IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sep/wpaper/3_222.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Do The Institutions Involved In Scientific Collaboration Deal With Different Kinds Of Distance? An Analysis Of The Co-Autorships Of Scientific Publications

Author

Listed:
  • Rosamaria D’Amore

    () (Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Statistiche, Università degli Studi di Salerno)

  • Roberto Iorio

    () (Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Statistiche, Università degli Studi di Salerno)

  • Sandrine Labory

    () (Dipartimento di Economia Istituzioni e Territorio, Università degli Studi di Ferrara)

  • Agnieszka Stawinoga

    () (Università degli Studi di Napoli)

Abstract

In the scientific collaborations among different institutions at least two types of distance may be identified: spatial and institutional. We talk about spatial distance if the institutions are located in different places; about institutional distance if the collaborating institutions are of a different kind. Given that there are both barriers and incentives to overcome such distances, the specific focus of this paper is on the way the institutions involved in the collaboration deal with them. We are interested in studying if more stable collaborations have different characteristics from the more occasional ones on the point of view of spatial and institutional distance,. We also aim to study also what kind of dependencies exist among these types of distance: if there is a trade-off among them, or a relation of complimentarity. Moreover, we take the content of the research, if basic or applied, into account. The phenomenon of collaborations among different institutions (firms, universities, hospitals and research centres) is seen through the lens of co-autorship of scientific publications in the Italian “red” biotech sector. As empirical tools, we adopt some indexes built in the context of the social network analysis (the E-I index and the equivalence coefficient) usually used in different applications. This kind of analysis may highlight how knowledge flows among innovative agents and should be taken into consideration by the policy maker that aims to promote research collaboration between different institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosamaria D’Amore & Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Agnieszka Stawinoga, 2012. "How Do The Institutions Involved In Scientific Collaboration Deal With Different Kinds Of Distance? An Analysis Of The Co-Autorships Of Scientific Publications," Working Papers 3_222, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Statistiche, Università degli Studi di Salerno.
  • Handle: RePEc:sep:wpaper:3_222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.dises.unisa.it/RePEc/sep/wpaper/3_222.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2012
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michelle Gittelman, 2005. "What Makes Research Socially Useful ? Complementarities between in-House Research and Firm-University Collaboration in Biotechnology," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 110(1), pages 57-73.
    2. Corinne Autant-Bernard & Pascal Billand & David Frachisse & Nadine Massard, 2007. "Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 86(3), pages 495-519, August.
    3. Broström, Anders, 2010. "Working with distant researchers--Distance and content in university-industry interaction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1311-1320, December.
    4. Wagner, Caroline S. & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2005. "Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1608-1618, December.
    5. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Thoma, Grid, 2007. "Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 813-831, July.
    6. McKelvey, Maureen & Alm, Hakan & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2003. "Does co-location matter for formal knowledge collaboration in the Swedish biotechnology-pharmaceutical sector?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 483-501, March.
    7. Frank Van Oort & Roderik Ponds & Koen Frenken, 2006. "The Geographical and Institutional Proximity of Scientific Collaboration Networks," ERSA conference papers ersa06p762, European Regional Science Association.
    8. Rosamaria D’Amore & Roberto Iorio & Agnieszka Stawinoga, 2012. "Who And Where Are The Co-Authors? The Relationship Between Institutional And Geographical Distance In Scientific Publications," Working Papers 3_221, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Statistiche, Università degli Studi di Salerno.
    9. Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Daniele Paci, 2012. "Research Collaboration and Publication's Citation Impact: Evidence in the Italian Biotech Sector," Rivista italiana degli economisti, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 1, pages 75-100.
    10. Barabási, A.L & Jeong, H & Néda, Z & Ravasz, E & Schubert, A & Vicsek, T, 2002. "Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 311(3), pages 590-614.
    11. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    12. Thomas Scherngell & Michael Barber, 2011. "Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research collaborations: evidence from the fifth EU Framework Programme," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 46(2), pages 247-266, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    University-industry collaboration; Co-autorships; Spatial distance; Institutional distance; Knowledge flows;

    JEL classification:

    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sep:wpaper:3_222. 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: (Maria Rizzo). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dssalit.html .

    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.