IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v115y2018i2d10.1007_s11192-018-2701-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Gita Ghiasi

    () (Concordia University)

  • Matthew Harsh

    (Concordia University)

  • Andrea Schiffauerova

    (Concordia University)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gita Ghiasi & Matthew Harsh & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2018. "Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 785-815, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2701-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2701-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2701-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jinyoung Kim & Sangjoon Lee & Gerald Marschke, 2014. "Impact of university scientists on innovations in nanotechnology," Chapters, in: Sanghoon Ahn & Bronwyn H. Hall & Keun Lee (ed.),Intellectual Property for Economic Development, chapter 6, pages 141-158, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Martin Meyer, 2006. "Are Co-Active Researchers on Top of their Class? An Exploratory Comparison of Inventor-Authors with their Non-Inventing Peers in Nano-Science and Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 144, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Laura Schultz, 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, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 546-564, October.
    4. Meyer, Martin, 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, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    5. Stéphane Maraut & Catalina Martínez, 2014. "Identifying author–inventors from Spain: methods and a first insight into results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 445-476, October.
    6. Guangyuan Hu & Stephen Carley & Li Tang, 2012. "Visualizing nanotechnology research in Canada: evidence from publication activities, 1990–2009," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 550-562, August.
    7. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 1995. "Virtuous Circles of Productivity: Star Bioscientists and the Institutional Transformation of Industry," NBER Working Papers 5342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Nuha Zamzami & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2017. "The impact of individual collaborative activities on knowledge creation and transmission," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1385-1413, June.
    9. Beaudry, Catherine & Schiffauerova, Andrea, 2011. "Impacts of collaboration and network indicators on patent quality: The case of Canadian nanotechnology innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 362-376.
    10. Tang, Joyce, 1997. "The glass ceiling in science and engineering," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 383-406.
    11. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2015. "The role of public funding in nanotechnology scientific production: Where Canada stands in comparison to the United States," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 753-787, January.
    12. Rodrigo Costas & María Bordons, 2011. "Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 145-161, July.
    13. Palmberg, Christopher & Pajarinen, Mika & Nikulainen, Tuomo, 2007. "Transferring Science-based Technologies to Industry - Does Nanotechnology Make a Difference?," Discussion Papers 1064, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    14. Bulent Ozel & Hildrun Kretschmer & Theo Kretschmer, 2014. "Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 703-723, January.
    15. Shahadat Uddin & Liaquat Hossain & Alireza Abbasi & Kim Rasmussen, 2012. "Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 687-699, February.
    16. Christopher Palmberg & Hélène Dernis & Claire Miguet, 2009. "Nanotechnology: An Overview Based on Indicators and Statistics," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2009/7, OECD Publishing.
    17. Hamidreza Eslami & Ashkan Ebadi & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2013. "Effect of collaboration network structure on knowledge creation and technological performance: the case of biotechnology in Canada," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(1), pages 99-119, October.
    18. Kjersten Whittington & Laurel Smith-Doerr, 2005. "Gender and Commercial Science: Women’s Patenting in the Life Sciences," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 355-370, October.
    19. Donald deB. Beaver, 2004. "Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 399-408, August.
    20. Waltman, Ludo, 2012. "An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 700-711.
    21. Pauline Mattsson & Carl Johan Sundberg & Patrice Laget, 2011. "Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 99-105, April.
    22. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Murgia, Gianluca, 2013. "Gender differences in research collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 811-822.
    23. Werner Marx & Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "On the causes of subject-specific citation rates in Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1823-1827, February.
    24. Katarina Prpić, 2002. "Gender and productivity differentials in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 55(1), pages 27-58, September.
    25. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    26. Ahmad Barirani & Bruno Agard & Catherine Beaudry, 2013. "Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1111-1136, March.
    27. Alireza Abbasi & Liaquat Hossain & Shahadat Uddin & Kim J. R. Rasmussen, 2011. "Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: multi-levels and cross-time analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 687-710, November.
    28. Zehavi, Amos & Breznitz, Dan, 2017. "Distribution sensitive innovation policies: Conceptualization and empirical examples," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 327-336.
    29. Li Tang & Philip Shapira, 2011. "China–US scientific collaboration in nanotechnology: patterns and dynamics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 1-16, July.
    30. Bruno Cassiman & Patrick Glenisson & Bart Looy, 2007. "Measuring industry-science links through inventor-author relations: A profiling methodology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 379-391, February.
    31. Dag W Aksnes, 2003. "Characteristics of highly cited papers," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 159-170, December.
    32. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gómez-Ferri, Javier & González-Alcaide, Gregorio & LLopis-Goig, Ramón, 2019. "Measuring dissatisfaction with coauthorship: An empirical approach based on the researchers’ perception," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    2. Nunkoo, Robin & Hall, C. Michael & Rughoobur-Seetah, Soujata & Teeroovengadum, Viraiyan, 2019. "Citation practices in tourism research: Toward a gender conscientious engagement," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    3. Rodica Ioana Lung & Noémi Gaskó & Mihai Alexandru Suciu, 2018. "A hypergraph model for representing scientific output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1361-1379, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2701-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.