Globalization and de-globalization in nanotechnology research: the role of China

Aashish Mehta (), Patrick Herron, Yasuyuki Motoyama, Richard Appelbaum and Timothy Lenoir
Additional contact information
Aashish Mehta: University of California-Santa Barbara
Patrick Herron: Duke University
Yasuyuki Motoyama: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
Richard Appelbaum: University of California-Santa Barbara
Timothy Lenoir: Duke University

Scientometrics, 2012, vol. 93, issue 2, No 13, 439-458

Abstract: Abstract The share of nanotechnology publications involving authors from more than one country more than doubled in the 1990s, but then fell again until 2004, before recovering somewhat during the latter years of the decade. Meanwhile, the share of nanotechnology papers involving at least one Chinese author increased substantially over the last two decades. Papers involving Chinese authors are far less likely to be internationally co-authored than papers involving authors from other countries. Nonetheless, this appears to be changing as Chinese nanotechnology research becomes more advanced. An arithmetic decomposition confirms that China’s growing share of such research accounts, in large part, for the observed stagnation of international collaboration. Thus two aspects of the globalization of science can work in opposing directions: diffusion to initially less scientifically advanced countries can depress international collaboration rates, while at the same time scientific advances in such countries can reverse this trend. We find that the growth of China’s scientific community explains some, but not all of the dynamics of China’s international collaboration rate. We therefore provide an institutional account of these dynamics, drawing on Stichweh’s [Social Science information 35(2):327–340, 1996] original paper on international scientific collaboration, which, in examining the interrelated development of national and international scientific networks, predicts a transitional phase during which science becomes a more national enterprise, followed by a phase marked by accelerating international collaboration. Validating the application of this approach, we show that Stichweh’s predictions, based on European scientific communities in the 18th and 19th centuries, seem to apply to the Chinese scientific community in the 21st century.

Keywords: International collaboration; Diffusion; Nanotechnology; China; Indigenous innovation; O33; O38; O31 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0687-8 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:93:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0687-8

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0687-8

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().