. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jappe, A. (2007). Explaining international collaboration in global environmental change research. Scientometrics, 71, 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J.-Y. (2014). On the drivers of international research collaboration: The impact of informal communication, motivation, and research resources. Science and Public Policy, 4, 520–531.Google Scholar
  37. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Siverstsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mattis, M. C. (2007). Upstream and downstream in the engineering pipeline. In R. J. Burke & M. C. Mattis (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Cheltenham/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  43. National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  44. Peters, M. (2006). The rise of global science and the emerging political economy of international research collaboration. European Journal of Education, 41, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peterson, M. (2009). Cross-cultural comparative studies and issues in international research collaboration. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Prpić, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55, 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rossiter, M. (2012). Women scientists in America: Forging a new world since 1972. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Silim, A., & Crosse, C. (2014). Women in engineering: Fixing the talent pipeline. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  49. Smykia, E., & Zippel, K. (2010). Literature review: Gender and international research collaboration. Report to the National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  50. Tokunaga, H. T. (2015). Fundamental statistics for the social and behavioral sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2002). Self-esteem and socioeconomic status: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2011). Women in science. UIS Fact Sheet, No. 14.Google Scholar
  53. Wagner, C. S. (2006). International collaboration in science and technology: Promises and pitfalls. In L. Box & R. Engelhard (Eds.), Science and technology for development. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international research collaboration. Research Policy, 34, 1608–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ynalvez, M. A., & Shrum, W. (2011). Professional networks, scientific collaboration, and publication productivity in resource-constrained research institutions in a developing country. Research Policy, 40, 204–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Frank Fox
    • 1
  • Mary Lynn Realff
    • 2
  • Diana Roldan Rueda
    • 1
  • Jillian Morn
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.School of Materials Science and EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.College of ComputingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations