nach oben

Review of Regional Research

Erschienen in:

01.10.2014 | Original Paper

Regional and global collaborations for knowledge in German academia

verfasst von: Mirja Meyborg, Axel Schaffer

Erschienen in: Review of Regional Research | Ausgabe 2/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Universities’ role in the research system has undergone a significant change in recent years. Stand-alone strategies are continuously replaced by the pooling of resources and collaborations for knowledge. This is due to a rising complexity of scientific problems in conjunction with scarce budgets and reflects, among others, in an increasing number of co-authored papers, which are in the focus of this study.

Based on more than 125,000 articles, the paper presents general trends on the publication activities of German academia between 2000 and 2009 in a first step. Though both, the number of single- and co-authored papers increased rapidly in this period, the rising share of co-authored papers points to the growing importance of collaborations for knowledge.

Looking at co-authored papers only, local/regional and interregional/global partnerships seem to be equally important. While this is true for the whole sample, it could be assumed that the geographic distribution of partner differs with the universities’ reputation and orientation. Elite universities, for example, could be expected to publish more and more globally. Before this background the paper scrutinizes specific patterns of different types of universities in a second step.

The paper closes with an analysis of spatial proximity as a potential driver for collaborations among partners within a 1000 km circle of each university. Results are twofold. On the one hand, correlation coefficients for all considered partners confirm the generally increasing intensity of cooperation with declining distance. On the other hand, spatial proximity hardly matters for partners with a distance larger than 25 km but smaller than 475 km.

Vorheriger Artikel Running with the pack? The role of Universities of applied science in a German research network

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

See Feldman (1999) for a review of empirical studies and section 2 for a more in-depth discussion of the relevant literature.

Critical surveys of this literature which cover these and further issues are presented by Breschi and Lissoni (2001) or Döring and Schnellenbach (2006).

A local buzz or noise (Grabher 2002) describes innovation benefits due to unintentional and serendipitous knowledge exchange which is facilitated through frequent face-to-face contacts, institutionally local embeddedness and “enhanced by shared socially constructed norms and conventions” (Feldman and Kogler 2010, p. 401). It generally refers to innovations of firms but might easily affect knowledge generation at universities as well. This is particularly true, if the local scientific community comprises several universities, public research centers and private foundations.

A critical survey on different approaches to measure knowledge spillovers is given by Nelson (2009).

Empirical findings based on the Web of Science database suggest that the universities’ performance in terms of publication records is similar to the output based on the Scopus database (Mittermaier 2011; Kowalski and Schaffer 2012). Thus, it could be carefully presumed that findings on co-authorship might be similar as well.

The sample covers almost all public universities. Private universities, which play a minor role in the German system, remain unconsidered.

There are three main counting methods, namely whole counting, fractional counting, and first author counting. Regarding whole counting, all unique countries, institutions or authors contributing to a publication get one credit. Using fractional counting, one credit is shared between the unique countries, institutions or authors with equal fractions to each participant. Last, first author counting means that one credit is given to the country to which the first author or institutional address belongs, to the institution first listed among the institutional addresses or to which the first author belongs, or to the first author (see Gauffriau et al. 2007).

Some authors are affiliated with two institutions. In this case half weight is attached to both institutions.

This is in contrast to the method of whole counting, where all unique countries, institutions or authors contributing to a publication get one credit (Schneider 2009).

The number of clusters, which equals the number of partners at the beginning, is decreased step by step according to the Ward-approach. The method is formally concluded at the point, when all partners belong to one single cluster (in this case distance corridor 0–1000 km). However, the process can be stopped earlier, before a certain level of heterogeneity, defined as sum of squared deviations, is exceeded. At this point each region belongs to one out of k cluster of partners.

We average to define the same frontier for local, regional and interregional partners for all years. However, the defined cut-off points do not reflect the exact arithmetic mean but the upper frontier of the corresponding 25 km distance corridor. This is due to the assignment of all partners into 25 km distance corridors at a later stage (see Chap. 4.3).

Indeed the DFG is very skeptical about this trend which can be explained by the authors’ salami-slicing strategy. Important results are often published step by step in relatively short articles. According the DFG, scientists have a clear incentive to do so, as the number by far outweighs the quality of articles as a push for their scientific career (Warnecke and Burchard 2010).

Three universities lost this status in 2012 after the third round but remain in the sample.

With the Technical University Munich, the University of Munich and the University of Heidelberg the so-called Elite Universities also include the only three universities listed among the best 100 universities according the Shanghai Ranking.

Collaborators within the distance of 1000 km are considered local, regional or interregional partners. Partners further away (here defined as global partners) are not considered, as spatial distance hardly matters beyond this range (Kowalski and Schaffer 2012).

Adams JD, Grant GC, Clemmons JR, Stephan PE (2005) Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: evidence from US universities, 1981–1999. Res Pol 34(3):259–285CrossRef

Anselin L, Varga A, Acs Z (1997) Local Geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. J Urban Econ 42:422–448CrossRef

Archibugi D, Coco A (2004) International partnerships for knowledge in business and academia: a comparison between Europe and the USA. Technovation 24(7):517–528CrossRef

Asheim B, Coenen L (2006) Contextualizing regional innovations systems in a globalizing learning economy: on knowledge bases and institutional frameworks. J Technol Transf 31(1):163–173CrossRef

Audretsch DB, Stephan PE (1996) Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. Am Econ Rev 86(4):641–652

Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P (2004) Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog Human Geogr 28:31–56CrossRef

Bathelt H, Turi P (2011) Local, global and virtual buzz: the importance of face-to-face contact in economic interaction and possibilities to go beyond. Geoforum 42:520–529CrossRef

Beaver D deB, Rosen R (1978) Studies in scientific collaboration: part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics 1(1):64–84

Bercovitz J, Feldman MP (2011) The mechanism of collaborations in inventive teams: composition, social networks, and geography. Res Pol 40:81–93CrossRef

Breschi S, Lissoni F (2001) Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Ind Corp Change 10(4):975–1005CrossRef

Breschi S, Lissoni F (2006) Mobility of inventors and the geography of knowledge spillovers. New evidence on US data. KITeS Working Papers 184, Universita Bocconi, Milano, Italy

Camagni R (Ed) (1991) Innovation networks: spatial perspectives. Belhaven Press, London

Camisón C, Forés B (2011) The complementary effect of internal learning capacity and absorptive capacity on performance: the mediating role of innovation capacity. Int J Technol Manag 55:56–81CrossRef

Döring T, Schnellenbach J (2006) What do we know about geographical knowledge spillovers and regional growth? A survey of the literature. Regional Stud 40(3):375–395CrossRef

Drejer I, Jørgensen BH (2005) The dynamic creation of knowledge: analysing public-private collaborations. Technovation 25(2):83–94CrossRef

Ellison G, Glaeser EL (1999) The geographic concentration of industry: does natural advantage explain agglomeration? Am Econ Rev 89(2):311–316CrossRef

Englebrecht TD, Hanke SA, Kuang Y (2008) An assessment of patterns of co-authorship for academic accountants within premier journals: Evidence from 1979–2004, Adv Account 24(2):172–181CrossRef

Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G (2008) Comparison of PubMed scopus, web of science, and google scholar: strength and weaknesses. FASEB J 22(2):338–342

Federal Statistical Office (2010) Ausgaben, Einnahmen und Personal der öffentlichen und öffentlich geförderten Einrichtungen für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Entwicklung, Fachserie 14, Reihe 3.6., Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden

Federal Statistical Office (2011) Bildung und Kultur, Personal an Hochschulen, Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.4., Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden

Feldman MP (1999) The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: a review of empirical studies. Econ Innovat New Technol 8:5–25CrossRef

Feldman MP, Kogler DF (2010) Stylized facts in the geography of innovation. In: Hall BH, Rosenberg N (eds) Handbook of the economics of innovation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 381–410

Fung MK, Chow WW (2002) Measuring the intensity of knowledge flow with patent statistics. Econ Lett 74(3):353–358CrossRef

Galsworthy MJ, Hristovski D, Lusa L, Ernst K, Irwin R, Charlesworth K, Wismar M, McKee M (2012) Academic output of 9 years of EU investment into health research. Lancet 380(9846):971–972CrossRef

Gauffriau M, Larsen PO, Maye E, Roulin-Perriard A, von Ins M (2007) Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research. Scientometrics 73(2):175–214CrossRef

Gertler MS (1995) ‘Being there’: proximity, organization, and culture in the development and adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies. Econ Geog 71(1):1–26CrossRef

Glaeser EL, Kallal HD, Scheinknam JS, Shleifer A (1992) Growth in cities. J Pol Econ 100:1126–1152CrossRef

Glänzel W (1996) A bibliometric approach to social sciences. National research performances in 6 selected social science areas, 1990–1992. Scientometrics 35(3):291–307CrossRef

Glänzel W, Schubert A, Czerwon HJ (1999) A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985–1995). Scientometrics 45(2):185–202CrossRef

Godin B, Gingras Y (2000) Impact of collaborative research on academic science. Sci Public Pol 27(1):65–73CrossRef

Grabher G (2002) The project ecology of advertising: tasks, talents and teams. Reg Stud 36(3):245–262CrossRef

Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91(3):481–510CrossRef

Hancock JT, Dunham PJ (2001) Impression formation in computer-mediated communication revisited. An analysis of the breadth and intensity of impressions. Comm Res 28(3):325–347CrossRef

Helsley and Zenou (2014) Social networks and Interactions in cities. J Econ Theor 150:426–466CrossRef

Hoekman J, Frenken K, Tijssen RJW (2010) Research collaboration at a distance: changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Res Pol 39:662–673CrossRef

Huang Z, Lu X Duan H, Zhao C (2012) Collaboration-based medical knowledge recommendation, Artif Intell Med 55(1):13–24CrossRef

Isaksen A (2005) Regional clusters building on local and non-local relationships: a European comparison. In: Lagendijk A, Oinas P (eds) Proximity, distance and diversity: issues on economic interaction and local development. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 129–152

Jaffe AB (1989) Real affects of academic research. Am Econ Rev 79(5):957–970

Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarter J Econ 108(3):577–598CrossRef

Johnson DK, Lybecker KM (2012) Does Distance matter less now? The changing role of geography in biotechnology innovation. Springer Rev Ind Org 40:21–35CrossRef

Kowalski J, Schaffer A (2012) Das Karlsruher Institut für Technologie – Impulsgeber für Karlsruhe und die TechnologieRegion. KIT Scientific Publishing, Karlsruhe

Lakitan B, Hidayat D, Herlinda S (2012) Scientific productivity and the collaboration intensity of Indonesian universities and public R & D institutions: Are there dependencies on collaborative R & D with foreign institutions? Technol Soc 34(3):227–238CrossRef

Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H (1996) Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Sci Public Pol 23:279–286

Lukka K, Kasanen E (1996) Is accounting a global or a local discipline? Evidence from major research journals. Account Org Soc 21(7):755–773CrossRef

Luukkonen T (1998) The difficulties in assessing the impact of EU framework programmes. Res Pol 27(6):599–610CrossRef

Mansfield E (1995) Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics and financing. Rev Econ Stat 77:55–65CrossRef

Mascitelli R (2000) From experience: Harnessing tacit knowledge to achieve breakthrough innovation. J Prod Innov Manag 17(3):179–193CrossRef

McKelvey M, Alm H, Riccaboni M (2003) Does co-location matter for formal knowledge collaboration in the Swedish biotechnology-pharmaceutical sector? Res Pol 32(3):483–501CrossRef

Meyborg M (2013) The role of German universities in a system of joint knowledge generation and innovation, KIT Scientific Publishing, Karlsruhe

B (2011) Publizieren Spitzenunis mehr?, duz MAGAZIN 09/11

National Science Foundation (NSF) (2002) Science and engineering indicators 2002, US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Nelson AJ (2009) Measuring knowledge spillovers: what patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion. Res Pol 38(6):994–1005CrossRef

Nilson A, Petterson I, Sandström A (2000) Knowledge production and knowledge flows in the Swedish biotechnology innovation system. Scientometrics 48(2):179–201CrossRef

Pao ML (1992) Global and local collaborators: A study of scientific collaboration, Information Processing & Management 28(1):99–109CrossRef

Porter ME (2003) The economic performance of regions. Reg Stud 37:549–578CrossRef

Schartinger D, Rammer C, Fischer MM, Fröhlich J (2002) Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Res Pol 31(3):303–328CrossRef

Schmoch U (1999) Interaction of universities and industrial enterprises in Germany and the United States—a comparison. Ind Innov 6(1):51–68CrossRef

Schneider JW (2009) An outline of bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in Norway. Eur Pol Sci 8:364–378CrossRef

Schwartz M, Peglow F, Fritsch M, Günther J (2012) What drives innovation output from subsidized R & D cooperation?—Project—level evidence from Germany. Technovation 32(6):358–369CrossRef

Scott JW (2009) Europe of regions. In: Kitchin R, Thrift N (eds) International encyclopedia of human geography. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 649–657

Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, London

deSolla Price D (1963) Little science, big science. Columbia University Press, New York

Song M, Berends H, van der Bij H, Weggeman M (2007) The effect of IT and co-location of R & D staff on knowledge dissemination. J Prod Innov Manag 24(1):52–68CrossRef

Sorenson O (2003) Social networks and industrial geography, J Evol Econ 13(5):513–527CrossRef

Stephan PE (1996) The economics of science. J Econ Lit 34(3):1199–1235

Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft (2011) Allgemeine Entwicklung der Drittmittel. http://www.laendercheck-wissenschaft.de/drittmittel/drittmittel_allgemein/index.html. Accessed 7 May 2014

Storper M, Venables AJ (2004) Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy. J Econ Geogr 4(4):351–370CrossRef

Thompson P, Fox-Kean M (2005) Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: a reassessment. Am Econ Rev 95(1):450–460CrossRef

Tijsen RJW (2001) Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science-technology interactions and knowledge flows. Res Pol 30(1):35–54CrossRef

Wainfan L, Davis PK (2004) Challenges in virtual collaboration, RAND corporation. Santa Monica

Waltman L, Tijssen RJW, van Eck NJ (2011) Globalisation of science in kilometres. J Informetrics 5(4):574–582CrossRef

Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function, J Am Stat Assoc 58:236–244CrossRef

Warnecke T, Burchard A (2010) Schluss mit der Salamitaktik, ZEIT ONLINE. http://www.zeit.de/wissen/2010-02/dfg-publikationen-forschung. Accessed 1 May 2014

Wong LH, Pattison P, Robins G (2006) A spatial model for social networks. Physica A 360(1):99–120CrossRef

Zhang B, Huang Y, McDermott JE, Posey RH, Xu H, Zhao Z (2013) Interdisciplinary dialogue for education, collaboration, and innovation: intelligent biology and medicine in and beyond 2013. BMC Genomics 14: 1CrossRef

Zhu J (2013) Building world class universities: excellence initiative in Germany. J Int High Edu 6(3):101–104

Titel: Regional and global collaborations for knowledge in German academia
verfasst von: Mirja Meyborg
Axel Schaffer
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2014
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Review of Regional Research / Ausgabe 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0173-7600
Elektronische ISSN: 1613-9836
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10037-014-0087-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2014

Third mission potential in higher education: measuring the regional focus of different types of HEIs

Running with the pack? The role of Universities of applied science in a German research network

Local labour market conditions and the spatial mobility of science and technology university students: evidence from Italy

Editorial