Identity and publication in non-university settings: academic co-authorship and collaboration
- 477 Downloads
Increased collaboration between researchers working in university, industry, and governmental settings is changing the landscape of academic science. Traditional models of the interaction between these sectors, such as the triple helix concept, draw clear distinctions between academic and non-academic settings and actors. This study surveyed scientists (n = 469) working outside of university settings who published articles indexed in the Web of Science about their modes of collaboration, perceptions about publishing, workplace characteristics, and information sources. We study the association between these variables, and use text analysis to examine the roles, duties, sites, topics, and workplace missions among non-university based authors. Our analysis shows that 72% of authors working in non-university settings who collaborate and publish with other scientists self-identify as academics. Furthermore, their work life resembles that of those working in university settings in that the majority report doing fundamental research in government research organizations and laboratories. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, this research suggests that peer-reviewed publications are much more dominated by non-university academics than we previously thought and that collaboration as co-authors on academic publications is not likely to be a primary conduit for the transfer of scientific knowledge between academe and industry.
KeywordsCollaboration Academia Publishing Knowledge transfer
This research was supported by a National Science Foundation grant from the Science of Science Policy program award number 0738116.
- Altbach, P. G. (1996). The international academic profession. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
- Altbach, P. G. (1997). An international academic crisis? The American professoriate in comparative perspective. Daedalus, 126(4), 315–338.Google Scholar
- Börner, K., Dall’Asta, L., Ke, W., & Vespignani, A. (2005). Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams. Complexity, Special Issue on Understanding Complex Systems, 10, 57–67.Google Scholar
- Clark, Burton R. (1997). Small worlds, different worlds: The uniquenesses and troubles of American academic professions. Daedalus, 126(4), 21–42.Google Scholar
- Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix–University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST review, 14(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
- Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2008). The governance of University knowledge transfer. Science and Technology Policy Research, 173, 1–29.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction publishers.Google Scholar
- Hopkins, A. L., Jawitz, J. W., McCarty, C., Goldman, A., & Basu, N. B. (2013). Disparities in publication patterns by gender, race and ethnicity based on a survey of a random sample of authors. Scientometrics, 96(2), 515–534.Google Scholar
- IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
- Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.Google Scholar
- MAXQDA, software for qualitative data analysis. (1989–2016). VERBI Software—Consult—Sozialforschung GmbH, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
- McMillan, G., & Hamilton, R. (2000). Corporations need to publish—or perish. Research- Technology Management, 43, 8–10.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- OED. (2016). Academic, n. and adj. Oxford University Press. Web. 3 January 2017.Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org.
- Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field methods, 15(1), 85–109.Google Scholar