science and research collaboration between … · web viewthe report reviews the current state of,...
TRANSCRIPT
Science and Research Collaboration between Australia and Japan
October 2012
Table of contentsExecutive Summary................................................................................................................................ 4Key Findings........................................................................................................................................... 7
Economic Context............................................................................................................................... 7Science and research ‘system’ characteristics....................................................................................7Policy Framework – Australia..............................................................................................................7Japan’s international science and research collaboration...................................................................7Measures and indicators..................................................................................................................... 8Australia and Japan research collaboration: Quanatitative analysis..................................................8Australia-Japan research collaboration: Qualitative characteristics....................................................9Opportunities and challenges.............................................................................................................9
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 102. Comparative policy frameworks and investments........................................................................12
2.1. Economic context................................................................................................................122.2. Science and research ‘system’ characteristics....................................................................162.3. Policy framework – Australia...............................................................................................192.4. Policy framework – Japan...................................................................................................232.5. Japan’s international science and research collaboration...................................................292.6. Measures and indicators.....................................................................................................34
3. Biliateral Science and Research Collaboration............................................................................453.1. Quantitative analysis...........................................................................................................453.2. Qualitative characteristics....................................................................................................67
4. Opportunities and Challenges......................................................................................................74Key Findings..................................................................................................................................... 744.1. Fostering a ‘culture’ of exchange.........................................................................................744.2. Opportunities for government..............................................................................................754.3. Opportunities for science and research organisations.........................................................764.4. Opportunities for businesses...............................................................................................794.5. Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 80
5. Appendix A.................................................................................................................................. 826. Appendix B.................................................................................................................................. 85
Executive SummaryThis report has been prepared by the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) in collaboration with the Centre for International Economics. The assistance provided by the Embassy of Japan is also gratefully acknowledged.
The report reviews the current state of, and future opportunities for, science and research collaboration between Australia and Japan. The report identifies key features of science and research collaboration between Australia and Japan and has been prepared to assist agencies, institutions and individuals to make informed decisions about future science and research engagement with Japan.
The report highlights the importance of international science and research collaboration for strengthening capacity and impact, meeting costs of critical infrastructure, and addressing complex and long-term strategic challenges. Indeed, international collaboration is generally growing, as incentives and rewards become clearer and barriers are reduced.
Chapter 2 provides a comparative analysis of science and research policy frameworks, investments and international collaboration for Australia and Japan. While Australia and Japan have economies of vastly different size, structure and recent growth trends, expectations for greater contributions from science and research for future economic development are similar. Japan – a G8 member – has the world’s third largest economy and is close to rapidly expanding Asian economies, while Australia has the world’s sixteenth largest economy and is located on the rim of the economically dynamic Asian region.
The scale, investment and organisation of science and research differ greatly between Australia and Japan. Relative to the size of its economy and population, Japan spends more on science and research than Australia, has more researchers employed and records much higher patent applications. Science and research expenditure, relative to GDP, has been increasing in both countries over recent years, although more rapidly and from a lower base in Australia. Japan’s science and research expenditure has been strongly dominated by the private sector, while in Australia the private sector has only in the last decade become the dominant source of science and research expenditure.
The output of scientific publications is however comparatively higher (per unit expenditure, or per capita) in Australia than in Japan. That is, Australia accounts for approximately 3% of global scientific publications, while Japan accounts for approximately 7%, despite a much larger population. Australia and Japan show different science and research specialisations, relative to the rest of the world. Australian research includes a higher proportion than world average in areas related to some of our key industries, such as Commerce, management, tourism and services; Agricultural and veterinary sciences; and Earth sciences, and even higher degrees of specialisation in Environmental sciences and Education, where unique local conditions often require local research to develop appropriate solutions. Japan’s areas of specialisation also demonstrate strong linkages to its economic strengths: Physical sciences; Chemical sciences; Engineering; Technology; and Biological sciences.
In terms of research impact, Australia is generally above world average and is strongest in Physical sciences; Earth sciences; Agricultural and veterinary sciences; and Environmental sciences. Japan’s impact is generally just below world average, partly because of the dominance of the English language in scientific publications, but despite this Japan manages to achieve above world average impact in Studies in creative arts and writing; Philosophy and religious studies; Agricultural and veterinary sciences; Earth sciences; Physical sciences; and Language, communication and culture.
Compared to other large, developed economies with significant science and research expenditures (e.g. USA, Canada, Germany, UK and France), Japan has a lower level of international science and research collaboration. Japan’s international collaborations are strongest with USA, China and Germany. Australia was Japan’s ninth ranked partner in 2010, as it also was in 1999. Japan has slowly fallen in the rankings of Australia’s international partners and was tenth in 2010, down from fifth in 1999, despite an increasing volume of joint publications over that period, because of faster growth in joint publications with many of Australia’s other top ten research partners.1
Chapter 3 reviews the scale and focus of current science and research collaboration between Australia and Japan, drawing on published literature, bibliometric data and feedback from Australian science and research organisations and government agencies. The current scale of collaboration is modest, with joint scientific publications accounting for only 2.5% of Australian publications and 1.3% of Japanese publications in 2009. Indeed, Australia’s collaboration with Japan has not grown as rapidly as with the other key developed economies (e.g. USA, United Kingdom) or the emerging economies of the Asia Pacific region (e.g. China, India).
Australian science and research institutions collaborate across a range of areas with Japan, with joint publications tending towards areas of Australian research strength. Collaboration generally improves research impact, with the average citation impact of Australia-Japan joint publications being higher than the average citation impact of publications produced by either country individually. Collaboration is also generally concentrated within a small number of research institutions. The top 20 Australian collaborating institutions account for 75% of joint publications, while the top 20 Japanese collaborating institutions account for about 50% of joint publications.
‘Bottom-up’ collaborations often follow a typical pattern of scientists seeking to work with the best people they can, wherever they may be. There is also evidence that some Australia-Japan collaborations emerge from multilateral collaborations – in areas such as high-energy physics and climatology, for example. While many Australian science and research organisations, and government agencies, have formal agreements for bilateral collaboration with Japan, there is limited evidence of a strategic, long-term approach to developing the depth, focus and value of these collaborations in line with Australia’s overall science and research priorities.
The Japanese Government is encouraging more international science and research collaboration, as part of its general policy focus on increasing Japan’s international competitiveness. A key focus for Japan is collaboration with other countries in the Asia region, particularly China, South Korea and India, to help Japan become a core part of what is increasingly becoming a major node of global science and research. Expanding international science and research collaboration is likely to be a difficult challenge for the Japanese Government, its science and research agencies and business. The declining trend of Japanese students studying abroad is particularly significant, as student exchanges often underpin future science and research collaboration. Student exchanges between Australia and Japan are low, with Japanese students making up 2.3% of all foreign students in Australia.
The earthquake and tsunami event in March 2011 (the Great East Japan Earthquake) had major impacts on science and research in Japan. Science and research organisations in the Tohoku region suffered substantial damage to research infrastructure and equipment with some foreign scholars leaving Japan during this difficult time. Japan’s science and research priorities are being refined to align better with long-term recovery challenges – including reducing reliance on nuclear energy, improving disaster readiness and response, building technologies, and seismology.
1 Data from Web of Science™ courtesy of Thomson Reuters, reports generated June and July 2010.
Chapter 4 considers impediments to science and research collaboration between Australia and Japan, and opportunities for overcoming these. It highlights an overall challenge of fostering a ‘culture of collaboration’, by focusing particularly on stimulating exchanges, taking a more strategic approach to organisational support for collaboration, and improving awareness of and access to funding sources. Challenges for governments, science and research organisations and businesses are considered.
The report concludes that maintaining and expanding highly valued research links between Australia and Japan will require a coordinated approach linking interests and resources across business, science and research organisations and government. While not an easy challenge, the rewards should be substantial, given the significant science and research strengths in both countries and the shared goal of being linked into global science and research networks.
Key Findings
Economic Context
Advancement in science and research is seen by Australia and Japan as a key means by which to boost economic growth and productivity, and address national challenges ranging from environmental issues to health.
Japan is a relatively research-intensive country, with a higher R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP than Australia. Due in part to its much larger economy and population, Japan also has more researchers and a higher research output than Australia.
Japan’s 4th Basic Science and Technology Plan has a budget of approximately $A 314 billion with a particular focus on health and medicine, green innovation, and promoting reconstruction in the disaster affected areas in northern Japan.
Science and research ‘system’ characteristics
Japan is a major science and research actor, yet it is relatively isolated from other science and research clusters in the United States and Europe.
Japan is a large investor by global standards in science and research and is continuing to increase its investment.
Japan ranks fifth in the world for scientific publications and second for patents. Australia contributes 3% to global publishing output with only 0.3% of world population.
Policy Framework – Australia
Although Japan’s private sector carries out 70% of the nation’s R&D, the national government sets a broad policy agenda for public science and research funding centred on overarching social and economic goals. Japan’s recent policy agenda aims to strengthen the connection between S&T and innovation to address key policy challenges facing Japan.
Japan’s overarching national science policy is set by the Council of Science and Technology Policy (CSTP), while the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) implement this policy and allocate funding.
Japan’s ‘New Growth Strategy’ and the 4th Basic S&T Plan set the broad policy direction for Japan’s future public investments in S&T, recognising that science and research will underpin future economic growth.
Japan’s international science and research collaboration
Japan’s broad S&T policy agenda is focused on addressing major challenges facing the Japanese economy and society, such as securing a stable energy supply for its highly industrialised economy and grappling with a rapidly ageing society. Recent policy directions suggest a particular focus on energy, the environment and S&T human resource development.
Japan has only a relatively modest level of international collaboration in comparison with other major knowledge producing nations, such as the US, UK, France and Germany, although its rate of international collaboration is increasing.
Japan’s international collaboration is mainly centred on the G8 economies, with the US being Japan’s main research collaborator. In the Asia Pacific region, Australia, China and South Korea are key collaborating countries for Japan.
Measures and indicators
Australia’s gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) has been increasing at an average of 6.9% per year over the last decade, showing a more significant increase than Japan’s 3.9% per year over this same period. Despite Australia’s absolute and relative R&D spending being less than Japan’s, Australia has been narrowing the gap in science and research spending on a per capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.
Japan has historically had a relatively high level of private-sector funded R&D, although foreign private sector funding is negligible.
While the total number of researchers in Japan has remained high but static since 1995, the total number of Australian researchers has dramatically increased from a lower base.
Both Australia and Japan have increased their total share of world publications, although the former has seen a more steady increase over the last two decades. Japan, however, had 6.6% of global publications while Australia had 3.2% in 2009. The relative amounts of research in the different fields of science reflect each country’s economic mix and national priorities.
Both countries have also improved the influence of their published output relative to world output, as shown by rising relative citation impact over the last decade.
Australia and Japan research collaboration: Quanatitative analysis
Over the last decade joint Australia-Japan publications have almost doubled, totalling 1007 in 2009. This figure accounts for 2.5% of Australia’s total publications and 1.3% for Japan.
Medical and health sciences, physical sciences and biological sciences accounted for over 60% of joint publications. Notably, the influence of joint publications is higher than the influence of publications of each country in over half of the subject areas.
Japan’s top national universities are undertaking most of the collaborative research with Australia’s Group of Eight universities, with CSIRO being the chief public research organisation carrying out significant research with Japan.
Japan’s top 10 institutions account for 31% of joint publications with Australia.
Australia’s top 10 institutions account for 63% of joint publications with Japan.
Australia-Japan research collaboration: Qualitative characteristics
As part of its engagement in the region, Japan sees value in pursuing multilateral science and research initiatives with other key Asian knowledge producing nations, potentially also leading to opportunities for Australian research institutions.
Consultations with Australian research organisations indicate that the collaborative science and research relationship with Japan is currently characterised more by bottom-up researcher-led initiatives based on complementary research strengths, than a strategic, institution-wide approach to engaging with Japan in science and research.
Large-scale rebuilding efforts in the disaster-affected prefectures and energy security concerns are expected to preoccupy the Japanese government into the future, possibly providing further research opportunities for Australia.
Australia’s relative strength in applied science can be seen as complementary to Japan’s fundamental science strengths, particularly as Japan looks to gain greater economic returns from its public investment in science and research.
The declining number of Japanese students studying in Australia can be seen as one possible impediment to strengthening science and research links with Japan.
Opportunities and challenges
Key issues to address in strengthening the bilateral science and research relationship include the importance of researcher and student mobility, cross-organisational support, and the need for new and innovative forms of funding for early stage collaborations. Government therefore, in particular DIISRTE, can play a lead role by initiating a ‘systems approach’ that will build an enduring, strategic science and research relationship with Japan.
A systems level government approach may be seen as the most efficient way of facilitating both researcher-to-researcher links that build on complementary strengths and organisational linkages that target large-scale scientific challenges.
The limited degree of internationalisation in Japan’s research system and the tendency in Australia to overlook the advantages of collaborating with Japan are policy challenges.
Furthering the science and research partnership with Japan requires government to government action including sending high-level delegations to Japan to signal Japan’s strategic importance; identifying and facilitating collaborative opportunities; and providing dedicated funding (for strategic priorities) and seed funding for projects that drive bilateral research collaboration.
1. IntroductionInternational collaboration is more important than ever for science and research, as:
global challenges demand global solutions;
increasingly complex science and research programs draw on globally dispersed expertise, resources and information; and
international science and research networks are more easily established and sustained.2
For a country such as Australia, international collaboration offers substantial opportunities to access and utilise much more science and research capability and infrastructure than is available within our own science and research organisations. The Australian Government has recently confirmed international collaboration as a national innovation priority3, acknowledging the significance of Australia’s substantial science and research connections with the rest of the world.
Concerted effort – by people, organisations and governments – is typically needed to ensure successful international collaboration. This can involve modifying or adjusting national priorities to align better with international opportunities, additional investment to develop and support critical links, and more flexible operations to enable work across borders and time zones.
The Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education plays an important role in driving a strategic science and research agenda with major knowledge producers such as Japan. In this context, and ahead of the next Australia-Japan Joint Science and Technology Committee (JSTC) meeting in 2012, the Department has worked with the Centre for International Economics to prepare this analysis on:
key features of the structure, organisation and performance of science and research systems in the two countries;
identification of Japan’s key international S&T partners (countries & areas of collaboration);
quantitative analysis and qualitative assessment of current collaboration;
challenges facing the two countries in further developing the effectiveness and value of collaboration;
identification of impediments to science and research collaboration with Japan; and
opportunities to foster science and research collaboration.
The report reviews key features of the science and research systems in Australia and Japan, in relation to emerging international trends. It draws on review and analysis of bibliometric data and government policies for the two countries, as well as feedback from key stakeholders. It applies economic perspectives and a systems view of science and research, to highlight key features and challenges relevant to governments (Commonwealth and State) and science and research
2 OECD 2004, Science and Innovation Policy: Key challenges and opportunities, Meeting of the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy at Ministerial Level, 29-30 January 2004, OECD Publications Service, Paris, France, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/17/23706075.pdf>. Also see: The Royal Society 2011, Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century, ISBN: 978-0-85403-890-9. 3 Commonwealth of Australia 2009, Powering Ideas: An innovation agenda for the 21st century, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
organisations in Australia, as they consider optimum approaches to fostering more effective science and research collaboration with Japan.
2. Comparative policy frameworks and investmentsIn this chapter, we review the structure, organisation and performance of science and research systems in Australia and Japan, and outline key features of Japan’s international science and research collaborations.
2.1. Economic context
Key FindingsAdvancement in science and research is seen by Australia and Japan as a key means by which to boost economic growth and productivity, and address national challenges ranging from environmental issues to health.
Japan is a relatively research-intensive country, with a higher R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP than Australia. Due in part to its much larger economy and population, Japan also has more researchers and a higher research output than Australia.
Japan’s 4th Basic Science and Technology Plan has a budget of approximately $A 314 billion with a particular focus on health and medicine, green innovation, and promoting reconstruction in the disaster affected areas in northern Japan.
Australia and Japan are very different countries in terms of their economic development, economic size and economic structures, as illustrated in key statistics in tables Error: Reference source not found and , drawn from World Bank World Development Indicators.4 These indicators rank Japan’s economy as the world’s third largest (behind the US and China), and Australia’s as the world’s sixteenth largest.
Table 2.1 Australia’s and Japan’s economies 2009Indicator Australia JapanGDP (current PPP $bn) 842 4265Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (current PPP $/person) 38 510 33 440Population (million people) 22 128
Source: World Bank 2011, World Development Indicators 2011.
Table 2.2 Australia’s and Japan’s economic structure 2009
AustraliaValue added as % of GDP
JapanValue added as % of GDP
Agriculture 3 1Industry (incl. mining) 29 28Manufacturing 10 20Services 68 71
Source: World Bank 2011, World Development Indicators 2011.
4 World Bank 2011, World Development Indicators 2011. World Bank, Washington, D.C., viewed 28 October 2011, <http://issuu.com/world.bank.publications/docs/9780821387092>.
Industrial technology has generally been considered to be the primary force behind Japan’s remarkable post-war economic development, although much of this technology development has involved adoption and improvement of foreign technology and innovations, enabled initially by access to American technology and markets, and sustained subsequently by indigenous research and development.
While a more detailed analysis is provided later, the World Bank also puts together key indicators of science and research. Australia is currently a less science and research intensive economy with lower R&D expenditure as a share of GDP and fewer researchers per million people (table Error: Reference source not found). Due to both greater research intensity and much larger population, Japan is a much bigger producer of science and research, as measured by journal articles and patents. A key difference between the two countries is the ratio of resident to non-resident5 patent applications – 1:9 for Australia and 1:0.2 for Japan. This highlights the relatively low involvement of foreign researchers in patent applications in Japan.
Table 2.3 Key science and research indicatorsAustralia Japan
Year Value Year Value
R&D expenditure as a share of GDP 2008 2.21 2008 3.44
Researchers in R&D per million people 2006 4 224 2007 5 573
Scientific and technical journal articles 2007 17 831 2007 52 896
Patent applications
- residents 2008 2 821 2009 295 325
- non-residents 2008 23 525 2009 53 281
Source: World Bank 2011, World Development Indicators 2011.
Key economic, social and environmental challengesAustralia and Japan both face economic, social and environmental challenges that are reflected in the focus of their government efforts and, accordingly, the focus of their national research priorities.
Key challenges for Australia have been identified in recent federal Budgets at a very broad level.6 Those most likely to be influenced by science and research activity include:
the future of the Australian economy and building a more productive workforce through education, skills, training, science and innovation;
5 Resident patents means patents granted to an applicant residing in the country in which the patent application was made; Non-resident patents means patents granted to an applicant not residing in the country in which the application was made.6 Commonwealth of Australia 2011, Budget 2011-12, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://budget.gov.au/2011-12/>, and Commonwealth of Australia 2012, Budget 2012-13, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, viewed 5 June 2012, <http://budget.gov.au/2012-13/>
population, sustainability, climate change, water and the future of our cities;
future directions for rural industries and rural communities;
long-term national initiatives in health, dental and disability care and; and
Australia’s future security and prosperity in a rapidly changing region and world.
Key challenges for Japan were outlined in the “New Growth Strategy”, released by the new coalition government led by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in 2010.7 This strategy was designed to address stagnation in the Japanese economy that has persisted since the collapse of the bubble economy at the beginning of the 1990s, as well as strengthen the nation’s social security and place tighter controls of public spending.8
Following rapid economic growth between 1965 and 1990, more recent growth rates have significantly declined in comparison to other export-oriented Asian countries, many of which successfully followed Japan’s developmental model centred on state-directed export-led growth. Japan is therefore facing a challenging task in maintaining and improving its industrial and economic competitiveness relative to its Asian neighbours. Japan’s science and research system is seen as a key pillar to improving domestic economic conditions. The “New Growth Strategy” is intended to provide an integrated approach to strengthening the economy and social security system, while also shoring up Japan’s public finances. Several growth areas have been identified in this broad-based strategy:
green innovation – becoming a centre of environment and energy innovation, including measures to combat global warming;
life innovation – aimed at making Japan a ‘healthcare superpower’;
Asian economic strategy – restore Japan’s position as an Asian industrial centre through promoting Japan’s expertise in infrastructure and attracting knowledge workers;
tourism and regional development – promoting Japan’s cultural heritage, environment, and regional economies;
science and technology, and information and communication technologies (ICT)– improving graduate schools and ICT infrastructure, and implementing the 4th Basic Science and Technology Plan (2011-2015) (4th Basic S&T Plan); and
Reforms in the human resources and finance sectors.
Science and technology will have a significant influence on many of these priority growth areas. Consistent with this, in August 2011, the Japanese Government endorsed the 4th Basic Science and Technology Plan (2011-2015), with a budget of approximately $314 billion or 1% of GDP over a five year period. Japan’s Basic S&T Plans shape competitive research budgets, seek to engage science with society, link science with industry and provide governance for science and technology policymaking. The 4th and most recent S&T Plan specifically identifies green innovation and life innovation (renewable energy and healthcare) as priority S&T areas, thus shifting emphasis from
7 Government of Japan 2010, The New Growth Strategy – Blueprint for revitalizing Japan, Government of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 69pp, provisional English translation, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.npu.go.jp/en/policy/policy04/pdf/20100706/20100706_newgrowstrategy.pdf>.8 Incoming DPJ Prime Minister Naoto Kan defined the New Growth Strategy as a “strong economy, strong public finances and strong social security.” See Naoto Kan 2010, Toward a Government that Walks Together with the People, The Demographic Party of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.dpj.or.jp/english/policy/policy100604.html>.
investments in specific fields towards addressing key challenges. The Plan also places a new focus on integrating science with innovation and increasing the share of business R&D to 3% by 20209; while regional economic development and reconstruction in the disaster affected areas of north-eastern Japan are also viewed as a priority. Not coincidentally, the twin areas of focus in the most recent Basic Plan – health and energy – align with two of the most pressing domestic challenges facing Japan’s leadership today: a rapidly ageing population and energy security. Moreover, the 4th Basic S&T Plan closely dovetails with the New Growth Strategy in aiming to revitalise Japan’s economy and maintain Japan’s position as a global S&T leader, particularly in light of China’s increasing S&T capacity.10
The March 2011 earthquake and tsunami triggered Japan’s worst disaster of the post-war era, causing reduced economic output across the broader economy; the Bank of Japan (BoJ) forecasts growth for FY2012 to be less than 2.5%.11 Nonetheless, some observers are predicting that reconstruction efforts in 2012 will stimulate economic activity, at least in the short-term. However, an appreciation of the yen, structural adjustments in the domestic labour force (i.e. a shift towards non-regular employment and a rise in unemployment12), a rapidly ageing population, falling labour force participation and slowing productivity growth - in addition to a series of ambivalent fiscal and monetary policy responses - will likely drive continuing deflationary pressures and tepid economic growth in Japan. The BoJ forecasts that the consumer price index (CPI) will remain below 1% through 2013. Moreover, the ever increasing mountain of public debt (potentially reaching 225% of GDP) constrains government policy options, and simultaneously raises the politically unpopular, although some argue inevitable, notion of consumption tax hikes, which would also bring significant down-side risks in terms of domestic consumption, wage growth and general business confidence.13 Science and research is unlikely to be left untouched by this economic environment with mounting pressure for greater efficiencies in Japan’s science system and the achievement of increasing economic and societal returns from Japan’s substantial investment in research.14
The Japanese government has long viewed science and research as a means of reducing its energy insecurity. One predictable outcome of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima is a nation-wide re-think over the ongoing viability of nuclear power (which provides about one third of Japan’s energy needs). The ‘green innovation’ growth area in public policy has therefore been revised to emphasise the revitalisation of Japan’s energy infrastructure, and also refocuses the nation’s attention on renewable energy, reducing dependency on nuclear energy, and looks at methods to improve safety standards at Japan’s 53 nuclear power generating plants.
9 The New Growth Strategy states to "increase investments by the government and private sectors to a total of 4% or more of the GDP by fiscal 2020."10 For the Japanese version of the 4th Basic S&T Plan see: Government of Japan 2011, Basic Science and Technology Plan, Government of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/kihonkeikaku/4honbun.pdf>.11 ‘BoJ to Revise Fiscal 2012 Growth to 2.5% or Lower’, The Mainichi Daily News, viewed 14 November 2011, <http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/business/archive/news/2011/10/18/20111018p2g00m0bu102000c.html>.12 59% of Japanese corporations use part-time employees and increasingly SMEs are using non-regular employees to reduce labour costs. See Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare statistics, viewed 19 January 2011, <http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/youran/aramashi/syusyoku.pdf>. Also see Stockwin, JAA,Governing Japan, 4th edn, Blackwell Publishing, London, 2008, p. 226.
13 Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda is facing significant resistance from both within his own party and some sections of the community to delay legislation that will double Japan’s consumption tax to 10% by 2015.14 I Fuyuno, ‘Japan Plans to Merge Major Science Bodies’, Nature, vol. 482, 2012, pp. 19-20.
2.2. Science and research ‘system’ characteristics
Key FindingsJapan is a major science and research actor, yet it is relatively isolated from other science and research clusters in the United States and Europe.
Japan is a large investor by global standards in science and research and is continuing to increase its investment.
Japan ranks fifth in the world for scientific publications and second for patents. Australia contributes 3% to global publishing output with only 0.3% of world population.
Characteristics of the science and research ‘systems’ in Australia and Japan, relative to averages for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, are illustrated in chart Error: Reference source not found. This shows some significant differences between the science and research systems in the two countries. Japan ranks at or near the top of the OECD in business expenditure on R&D and industry-funded R&D as percentages of GDP, and the number of firms undertaking technological innovation, with a correspondingly strong performance in patent creation. Australia ranks near or below the OECD average on these measures, but performs much better than Japan in the number of scientific articles per capita, highlighting Australia’s research productivity.
InvestmentJapan’s science and research ‘system’ is large by international standards, reflecting both the large overall size of the Japanese economy and the relatively high level of total science and research investment (about 3.44% of GDP in 2008) .15 Indeed, Japan ranks near the top of the OECD for both total and, especially, private sector expenditure on science and research. Furthermore, Japan is near the forefront (second only to Canada) of G-8 nations in continuing to increase total science and research investment, as a percentage of GDP (over the period 1999-2008). In contrast, Australia’s science and research system is modest by international standards, reflecting both the relatively small size of the Australian economy and the modest level of total science and research investment (2.24% of GDP). However, Australia’s total science and research investment (as a percentage of GDP) has been increasing more rapidly than that of Japan, albeit from a lower base.
15 OECD 2011, OECD Science Technology and Industry Scoreboard, ISBN: 9789264 105256.
Graph 2.4 Key characteristics of science and research systems – Australia and Japan
GERD as % of GDP
BERD as % of GDP
Industry financed GERD as % GDP
Triadic patents per million population
Scientific articles per million population
% of firms with new-to-market
product innovations (as a
% of all firms)% of firms
undertaking non-technological
innovation (as a % of all firms)
% of firms collaborating (as a
% of all firms)
Patents with foreign co-inventors
% of GERD financed by abroad
Researchers per thousand total employment
Science & Engineering
degrees as % of all new degrees
HRST occupations as % of total employment
Japan Australia Average
Source: Data extracted from OECD 2011, OECD Science Technology and Industry Scoreboard, ISBN: 9789264 105256
Human resourcesJapan has a relatively high intensity of researchers in total employment, but a much lower intensity overall of science and technology occupations in its workforce. Australia, in contrast, has a modest intensity of researchers in total employment, but a relatively high intensity of overall science and technology occupations in its workforce. This means that researchers are employed in a wider range of occupations in Japan than is the case in Australia, which in turn means the potential for science and research capability to drive innovation across the economy may be greater in Japan than in Australia.
Science and research outputJapan ranks fifth (after USA, China, the United Kingdom and Germany) in the world for total output of scientific publications, although publications per million population is relatively low.16 Tokyo is one of the world’s top 20 centres for scientific publications, and is located relatively near to several other top-ranked cities, e.g. Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing, Seoul, Taipei, Hong Kong. In contrast, Australia ranks near the top of the OECD for scientific publications per million population, and notwithstanding its small size contributes 3% of global publishing output. Japan is extremely productive in terms of
16 Note that analysis by Elsevier, based on data from Scopus, reported in The Royal Society 2011, Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century, ISBN: 978-0-85403-890-9, placed Japan fourth, but Thomson Reuters Web of Science and Scimago Scopus data both place Japan behind Germany in recent years (2008, 2009 and 2010).
patents, ranking near the top of the OECD for triadic patents per million population (Australia ranks low on this score) and highest for overseas patent registrations at the US Patent and Trademark Office.17
International ‘connectedness’Australia and Japan both have relatively low levels of foreign investment, compared with other OECD countries, in their science and research systems, as expressed by the percentage of total science and research expenditure financed from abroad.18 Japan also has a relatively low (and indeed lower than Australia) percentage of its patents involving foreign co-inventors.
Business science and research has become increasingly mobile as large businesses with global research operations locate laboratories in different parts of the world for strategic reasons such as proximity to markets and cost effective human resources; Japan has been a relative latecomer to these global trends, with many of its multinational corporations (MNCs) focusing their R&D at home until the late 1980s. However with the appreciation of the Yen, the commercial importance of emerging markets such as China, and the low cost of engineers in some countries outside Japan, there has been an increasing level of international R&D being carried out by Japanese firms over the last two decades –particularly in areas such as electrical products (and electronics); medical and health technology; and auto parts.19 Japan’s international R&D was mostly conducted in the US from the mid 1980s, later in Europe, and more recently Japan’s overseas R&D has expanded to include China.20
Recent analysis suggests that Japan’s international R&D activities are mainly focused on adaptive R&D to enhance local sales of Japanese affiliates, and that there is relatively less innovative R&D aimed at acquiring foreign technology and competencies.21 Japanese MNCs that do invest in international R&D tend to invest in ‘frontier countries’, such as the US and the UK (i.e. innovative R&D), while adaptive R&D is generally undertaken (typically by manufacturing firms) in China and in several Southeast Asian countries.22 Singapore is a useful example of possible future trends, with large Japanese electronics manufacturing firms in particular viewing it as an attractive R&D base due to the availability of skilled local and foreign knowledge workers, and its strong R&D infrastructure and intellectual property laws.23 Notwithstanding these broad trends, and ostensibly due to recent domestic economic difficulties, there has been a reduced overseas presence in Japanese R&D activities since the mid-2000s; this is despite almost half of Japanese-owned productive capacity being located abroad and many large MNCs (i.e. auto makers) continuing to invest in manufacturing plants abroad in response to the strong Yen (often criticised as the ‘hollowing out’ of Japan).24 Arguably however, as shortages of science and engineering talent further emerge in the US, Europe and Japan, Japanese
17 US Patent and Trademark Office 2011, General Patent Statistics Reports Available for Viewing: Report Breakouts By Geographic Origin, US Patent and Trademark Office, Washington D.C., USA, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports.htm#by_geog>.18 OECD 2011, OECD Science Technology and Industry Scoreboard, ISBN: 9789264 105256.19 S Shimizutani & Y Todo, ‘What Determines Overseas R&D Activities? The Case of Japanese Multinational Firms’, RIETI Discusion Paper 07-E-010, 2005, viewed 13 January 2011, <http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/07e010.pdf>.20 I Ueno, M Kondo, and A Nagata, ‘Nihon Kigyo ni Okeru Kenkyukaihatsu no Kokusaika to Genjo to Hensen’ [Internationalisation and Contemporary Changes in Japanese Firms’ R&D], NISTEP Working Paper 151, 2008, pp. 9-12, viewed 13 January 2012, <http://www.nistep.go.jp/achiev/ftx/jpn/mat151j/pdf/mat151j.pdf>.21 L Hering, I Tomohiko & L Pye, ‘Overseas R&D and performance abroad: Evidence from Japanese multinational firms’, paper in preparation, viewed 2 November 2011, <http://www.mwpweb.eu/1/58/resources/publication_714_1.pdf>.22 Shimizutani and Todo, p. 19. 23 Panasonic Electric Works, Seiko Instruments and Nitto Denko have established R&D operations in Singapore’s ‘Fusionopolis’ R&D hub. See <http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nb20081209a3.html>.24 Shimizutani & Todo, p. 19. Also see ‘So much for hollowing out’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 11 October 2011.
MNCs will be increasingly likely to consider offshoring innovation to countries such as China, India and certain Latin American and Eastern European countries where there is a surplus of talent.25
2.3. Policy framework – Australia
Key FindingsAlthough Australian industry carries out two thirds of research in Australia, governments at all levels are involved in actively promoting innovation for economic, social and environmental outcomes.
DIISRTE pursues strategic international science and research engagement at a government-to-government level and provides funding for universities and publicly funded research agencies and major science and research initiatives. The Australian Research Council (ARC) and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) administer competitive research grant programs.
Australia takes a whole-of-government approach towards achieving its national research priorities.
Role of GovernmentBoth Commonwealth and State Governments in Australia, are actively involved in the science and research system, within their respective and complementary interests in stimulating innovation for economic, social and environmental outcomes. The Australian Government’s overarching innovation agenda26 acknowledges a wide set of roles that together influence science and research, including:
investing directly in science and research (including major infrastructure), particularly for basic research that would not or could not be done by the private sector;
providing incentives for business innovation and business research and development where this is likely to benefit the wider economy;
education investments for developing science and research capability in the workforce;
its own demand for innovative products and services can stimulate science and research activity across the economy; and
its regulatory approach influences the operating environment for business and therefore business appetite for science and research investments.
The Australian Government’s innovation agenda identifies ’system‘ priorities, spanning the role of various funding streams, the importance of research skills, the focus on ’future‘ industries (including application and commercialisation of research outputs), collaboration between research and industry, and links with the public and community sectors. These priorities are intended to guide the focus of organisations throughout the innovation system. Governance responsibility for the innovation agenda is distributed across different public organisations, including the Department, funding agencies (for example ARC, NHMRC), CSIRO, and the university sector.27
25 AY Lewin, S Massini, & C Peeters, ‘Why are Companies Offshoring Innovation? The Emerging Global Race for Talent’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 40. 2009, p. 920.26 Commonwealth of Australia 2009, Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century, ISBN 978-0-642-72584-4.27 T Berman, Innovation governance in Australia, AIRC 2009 Research Seminar Series, 2009.
The 2008 review of the National Innovation System28 recommended that administration of the overall ’system‘ should be strengthened and streamlined to make it better at targeting national priorities, coordinating the activities of different governments, and measuring performance. The Commonwealth Government has acknowledged this challenge and signalled its commitment to continuing to increase cooperation and coordination between Commonwealth agencies, in order to minimise duplication, build critical mass and promote cross-disciplinary understanding.
The Australian Government’s innovation agenda sets a specific priority for Australian researchers and businesses to be involved in more international collaborations on research and development, to build capacity, facilitate access to new knowledge, attract foreign investment, leverage domestic investment and extend Australia’s global influence. This is now a key feature of the national science and research system with the Australian Government implementing a number of significant changes across its key science and research agencies and flagship programs to mainstream support for international collaboration.
More recently, the Department undertook a review of the publicly funded research arrangements in Australia, with a particular focus on priority setting.29 The review found that, while there is no significant evidence of any significant shortfalls in the current framework for public funded research, a national strategic dialogue and better coordination of the research effort and investment are needed. The Australian Government has accepted the four major recommendations from the review, as follows:
the establishment of a new committee of senior Australian Government officials, led by the Chief Scientist for Australia, to guide Australian Government research investment;
the Department to lead a process to refresh the ‘national research priorities’, so they are relevant as broad statements of the Government's aspirations for publicly funded research;
the Department to conduct a feasibility study on possible approaches for developing an assessment mechanism for evaluating the wider economic, social and environmental benefits of research; and
consideration of initiatives to lift the intensity of collaboration between universities and industry and other end users.
OrganisationsWhile industry carries out nearly two thirds of Australia’s total R&D, public sector research organisations (especially universities, CSIRO and State government agencies) play a critical role. Public sector researchers account for 77% of Australia’s basic research effort and 44% of Australia’s applied research effort.30
Key features of Australia’s science and research organisations include:
universities account for most public sector research and also do most of the research training in Australia;
28 T Cutler, Venturous Australia: Building Strength in Innovation, 2008, ISBN 978-0-646-50110-9, 204pp.29 Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Focusing Australia’s Publicly Funded Research Review – Maximising the Innovation Dividend: Review Key Findings and Future Directions, October 2011. 30 ABS, Research and Experimental Development, All Sector Summary, Australia 2008-09, Cat. 8112.0.
organisational autonomy for universities means that their aggregate contribution to Australia’s science and research system reflects individual priorities and opportunities throughout the university sector;
the Go8 universities (Australian National University, University of Melbourne, University of Queensland, University of New South Wales, University of Sydney, University of Western Australia, University of Adelaide, Monash University) are very strong research performers across a range of disciplines. 91.7% of the disciplines evaluated at these universities were rated at world standard or above in the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) 2010 evaluation, with 101 discipline areas considered to be well above world standard ;31
other significant groupings of Australian universities with a similar style and focus include the Australian Technology Network (ATN - involving Curtin University of Technology, University of South Australia, RMIT University, University of Technology Sydney, Queensland University Technology), the Innovative Research Universities Australia group (IRU Australia - Flinders University, Griffith University, La Trobe University, Murdoch University, University of Newcastle, James Cook University) and the Regional Universities Network (RUN - Central Queensland University, Southern Cross University, University of Ballarat, University of New England, University of Southern Queensland and University of the Sunshine Coast);
various agencies manage the Commonwealth Government’s science and research schemes, programs and investments, ranging from highly targeted and specific initiatives to multi-agency vehicles . Some of the more prominent include:
o DIISRTE provides eligible Australian higher education providers block grants for research and research training, through a number of performance-based schemes. Research block grants are allocated according to performance based formula and are independent of funding for specific research projects, programs, or fellowships;
o The Australian Research Council (ARC) is responsible for managing the National Competitive Grants Program and Excellence in Research for Australia and providing advice to the government on research matters;
o the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) provides funding for all areas of research relevant to human health and medical research;
o CSIRO, with 6500 staff located over more than 50 sites around Australia and overseas, is one of the largest and most diverse scientific organisations in the world. CSIRO’s research is performed by 13 divisions, and includes work in nine National Research Flagships; and
o the CRC Program supports end-user driven research partnerships to address major challenges requiring long-term collaboration between researchers and end-users for varying periods of up to 10 years. In exceptional circumstances a CRC may apply for an extension of funding that does not exceed a total of 15 years.
state governments carry out research aligned to various portfolio goals, in partnership with Federal Government and industry.
31 Australian Research Council 2011, Excellence in Research for Australia 2010 National Report, Australian Research Council, Canberra, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/ERA_report.pdf>.
PrioritiesScience and technology priorities in Australia are defined in several ways (in addition to governance priorities – as outlined above).
The Australian Government has identified ’national research priorities‘— an environmentally sustainable Australia, promoting and maintaining good health, frontier technologies for building and transforming Australian industries, and safeguarding Australia. These priorities represent areas of particular social, economic and environmental importance to Australia, and areas where a whole-of-government focus has the potential to improve research and broader policy outcomes. As noted above, these priorities are currently undergoing a process to refresh their relevance as broad statements of the Government’s aspirations for publicly funded research. The Australian Government has also adopted seven ‘national innovation priorities’32, complementing the national research priorities, to focus the production, diffusion and application of knowledge.
CSIRO uses its National Research Flagships to drive large-scale activity addressing Australia’s national research priorities. There are now nine Flagships (see box Error: Reference source not found) with total investment close to $1.5 billion, making this program one of the largest scientific research endeavours ever undertaken in Australia.
CSIRO FlagshipsCSIRO has nine Flagships aimed at nationally important problems33.
Climate Adaptation
Energy Transformed
Food Futures
Future Manufacturing
Minerals Down Under
Preventative Health
Sustainable Agriculture
Water for a Healthy Country
Walth from Oceans
2.4. Policy framework – Japan
Key FindingsAlthough Japan’s private sector carries out 70% of the nation’s R&D, the national government sets a broad policy agenda for public science and research funding centred on overarching social and economic goals. Japan’s recent policy agenda aims to strengthen the connection between S&T and innovation to address key policy challenges facing Japan.
32 Commonwealth of Australia 2009, Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century, ISBN 978-0-642-72584-4.33 Source: http://www.csiro.au/partnerships/NRF.html
Japan’s overarching national science policy is set by the Council of Science and Technology Policy (CSTP), while the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) implement this policy and allocate funding.
Japan’s ‘New Growth Strategy’ and the 4th Basic S&T Plan set the broad policy direction for Japan’s future public investments in S&T, recognising that science and research will underpin future economic growth.
OrganisationsA summary of the organisations involved in governing science and research in Japan is illustrated in chart Error: Reference source not found. Political and government authority for science and research, as for most policy areas, is coordinated through the Cabinet Office. The Council of Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) is the central advisory body to the Cabinet Office, and is responsible for formulating science and research policy and recommending budget allocations for implementing this policy. The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)34 and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)35 are the most important ministries, although other ministries also play minor roles particularly for financing small, highly specialised research bodies.
Within MEXT:
the Science and Technology Policy Bureau (STPB) plans and designs basic research and technology policies;
the Research Promotion Bureau promotes scientific research through public research organisations (PROs) and improves coordination between industry, academia and government;
the Research and Development Bureau oversees large-scale research projects.
34 MEXT 2011, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Tokyo, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.mext.go.jp>.35 METI 2011, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Tokyo, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.meti.go.jp>.
Figure 2.6 Organisations governing science and research in Japan
Source: Figure 1 derived from ‘Country Profile: Japan’, in Proneos GmbH 2006, Private Sector Interaction in the Decision Making Processes of Public Research Policies, Study for the European Commission Research Directorate General, viewed 3 November 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/psi_countryprofile_japan.pdf METI’s main science and research responsibility is promoting science and research in industry, mainly through support for SME innovation activities, regional innovation clusters, and R&D tax deduction schemes. METI measures account for 15% of public science and research spending.36
Various intermediate bodies facilitate implementation of government policy and links to key science and research communities. These include:
the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) – an independent institution administering Japan’s science and research policy measures and academic programs, mainly a funding agency for science and research in universities and PROs;
the Science Council of Japan (SCJ) – an independent agency (members elected amongst public and private sector researchers) advising the Prime Minister about science and research in government and industry;
the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) – promoting science and research, including the commercialisation of basic research results, focusing mainly on disseminating results and information about new science and research developments to relevant stakeholders;
the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) – affiliated to MEXT and responsible for implementing public science and research policy, particularly by working with corporate research planners, policy researchers and administration representatives.
36 METI 2010, METI’s Innovation Policy, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Tokyo, Japan, viewed 4 November 2011, <http://www.j-bilat.eu/documents/seminar/1/presentation_meti.pdf>.
Science and research activity in Japan is heavily weighted to the private sector (accounting for 70% of total expenditure37). Some key features of science and research in businesses in Japan are:
major corporations – in consumer electronics, automotive, for example – have dedicated research facilities supporting product innovation. Toyota, for example, has design and R&D facilities in Japan as well as in several international locations38;
some corporations are sponsoring science and research beyond their business focus. Honda Research Institutes, for example, sponsor research in intelligence science and genome science, at campuses in Japan (Wako, Saitama Prefecture and Kazusa, Chiba Prefecture), USA (Mountain View, California; Columbus, Ohio), and Europe (Offenbach, Germany);
only a small proportion (about 2%) of science and research carried out in the private sector is funded by the government;
business influence of science and research policy is mainly facilitated through Nippon Keidanren – the Japanese Business Federation representing, Japan’s key employers (MNCs), industrial associations and regional economic organisations. Keidanren’s priorities for science and research include upgrading Japan’s capabilities in science and technology, promotion of commercialisation of cutting-edge technology, and promotion of collaboration among industry, academia and government.
For publicly funded organisations (which together account for 30% of total expenditure):
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) account for about 17% of total expenditure;
o Japan has more than 725 universities, including 565 private universities;
o the top 10 ranked Japanese universities are University of Tokyo (ranked 21st in the world), Kyoto University, Osaka University, Nagoya University, Tohoku University, Hokkaido University, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Kyushu University, University of Tsukuba, Keio University; 39
o the University of Tsukuba supports a cluster of high-technology industries in Tsukuba city40 (similar to university-technology clusters in other countries, such as Stanford University and Silicon Valley in the USA except government-directed). Tsukuba City is Japan’s foremost ‘Science City’ hosting 300 major research, education and scientific exchange facilities, with total government funding exceeding $2 billion41;
o Japan has five universities amongst the top 30 in Asia42;
37 MEXT 2011, Japan Science and Technology Indicators 2010, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Tokyo, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.nistep.go.jp/achiev/ftx/eng/mat187e/pdf/Indicator2010_tex.pdf>.38 Toyota 2011, Design and R&D Centers, Toyota Motor Corporation, Aichi, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.toyota-global.com/company/profile/facilities/r_d_center.html>. 39 ShanghaiRanking Consultancy 2011, Academic Ranking of World Universities -2011, ShanghaiRanking Consultancy, Shanghai, China, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2011.html>. 40 Web Japan 2011, Tsukuba Science City, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://web-japan.org/atlas/technology/tec01.html>.41 BH Lambert, Building Innovative Communities: Lessons from Japan’s Science City Projects, The European Institute of Japanese Studies, 2000, viewed 14 November 2011, <http://swopec.hhs.se/eijswp/papers/eijswp0107.pdf>.42 TSL Education Ltd. 2011, Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2010-11, TSL Education Ltd., London, U.K., viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/asia.html>.
o Japan’s universities will often have a much lower proportion of international researchers in permanent roles in comparison to other countries, with many international researchers citing language as a major barrier to working there43;
o compared to the situation in many other countries, Japanese universities have historically been quite isolated from business.44 This may, in part, reflect earlier ‘rules’ that university professors could not hold positions in private corporations;45
o the government is aiming to revitalise science and research in Japan’s universities, by allocating more funding for infrastructure, basic research, and more advanced degree programs.46 The government is also promoting entrepreneurship amongst university staff, aiming to get better utilization of university science and research results;
o top universities are aiming to boost quality by reducing class sizes, and attracting more young and talented researchers and teaching staff from abroad;
Publicly funded research organisations (PROs) (federal and regional) account for about 11% of total expenditure;
o one of the largest PROs is the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST).47 AIST has about 2400 researchers, located in over 40 autonomous research units. AIST was ranked tenth in the top 20 Japanese research institutions for all fields 2000-2010 by Thomson Reuters, and is particularly strong in materials science, physics and chemistry;
o another key PRO is RIKEN48 – with about 3000 researchers on seven campuses across Japan. The main campus is at Wako, just outside Tokyo. RIKEN’s research spans physics, chemistry, medical science, biology and engineering;
Not-for-profit organisations account for about 2% of total expenditure.
Overarching strategyThe Japanese Government recognises that international competitiveness will depend on world-leading science and research capabilities. Indeed, science and research are recognised explicitly in the Government’s ‘New Growth Strategy’, particularly in the key areas of ‘green innovation’ (becoming a world power in environment and energy innovation and industry) and ‘innovation’ (becoming a world power in health innovation and services).
43 P Simmonds, L Woolgar, J Stroyan, F Kitagawa & S Rajan, Mapping Project on UK-Japan Science & Innovation: Overarching Report, 2007, p. 51, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.technopolis-group.com/resources/downloads/reports/772_UKJapan_STI_links.pdf>.44 R Nezu, CS Kiang, P Ganguli, K Nithad, K Nishio, LG Tansinsin, H Yi & Y Jia, Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property and Effective University-Industry Partnerships: The Experience of China, India, Japan, Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand, World Intellectual Property Organization, Switzerland, 2007, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/928/wipo_pub_928.pdf>.45 D Edgington, ‘The Japanese innovation system: University-industry linkages, small firms and regional technology clusters’, Prometheus Special Issue on Advances Made in the Japanese Innovation System, vol. 26, no. 1, 2008, pp. 1-19. 46 MEXT 2011, Science and Technology Policies, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Tokyo, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.mext.go.jp/english/science_technology/1303788.htm>.47 AIST 2011, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.aist.go.jp/index_en.html>.48 RIKEN 2011, Rikagaku Kenkyusho (Institute of Physical and Chemical Research), Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.riken.go.jp/engn/>.
The outlook for science and research policy, as recognised by MEXT49, includes:
current situation:
o changing circumstances – including the rapid growth of science and research in China, and increasing pressure on Japan’s long held export-oriented growth model, Japan is also experiencing a significant decline in the number of its young researchers50;
o science and research policy trends in other countries – including stronger links to ‘innovation’ policies and economic strategy;
o major achievements and challenges – including significant tangible improvements in health/well-being, new industries and services, alongside declining capacity (human resources and infrastructure for science and research) to address future challenges;
future direction:
o basic direction – positioning science and research as a core social/public policy, underpinned by a shift to ‘science, technology and innovation’ (STI) policy with more emphasis on people and organisations involved in STI;
o key policies – including enhancing basic science, tackling important national and international challenges, and deepening ties between STI and society, and securing government investment in science and research at 1% of GDP.
Current prioritiesCurrent science and research priorities in Japan were outlined in the 2010 White Paper on Science and Technology51;
tackling nationally and internationally significant challenges;
o energy and environment – contributing to a low carbon environment;
o health and social security – helping people lead safe and sophisticated lives;
o enhancing basic science and research capability;
mobilising people and networks;
o human resources – including a ‘creative’ science and research environment;
science and society:
o enhancing public understanding and support for science and research.
Further information on these priorities is outlined in the 2010 White Paper on Science and Technology. In addition to a specific focus on basic research, policy-oriented priorities include:
49 MEXT 2011, Science and Technology Policies, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Tokyo, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.mext.go.jp/english/science_technology/1303788.htm>.50 I Fuyuno, ‘Numbers of Young Scientists Declining in Japan’, Nature, 20 March 2012.51 MEXT 2010, White Paper on Science and Technology 2010, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Tokyo, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.mext.go.jp/english/whitepaper/1302537.htm>.
life sciences;
information and telecommunications;
environmental sciences;
nanotechnology and materials;
energy;
manufacturing technology.
The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) is Japan’s primary funding agency providing comprehensive support for science and research. Administration of JSPS programs, previously split between the JSPS itself and MEXT, is being shifted to be entirely under the JSPS umbrella. The JSPS has recently published a comprehensive and informative summary of its programs.52
Major JSPS programs relevant to Australia and potentially offering opportunities for science and research collaboration with Japan include:
Support for Research Initiatives;
o Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative R&D (“First Program”) – for cutting-edge research to strengthen Japan’s international competitiveness;
o Funding Program for Next Generation World-Leading Researchers – to provide support for young researchers with the potential to become world leaders in their respective fields;
Support for University Reform;
o “Global COE Program” (Global Centers of Excellence Program) – aimed at supporting young Japanese researchers at selected graduate schools engaged in cutting-edge research – it has the broader aim of increasing the international competitiveness of Japanese universities and strengthening the education and research functions of Japan’s top graduate schools;
o “Global 30” – to select and support 30 universities53 to function as high-quality centres for foreign students and researchers (presently 13 universities are receiving prioritised financial assistance of $2.5-5 million over five years);
o World Premier International Research Center Initiative – to foster research in fields where Japan is already working at a high global level;
Fostering Next Generation of Researchers;
52 JSPS 2011, JSPS 2010-11, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.jsps.go.jp/english/aboutus/data/brochure10-11.pdf>.53 In 2009, the following 13 universities were selected as global centers: Tohoku University, University of Tsukuba, Tokyo University, Nagoya University, Kyoto University, Osaka University, Kyushu University, Keio University, Sophia University, Meiji University, Waseda University, Doshisha University, and Ritsumeikan University.
o Post-doctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad – to enable young Japanese researchers to carry out long-term research at an overseas university or research institution;
International Collaborations;
o Bilateral collaborations – to support scientific exchanges in accordance with agreements or memoranda of understanding concluded with academies, research councils and other science promotion organisations (mainly through joint research seminars and researcher exchanges);
o Creating research hubs – to build networks for multilateral collaborations in cutting-edge fields of science;
o “Bottom-up” international joint research program – to foster “next generation” knowledge assets, typically through large-scale and/or multilateral research collaborations in basic science areas;
o Fellowships for overseas researchers – to invite excellent researchers from around the world to conduct joint research with Japanese colleagues;
o International scientific meetings – to enable international scientific meetings to be located in Japan
Awards;
o International Prize for Biology – to recognise a landmark contribution in a selected field of biological science (awarded in the presence of the Emperor).
ConclusionOverall, formal strategy and priority statements from Japanese Government science and research agencies demonstrate an overarching focus on lifting the international exposure and standing of science and research in Japan, in order to catalyse and sustain a lift in the innovation intensity and international competitiveness of the Japanese economy. From an Australian perspective, this means Japanese institutions (policy and funding, universities and PROs) should respond favourably to collaboration initiatives that are aligned to this overarching focus.
2.5. Japan’s international science and research collaboration
Key FindingsJapan’s broad S&T policy agenda is focused on addressing major challenges facing the Japanese economy and society, such as securing a stable energy supply for its highly industrialised economy and grappling with a rapidly ageing society. Recent policy directions suggest a particular focus on energy, the environment and S&T human resource development.
Japan has only a relatively modest level of international collaboration in comparison with other major knowledge producing nations, such as the US, UK, France and Germany, although its rate of international collaboration is increasing.
Japan’s international collaboration is mainly centred on the G8 economies, with the US being Japan’s main research collaborator. In the Asia Pacific region, Australia, China and South Korea are key collaborating countries for Japan.
Increasing international science and research collaboration International science and research collaboration is growing, as illustrated by the joint publications globally increasing from 25% 15 years ago to more than 35% now.54 This increase reflects:55
scientists themselves seeking to work with the best people, organisations and equipment, wherever they may be;
ICT developments and cheaper travel;
large scale research questions demand large-scale, collaborative responses;
expensive equipment demands that researchers are mobile and responsive;
benefits from improved efficiency and effectiveness of collaborative science;
clear evidence that science and research collaboration builds capacity in all areas of the world;
flexibility that allows the science and research base in any country to absorb experience and expertise from outside helps build the capacity to become both an intelligent customer and a responsible contributor on the global stage, regardless of a nation’s stage of development;
collaboration increases the citation impact of a scientific publication – all countries appear to benefit, regardless of their stage of development; and
mutual benefits from collaboration become particularly strong where nations and individuals are brought together to address global problems that have both global and local consequences.
Such collaboration does however depend on key conditions being met, to overcome challenges inherently associated with distance and language/cultural differences.
Government science and research policy therefore needs to recognise benefits being drawn from and spread beyond national borders. In particular, support is necessary for linking scientists in their country into a ‘networked system’ of global science, in order to derive as much benefit as possible from such networks. Any initiative from Australia to strengthen the scale and/or effectiveness of science and research collaboration with Japan should be based on a sound understanding of Japan’s broader experiences and priorities for international science and research collaboration.
Table 2.7 shows that in common with most other Asian economies, Japan has about half the level of international collaboration in its output of scientific publications that western nations (with the exception of the USA) have. Note that the large size of the science and research sectors in the larger countries, including Japan, makes it more likely that any particular need can be filled by a domestic partner.
54 N Day & J Stilgoe, Knowledge nomads: why science needs migration, Demos, London, 2009.55 The Royal Society 2011, Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century, ISBN: 978-0-85403-890-9.
Table 2.7 Percentage of publications produced through international collaboration (2009)
Country % International Collaboration
Switzerland 62.5
Sweden 57.3
Finland 52.7
Netherlands 51.6
Singapore 49.6
France 48.7
UK 47.1
Germany 46.5
Canada 45.9
Australia 45.2
Russia 30.6
USA 29.0
Brazil 25.2
South Korea 24.4
Japan 24.2
China 23.2
Taiwan 21.2
India 19.0
Source: Web of ScienceTM courtesy of Thomson Reuters, reports generated June 2010.Japan’s limited international collaborations are concentrated into a relatively small number of countries and institutions. International collaborations (summarised in table 2.8) are mainly with other G8 countries (USA, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada and Italy) and in the Asia-Pacific region (China, South Korea and Australia).
While the US is Japan’s main science and research collaborator, it co-authors just 8% of Japanese publications compared to nearly 16% of United Kingdom publications and 14% of Australian publications. This means that much more of Japan’s science and research is driven by domestic activity than through international collaboration – highlighting the potential for significant increases in such partnerships.
Table 2.8 Japan’s leading international research partners in the last decadePapers collaborative with Japan
Share (per cent) of Japan total, 2005-092000-04 2005-09
USA 36 064 USA 41 478 7.8
China 8 410 China 14 775 2.8
Germany 8 017 Germany 10 192 1.9
United Kingdom 7 313
United Kingdom 9 854 1.8
South Korea 5 131 South Korea 7 647 1.4
France 4 816 France 7 260 1.4
Canada 4 326 Canada 5 737 1.1
Russia 3 623 Australia 4 381 0.8
Australia 3 099 Italy 4 376 0.8
Italy 2 892 Russia 3 684 0.7
Source: Table 3 of Adams, J., C. King, N. Miyairi and D. Pendlebury 2010, Global Research Report: Japan, June, Thomson Reuters, viewed 3 November 2011, http://thomsonreuters.com/content/corporate/docs/globalresearchreport-japan.pdf.
A richer understanding of the factors behind Japan’s recent international science and research collaboration experiences may be gleaned from a closer look at specific bilateral relationships:
United States:
o An agreement between the US and Japanese Governments on science and research cooperation was signed in 1988, extended in 1999, and extended for a further 10 years in 2004. This is one of 37 bilateral science and research agreements for the USA Government. There are regular bilateral meetings of officials (part of each country’s general “architecture” for supporting bilateral science and research agreements);
o Research agencies in Japan and USA have offices in the other country to foster and support collaboration. The JSPS has liaison offices in Washington DC and San Francisco, and the JSTA has an office in Washington, DC. In the other direction, the NSF has an office in Tokyo;
o Cooperation agreements have been established in specific areas, including clean energy technologies56, brain research57 and space science58.
United Kingdom:
o The Japanese and UK Governments included a focus on science, technology and innovation within a joint statement – “A Framework for the Future” – made by their Prime Ministers in 2007. A UK-Japan Joint Committee on Cooperation in Science and Technology is overseeing progress under this agreement. The agreement has a specific focus on global challenges such as climate change, sustainable energy technologies and life sciences;
o Several research funding councils in the UK provide specific support for collaborations with Japan. For example, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council provides funding for 3-5 collaborative research projects59;
o Bibliometric analysis60 indicates UK-Japan collaboration has grown more slowly over the last 15 years than UK collaboration with every other major science and research partner. Fewer than 1% of UK researchers have any links with Japan at any given point in time, accounting for about 2% of all UK research publications and about 4% of those with international co-authorship61. Collaborations tend to be concentrated around the largest and most prestigious universities in both countries. Japanese researchers surveyed generally saw the UK as a strong science and research performer (second only to the USA on scientific excellence, but significantly better than Germany or France).
China:
o As part of a broader Japanese strategic focus on strengthening science and research linkages with Asian partners, the Governments of Japan and China have signed a Science and Technology Agreement in 1980. This Agreement is supported through regular oversight meetings of the Japan-China Science and Technology Cooperation Joint Committee;
o The JSPS has an office in Beijing, from which it facilitates linkages between Japanese and Chinese researchers, collates and disseminates information about science and research in Japan, and promotes Japan’s science and research capabilities to prospective Chinese partners;
56 METI 2011, Japan and the United States Agree to Cooperate on Clean Energy Technologies, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Tokyo, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/energy_environment/global_warming/e20091113a.html>.57 NIPS 2011, Japan-U.S. Brain Research Cooperative Program, National Institute for Physiological Sciences, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.nips.ac.jp/jusnou/eng/>.58 ISAS 2011, Space Science between US and Japan Based on the Japan-US Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement – Non-energy Field, Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/about/ic/ic.shtml>.59 EPSRC 2011, II. Support by JST/EPSRC, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/calls/2011/jstelectronics/Pages/support.aspx>.60 Universities UK, International Research Collaboration: Opportunities for the UK Higher Education Sector; 2008, 33pp.61 Simmonds et al, 65pp.
o Japan’s science and research linkages with China are being increasingly integrated into multilateral programs, such as the Japan-China-Korea Committee for Promoting Exchange and Cooperation among Universities.
These examples illustrate some critical issues regarding science and research collaboration with Japan. Firstly, the relatively limited international exposure of Japan’s science and research community means that the experience and culture involved in establishing and sustaining international science and research collaborations is less well developed in Japan than in most other large, developed economies. Secondly, Japanese interest in international science and research collaboration has a traditional orientation towards the USA, China and the United Kingdom, and an emerging orientation towards the China-South Korea region.
2.6. Measures and indicators
Key FindingsAustralia’s gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) has been increasing at an average of 6.9% per year over the last decade, showing a more significant increase than Japan’s 3.9% per year over this same period. Despite Australia’s absolute and relative R&D spending being less than Japan’s, Australia has been narrowing the gap in science and research spending on a per capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.
Historically, Japan has had a relatively high level of private-sector funded R&D, although foreign private sector funding is negligible.
While the total number of researchers in Japan has remained high but static since 1995, the total number of Australian researchers has dramatically increased from a lower base.
Both Australia and Japan have increased their total share of world publications, although the former has seen a more steady increase over the last two decades. Japan, however, had 6.6% of global publications while Australia had 3.2% in 2009. The relative amounts of research in the different fields of science reflect each country’s economic mix and national priorities.
Both countries have also improved the influence of their published output relative to world output, as shown by rising relative citation impact over the last decade.
Investment
Total investmentAustralian gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) has been increasing on average at 6.8% per annum, from about PPP$2.6 billion (2000 constant PPP$) in 1981 to PPP$15.4 billion in 2008. On the other hand, Japan’s GERD grew at a much smaller pace, averaging 3.9% per annum over the same period, from PPP$43.9 billion in 1981 to PPP$123.3 billion in 2008 (chart 2.9).
This difference in the rate of GERD growth between Australia and Japan has emerged in the past two decades. In the 1980s, both countries achieved similar growth in GERD – averaging 7.1% per annum for Australia and 7.2% per annum for Japan from 1981 to 1991. GERD in Japan fell in the mid-1990s, followed by a period with much slower growth averaging only 2.7% per annum. By contrast, Australia
Chart 2.9 Gross domestic expenditure on R&D
Data source: OECD 2011, Main Science and Technology Indicators, Volume 2011/1, OECD, Paris
Nevertheless, Australia still spends less than Japan on R&D – in absolute and relative terms. In 2008, Australia’s GERD as a percentage of GDP was only two thirds of Japan’s (chart 2.10), and Australia’s GERD per capita was only three quarters of Japan’s (chart 2.11).
Chart 2.10 Gross domestic expenditure on R&D as percentage of GDP
Data source: OECD 2011, Main Science and Technology Indicators, Volume 2011/1, OECD, Paris
The gap between Australia and Japan in these relative measures is narrowing. Australia’s GERD as a percentage of GDP was equivalent to 39% of Japan’s in 1981, and 64% in 2008 (chart 2.10). Similarly, Australia’s per capita GERD was equivalent to 47% of Japan’s in 1981, and 74% in 2008 (chart 2.11).
Chart 2.11 Gross domestic expenditure on R&D per capita
Data source: OECD 2011, Main Science and Technology Indicators, Volume 2011/1, OECD, Paris
Funding sourcesChart 2.12 shows the composition of GERD funding sources for Australia and Japan. Both countries have seen a rising share of GERD funded by industry and a falling share funded by government. However, industry has always been a dominant funding source of GERD in Japan in the last three decades (accounting for 78% of GERD in 2008). The industry share of GERD in Australia has been rising sharply, from 20% in 1981 to 61% in 2008. Australia’s government funding still accounts for a much more significant share of GERD (35%) than Japan’s (16%).
Chart 2.12 Composition of GERD funding sources
Data source: OECD 2011, Main Science and Technology Indicators, Volume 2011/1, OECD, Paris Foreign funding accounts for a small share of total GERD for both countries, being only 1.7% for Australia and 0.4% for Japan in 2008.62.
62 OECD 2011, Main Science and Technology Indicators, Volume 2011/1, OECD, Paris.
R&D by performance sectorChart 2.13 reports the share of R&D carried out by various types of institutions in Australia and Japan in selected years. Following the pattern of the funding sources, the business sector has carried out most of the R&D in both countries, and its share in total R&D activities has been rising.
As with the funding pattern, the industry sector’s share of R&D performance has increased more rapidly in Australia than in Japan, but from a lower base. The share rose from about 25% in 1981 to over 60% in 2008. Consequently, the government sector’s share in total R&D activities in Australia fell from 45% in 1981 to 12% in 2008. The industry sector’s share of R&D performance in Japan rose modestly from 61% in 1981 to 78% in 2008, and the government share fell from 11% in 1981 to 8% in 2008.
Chart 2.13 Composition of GERD by performance sector
Data source: OECD 2011, Main Science and Technology Indicator, Volume 2011/1, OECD, Paris
The university sector’s share of total R&D activities has been relatively stable for Australia, falling only slightly from 28% in 1981 to 24% in 2008. On the other hand, the university sector in Japan experienced a more significant decline in its share of total R&D activities, from 24% in 1981 to only 12% in 2008.
Human resourcesChart 2.14 shows the total number of researchers for Australia (black line) and Japan (red line) between 1981 and 2008 (the left panel) and the growth index with the value of 1981 being 100 (the right panel). Australian statistics are available only for every second year, with the latest data being for 2008. The missing value in a year is estimated by taking the average of the values in years before and after the year with missing data. The growth index after deducting 100 reports the growth from 1981. For example, Australia’s index in 2008 is 378.5, indicating that by 2008, its number of researchers had increased by 278.5% from the 1981 level.
Australia’s human resources for science and research have grown more rapidly than Japan’s over recent decades. Australia’s total number of researchers grew from 24 208 in 1981 to 91 617 in 2008, up by 278.5%. By contrast, Japan’s total number of researchers grew from 392 625 in 1981 to 656 676 in 2008, up by 67.3%.
Japan has not experienced any growth in the total number of researchers since 1995. The number in 2008 was lower than that in 1995. This has been caused by economic and demographic reasons – stagnant growth following the burst of a bubble economy and, an ageing and falling population.63 Indeed, the Japanese Government has recently expanded funding for post-doctoral fellowships to address risks associated with the ageing of the academic workforce.64
It should be stated that, although Japan experienced lower growth in the number of researchers, its total number of researchers is still the 3rd highest in the world65. Its total number of researchers in 2008 was more than 7 times Australia’s total number.
Chart 2.14 Total number of researchers
Note: Australian statistics is available every two years with the latest available data being in 2008. The missing value is estimated by taking the average of the numbers in the years before and after the missing year.Data source: OECD 2011, Main Science and Technology Indicator, Volume 2011/1, OECD, Paris
Moreover, Japan still has a higher percentage of researchers in its labour force than Australia (chart 2.15). In 2008, Japan’s number of researchers per thousand labour force was about 23% higher than that of Australia.
63 The 2004 National University Corporations Law, effectively made 89 public universities ‘independent administrative institutions’, also granting them more discretion in expenditure of public funds.64 JSPS 2011, Research Fellowship for Young Scientists, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-pd/index.html>.65 OECD 2011, Main Science and Technology Indicator, Volume 2011/1, OECD, Paris
Chart 2.15 Researchers per thousand labour force
Data source: OECD 2011, Main Science and Technology Indicator, Volume 2011/1, OECD, Paris
Chart 2.16 shows the sectoral distribution of researchers in 1981 and 2008 for Australia and Japan. The higher education sector accounts for the largest shares of researchers (58%) in Australia in 2008. In Japan, the business sector accounts for 75% of total researchers.
Chart 2.16 Distribution of researchers by sector
Data source: OECD 2011, Main Science and Technology Indicator, Volume 2011/1, OECD, Paris
Publications
Important note on the dataThe joint publication data between Australia and Japan are drawn from the Thomson Reuters Global Comparisons and Research Performance Profiles databases, as is data on Australia’s full publications output. Due to differences in definitions between and within these two products, all results need to be treated with due caution. Small numbers of publications in some topics make results vulnerable to
skewing by a few highly cited papers. Some analyses aggregate the 253 Thomson Reuters subject areas into the 22 Australia-NZ Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) Field of Research codes66, with an additional code for Multidisciplinary research (mapping schema at Appendix A). Note that field-level data is not de-duplicated by topic: that is, a multi-topic paper67 may count against several fields of research, and/or more than once within a field, so the sum of the counts in each field is far more (over 20,400) than the number of joint publications (11,550) over the decade 2000 to 2009.
Over the period between 1981 and 2009, Australia published 562 487 documents with an average citation rate of 15.6 cites per document, while the total number of Japanese publications was a little bit over 1.65 million with an average citation rate of 13.5 cites per document, according to Thomson Reuter’s Incites Web of Science.68
Rising shares of publications and citations in the worldChart 2.17 plots the shares of Australia (black lines) and Japan (red lines) in world publications. This chart shows that both Australia and Japan have increased their shares of the world publications over the period between 1981 and 2009. Australia’s shares of the world totals increased from 2.4% in 1981 to 3.2% in 2009. Japan’s shares of publications increased from 6.1% in 1981 to 6.6% in 2009.
However, the trend in publications has been different for the two countries. After a stagnant period in the 1980s and early 1990s, Australia has been steadily increasing its share of world publications since 1993. On the other hand, Japan increased its share of world publication from 1982 to 1998, followed by a five-year plateau (its share peaked at 9.4% in 2001), after which it has declined since 2003.
Chart 2.17 Australia and Japan shares of publications of the world
a Publication shares are calculated from de-duplicated data of world and individual countries, while citation shares are from (possibly) duplicated data (sum over times cited over subject areas for the world and individual countries).Data source: CIE calculation based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2011). Global Comparisons reports generated 16 August 2011 (Australia and Japan data) and 28 August 2011 (world data).
66 ABS 2008, Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC), Cat. 1297.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Canberra, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/6BB427AB9696C225CA2574180004463E?opendocument>.67 Due to the way papers are registered in bibliometrics databases, this is any paper in a multi-topic journal.68 InCitesTM, Thomson Reuters (2010), Global Comparisons report generated 6 October 2011.
Complementarity in research specialisationThe specialisation index (SI), as defined in box 2.18, indicates the areas of specialisation of one country relative to the world. Table 2.19 reports the SI of Australia and Japan for the period of 2000 to 2009 calculated from data of Thomson Reuter’s Incites Web of Science. The detailed subject areas in the Thomson Reuter (TR) data are grouped into Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) divisions using the mapping in Appendix A.69
Australia’s top five specialised areas are (highlighted in table 2.19):
Environmental sciences;
Education;
Agricultural and veterinary sciences;
Commerce, management, tourism and services; and
Earth sciences.
Japan’s top five specialised areas are (highlighted in table 2.19):
Physical sciences;
Chemical sciences;
Engineering;
Technology; and
Biological sciences.
2.18 Specialisation index (SI)The SI is an indicator of research intensity in a country or an organisation for a given research area, relative to the intensity in the world. The SI is formulated as follows:
TS
TS
NNXXSI
where XS is the number of papers from a country X in a given research area s; XT is the total number of papers from country X; NS is the number of papers in the world in the area s; NT is the total number of papers in the world.
The resulting values are then evenly distributed between -1 and +1. An index value above 0 means that a country is specialised relative to the world, whereas an index value below 0 means the reverse.
For example, Australia published 23 967 documents in the area of agricultural and veterinary sciences between 2000 and 2009, accounting for 5.35% of its total publications during the same period, while the area share of the world publications is 3.34% (=501 600/15 006 980). Australia’s share in this area is 1.6 times the world share in this area (=5.35%/3.34%). After normalisation
69 ANZSRC has 22 divisions. An additional category, multidisciplinary, is used by TR. For presentational convenience, they are referred to as subject areas in the discussion.
(1.6 against the minimum ratio of 0.545 and the maximum ratio of 1.725), Australia’s SI is 0.788 for the area of agricultural and veterinary sciences.
Source: Archambault, É., N. Lecomte and M. Picard-Aitken, 2008, Bibliometric Analysis of Consumer Issues Research in Canada and in Other Leading Countries, Science-Metrix
Table 2.19 Specialisation index for Australia and Japan (2000-2009)ANZSRC division/Subject area Australia Japan
Agricultural and veterinary sciences 0.788 0.268
Biological sciences 0.024 0.680
Built environment and design 0.285 -0.571
Chemical sciences -1.000 0.969
Commerce, management, tourism and services 0.756 -0.840
Earth sciences 0.687 0.162
Economics 0.559 -0.565
Education 0.948 -0.985
Engineering -0.603 0.733
Environmental sciences 1.000 -0.299
History and archaeology 0.049 -0.821
Information and computing sciences -0.298 0.062
Language, communication and culture -0.117 -0.827
Law and legal studies -0.617 -0.996
Mathematical sciences -0.566 -0.223
Medical and health sciences -0.082 0.440
Multidisciplinary -0.813 -0.416
Philosophy and religious studies -0.012 -1.000
Physical sciences -0.835 1.000
Psychology and cognitive sciences 0.645 -0.660
Studies in creative arts and writing -0.238 -0.968
Studies in human society 0.540 -0.819
Technology -0.873 0.718
Source: CIE calculation based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2011). Global Comparisons reports generated 16 August 2011 (Australia and Japan data) and 28 August 2011 (world data).
While Australia and Japan have very little direct overlap in their top areas of research specialisation, the respective fields of specialisation for the two countries may be very relevant to any consideration of future collaboration opportunities. In particular, bringing together complementary strengths may enable science and research teams in both countries to tackle challenges more successfully than by working independently.
Relative impact of publicationsTable 2.20 reports the relative impact of Australian and Japanese publications (cites per document of each country relative to the world average cites per document) for given subject areas. Highlighted cells represent impact higher than the world average for publications in a subject area. While the relative impact is not a direct measure of the quality of research or publications, it does measure influence of publications within the academic community, and thus provides the only quantitative proxy measure available for quality or influence across the full publications output of Australia and Japan.
A couple of observations may be made from the table. First, both countries in general have improved their publication influence relative to the world average over time, which is evidenced by the higher value of relative impact in 2005-09 than in 2000-04 for many subject areas. Second, Australia’s publications in general have higher relative impact than Japan’s, although the differences are small.
Table 2.20 Relative impact of Australia and Japan publicationsAustralia Japan
1981-2009
2000-2004
2005-2009
1981-2009
2000-2004
2005-2009
All subject areas 1.02 1.10 1.13 0.88 0.87 0.98
Agricultural and veterinary sciences 1.25 1.14 1.29 0.92 0.98 1.13
Biological sciences 0.88 0.97 1.03 0.84 0.88 0.93
Built environment and design 1.04 0.99 1.11 0.77 0.80 0.77
Chemical sciences 1.16 1.06 1.09 1.00 0.93 0.99
Commerce, management, tourism and services 0.62 0.87 0.81 0.68 0.74 0.68
Earth sciences 1.25 1.26 1.30 0.76 0.78 1.02
Economics 0.60 0.73 0.86 0.42 0.45 0.54
Education 0.99 1.13 0.98 0.62 0.56 0.62
Engineering 1.11 1.12 1.12 0.96 0.86 0.93
Environmental sciences 1.19 1.21 1.29 0.68 0.78 0.83
History and archaeology 0.82 0.95 0.98 2.04 4.16 0.73
Information and computing sciences 0.97 1.03 1.05 0.69 0.60 0.65
Language, communication and culture 0.87 1.07 1.07 1.05 1.11 1.01
Law and legal studies 0.47 0.81 0.57 0.44 0.43 0.61
Mathematical sciences 1.09 1.28 1.08 0.76 0.81 0.78
Medical and health sciences 0.98 1.11 1.12 0.78 0.77 0.84
Multidisciplinary 1.10 1.01 1.76 2.37 1.75 1.61
Philosophy and religious studies 1.31 1.39 1.09 0.76 0.89 1.58
Physical sciences 1.13 1.24 1.33 0.88 0.91 1.01
Psychology and cognitive sciences 0.81 0.98 0.98 0.48 0.56 0.66
Studies in creative arts and writing 0.95 1.11 0.72 1.17 1.77 1.72
Studies in human society 0.80 0.95 0.96 0.74 0.80 0.76
Technology 1.01 1.02 1.07 0.89 0.77 0.91
Source: CIE calculation based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2011). Global Comparisons reports generated 16 August 2011 (Australia and Japan data) and 28 August 2011 (world data).
3. Biliateral Science and Research CollaborationIn this chapter we provide quantitative and qualitative assessments of current science and research collaborations between Australia and Japan, from which key challenges facing the two countries in further developing the effectiveness and value of collaboration are highlighted.
3.1. Quantitative analysis
Key FindingsOver the last decade joint publications have almost doubled, totalling 1007 in 2009. This figure accounts for 2.5% of Australia’s total publications and 1.3% for Japan.
Medical and health sciences, physical sciences and biological sciences accounted for over 60% of joint publications. Notably, the influence of joint publications is higher than the influence of publications of each country in over half of the subject areas.
Japan’s top national universities are undertaking most of the collaborative research with Australia’s Group of Eight universities, with CSIRO being the chief public research organisation carrying out significant research with Japan.
Japan’s top 10 institutions account for 31% of joint publications with Australia.
Australia’s top 10 institutions account for 63% of joint publications with Japan.
Chart 3.1 Joint publications between Australia and Japan
Data source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated 20 July 2011 (joint publications data); InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2011). Global Comparisons reports generated 16 August 2011 (Australia and Japan data).
In the past decade, the number of joint publications between Australia and Japan almost doubled, from 522 in 2000 to 1 007 in 2009. Joint publications accounted for 2.5% of Australian publications and 1.3% of Japanese publications in 2009 (chart Chart 3.1).
The joint publication data between Australia and Japan are drawn from the Thomson Reuters Incites Web of Science (WoS, mostly retrieved on 20 July 2011). Most of the data are for the period between 2000 and 2009. However, data for 2010, where available, have been used to provide more recent information. The WoS subject areas are grouped into Australia and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) divisions using the mapping in Appendix A.
Concentration of joint publications Table 3.2 reports the shares of subject areas in total joint publications between Australia and Japan in 2000, 2005 and 2010 as well as the whole period between 2000 and 2010.
Table 3.2 Subject area shares of the joint publications in selected years2000 2005 2010 2000-10
Agricultural and veterinary sciences 5.36 5.12 3.59 4.57
Biological sciences 17.24 14.59 14.17 15.66
Built environment and design 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.09
Chemical sciences 7.47 4.07 5.85 5.75
Commerce, management, tourism and services 0.19 0.26 0.41 0.27
Earth sciences 9.00 8.94 8.62 9.26
Economics 0.38 0.66 0.92 0.68
Education 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.11
Engineering 11.11 11.17 7.39 8.79
Environmental sciences 0.77 1.58 2.16 1.75
History and archaeology 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04
Information and computing sciences 3.07 3.02 1.23 2.42
Language, communication and culture 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.17
Law and legal studies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Mathematical sciences 2.30 1.31 1.75 1.42
Medical and health sciences 27.39 24.57 28.34 26.16
Multidisciplinary 0.38 0.26 0.31 0.17
Philosophy and religious studies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Physical sciences 13.60 22.21 22.38 20.75
Psychology and cognitive sciences 0.38 1.18 0.72 0.97
Studies in creative arts and writing 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.02
Studies in human society 0.38 0.66 0.92 0.66
Technology 0.77 0.39 0.62 0.28
Source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles reports generated 20 July 2011
Three subject areas – medical and health sciences, physical sciences, and biological sciences – accounted for over 60% of total joint publications, while the top five accounted for 80%, and the top 10 accounted for 96.5% (chart 3.3).
The area distribution of joint publications is more closely aligned with the area distributions of publications in Australia than it is to that of Japan, while the relative impact of publications in particular fields in either country does not appear closely related to the distribution of subject areas in joint publications.70
Chart 3.3 Distribution of joint publications by top subject areas 2000-09
Data source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated 20 July 2011
The concentration of subject areas in the joint publications between Australia and Japan can also be measured by the specialisation index (SI) introduced in the previous chapter, with some modifications. Table 3.4 reports these SI measures. Columns 2 to 4 of table Table 3.4 report the SI of joint publications relative to the world average together with those of the total Australia and Japan publications, while the last two columns report the SI of joint publications relative to all Australian
70 Appendix B presents some simple ordinary linear regression results. The regressions indicate that there is a low correlation between the distribution of subject areas in Australian and Japanese publications and the relative impact of subject areas in joint publications, as evidenced by the low value of t-statistics which are not statistically different from zero. The subject area distribution of Australia’s publications has a higher correlation to the subject area distribution of the joint publications (higher value of the coefficient and statistically more significant) than Japan’s does.
publications and all Japanese publications, respectively. Highlighted cells indicate areas of specialisation.
Table 3.4 Specialisation index for joint publications 2000-09Specialisation Index relative to world publications
Joint publications relative to
Subject area Joint Australia Japan Australia Japan
Agricultural and veterinary sciences 0.058 0.788 0.268 -0.317 -0.186
Biological sciences -0.164 0.024 0.680 -0.233 -0.562
Built environment and design -0.922 0.285 -0.571 -0.944 -0.842
Chemical sciences -0.665 -1.000 0.969 -0.294 -0.932
Commerce, management, tourism and services -0.798 0.756 -0.840 -0.881 0.125
Earth sciences 1.000 0.687 0.162 0.357 0.786
Economics -0.250 0.559 -0.565 -0.472 0.689
Education -0.890 0.948 -0.985 -0.950 0.986
Engineering -0.358 -0.603 0.733 -0.106 -0.705
Environmental sciences -0.517 1.000 -0.299 -0.723 -0.344
History and archaeology -0.972 0.049 -0.821 -0.977 -0.768
Information and computing sciences -0.546 -0.298 0.062 -0.491 -0.631
Language, communication and culture -0.883 -0.117 -0.827 -0.881 -0.337
Law and legal studies -0.998 -0.617 -0.996 -0.972 -0.290
Mathematical sciences -0.723 -0.566 -0.223 -0.613 -0.699
Medical and health sciences -0.243 -0.082 0.440 -0.262 -0.529
Multidisciplinary 0.160 -0.813 -0.416 0.909 1.000
Philosophy and religious studies -1.000 -0.012 -1.000 -1.000 -0.278
Physical sciences 0.192 -0.835 1.000 1.000 -0.453
Psychology and cognitive sciences -0.679 0.645 -0.660 -0.790 -0.094
Studies in creative arts and writing -0.945 -0.238 -0.968 -0.935 0.049
Studies in human society -0.800 0.540 -0.819 -0.866 0.015
Technology -0.817 -0.873 0.718 -0.644 -1.000
Source: CIE calculations based on data from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated 20 July 2011 (joint publications data); InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2011). Global Comparisons reports generated 16 August 2011 (Australia and Japan data) and 28 August 2011 (world data).
Relative to the world average, the joint publications specialise in four subject areas:
Earth sciences;
Physical sciences;
Multidisciplinary; and
Agricultural and veterinary sciences.
It can be seen from these columns that the joint publications have fewer specialised subject areas than the total Australian publication (4 versus 11) and the total Japanese publication (4 versus 9). Joint publications specialise in only three subject areas relative to all Australian publications:
Physical sciences;
Multidisciplinary; and
Earth sciences.
Relative to all the Japanese publications, the joint publications specialise in seven areas:
Multidisciplinary;
Education;
Earth sciences;
Economics;
Commerce, management, tourism and services;
Studies in creative arts and writing; and
Studies in human society.
Higher influence of joint publicationsTable 3.5 compares the relative impact, as introduced in the previous chapter, of all publications for Australia and Japan respectively in each subject area with the relative impact of the joint publications.
Generally, the influence of joint publications is higher than the influence of publications of each country separately, for 14 out of 23 subject areas (highlighted in green in the table). For example, the relative impact of all Australia publications is 1.09 between 2000 and 2009, and that of all Japan publications is 0.96, while the relative impact of all joint publications is 2.24 during the same period. For only five subject areas (highlighted in pink) was the influence of joint publications lower than the influence of publications in each country.
Table 3.5 Relative impact of Australian, Japanese and joint publications 2000-09
Australia Japan Joint
Agricultural and veterinary sciences 1.20 1.06 2.26
Biological sciences 0.97 0.93 1.96
Built environment and design 1.02 0.77 0.52
Chemical sciences 1.05 1.01 1.38
Commerce, management, tourism and services 0.76 0.70 0.48
Earth sciences 1.28 0.88 2.30
Economics 0.74 0.44 0.53
Education 1.00 0.53 1.74
Engineering 1.11 0.96 1.89
Environmental sciences 1.23 0.80 2.15
History and archaeology 0.96 4.51 0.99
Information and computing sciences 1.03 0.65 1.02
Language, communication and culture 1.02 1.07 2.23
Law and legal studies 0.61 0.51 0.76
Mathematical sciences 1.26 0.85 1.10
Medical and health sciences 1.06 0.83 2.13
Multidisciplinary 1.21 1.70 8.92
Philosophy and religious studies 1.29 1.11 0.34
Physical sciences 1.26 0.99 3.02
Psychology and cognitive sciences 0.94 0.59 1.17
Studies in creative arts and writing 0.87 1.70 0.76
Studies in human society 0.89 0.85 0.72
Technology 1.00 0.90 3.25
Overall 1.09 0.96 2.24
Source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated on 20 July 2011 (joint publications data); InCites™, Thomson Reuters
(2011). Global Comparisons reports generated 16 August 2011 (Australia and Japan data) and 28 August 2011 (world data).
Institutional distribution of joint publicationsChart 3.6 depicts the accumulated distribution of joint publications against top collaborating Australian and Japanese institutions. The top 20 Australian institutions account for 75% of joint publications between Australia and Japan, while the top 20 Japanese institutions account for about 50% of the total joint publications. Tables 3.7 and 3.8 list these institutions with number of documents and share in total joint publications, and average cites per document.
Note that more than one institution in a country may be involved in a single publication, so the total sum of the counts of documents by institution is greater than the total number of joint publications.
Note also that citation practices and citation rates are highly variable between different subject areas (and even between specialisations within subject areas), so the “Average cites/document” figures are affected not only by the influence and quality of documents but also the subject areas of collaboration.
Chart 3.6 Accumulated share of joint publications by given number of institutions 2000-09
Data source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated 22 August 2011
Table 3.7 Top 20 Australian institutions publishing jointly with Japan 2000-09
Institution Documents Share (%)Average cites per document
University of Sydney 948 10.3 19.7
University of Melbourne 944 10.2 31.2
Australian National University 725 7.9 18.4
University of Queensland 620 6.7 24.3
Monash University 572 6.2 16.2
University of New South Wales 561 6.1 20.2
CSIRO 555 6.0 24.8
University of Adelaide 392 4.3 13.9
University of Western Australia 356 3.9 18.0
University of Tasmania 166 1.8 15.0
University of Wollongong 136 1.5 9.7
Macquarie University 116 1.3 26.5
Curtin University 109 1.2 19.0
Murdoch University 107 1.2 15.1
James Cook University 106 1.1 12.4
Flinders University 105 1.1 15.8
University of Newcastle 102 1.1 12.7
Griffith University 98 1.1 18.2
La Trobe University 98 1.1 16.6
Queensland University of Technology 98 1.1 12.0
Source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated 22 August 2011
Table 3.8 Top 20 Japanese institutions publishing jointly with Australia 2000-09
Institution Documents
Share (per cent)
Average cites per document
University of Tokyo 979 6.0 31.8
Tohoku University 599 3.7 41.0
Nagoya University 564 3.5 34.2
Osaka University 555 3.4 23.8
Kyoto University 481 3.0 26.6
Tokyo Institute of Technology 408 2.5 22.5
Niigata University 380 2.3 24.4
High Energy Accelerator Research Organisation 373 2.3 45.7
Osaka City University 352 2.2 33.4
Chiba University 345 2.1 29.4
Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology 343 2.1 24.0
University of Tsukuba 330 2.0 31.3
Hokkaido University 319 2.0 23.0
Tokyo Metropolitan University 318 2.0 34.4
Toho University 309 1.9 24.7
Kanagawa University 307 1.9 24.4
RIKEN 302 1.9 31.0
Nara Women's University 295 1.8 25.4
Tohoku Gakuin University 291 1.8 25.5
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology 254 1.6 20.2
Source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated 22 August 2011
Top 10 Australian institutions collaborating with Japan
Growing share in total joint publicationsChart 3.9 reports the number of joint publications with Japan for top 10 Australian institutions in 2000 and 2009 (the top panel) and the indexed number (with the index in 2000 being 100) each year over the period (the bottom panel). The Australian institutions in the top panel are ordered according to their number of joint publications with Japan in 2009.
Chart 3.9 Joint publications with Japan by top 10 Australian institutions 2000-09
Data source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles, report generated 19 July 2011.
The Universities of Melbourne and Sydney experienced highest growth in joint publications with Japan with a total growth rate of 234% from 2000 to 2009. They are followed by Monash University (203%), UWA (167%), University of Adelaide (132%), University of Queensland (112%), ANU (59%), UNSW (41%), CSIRO (38%) and University of Tasmania (11%).
Another observation from the bottom panel of chart 3.9 is that the growth in joint publications is not smooth. For example, University of Queensland’s number of joint publications with Japan dropped to 63 in 2007 from 86 in 2006, followed by a jump to 91 in 2008 and a drop again to 70 in 2009.
Differing focus of research areasTable 3.10 reports the shares of subject areas of joint publications with Japan by the top 10 Australian institutions, along with the shares of the joint publications with Japan by all Australian institutions, and those of all Australian and Japanese publications. The highlighted cells represent the top three subject areas for each institution. Because the top 10 institutions contribute about 63% of joint publications with Japan, the top subject areas in their joint publications with Japan are generally consistent with the top subject areas of all joint publications. However, there are still significant differences in their research focus. For example, the top three collaborating Australian institutions – University of Sydney, University of Melbourne and Australian National University – have over 40% of their joint publications with Japan in the area of physical sciences, compared to the share of 20.5% for all joint publications. About 33% of joint publications with Japan by the University of Queensland, the number four collaborating Australian institution, are in the area of biological sciences.
Table 3.10 Subject area distribution of joint publications with Japan by top 10 Australian institutions 2000-09Sydney Melbourne ANU UQ Monash UNSW CSIRO Adelaide UWA UTAS Joint All Aus All Japan
Agricultural and veterinary sciences 1.2 1.7 4.5 3.1 0.6 1.5 10.5 4.7 6.9 9.8 4.7 5.3 2.9Biological sciences 12.7 15.5 12.9 33.4 22.0 11.9 17.2 18.4 18.5 28.2 15.8 16.2 16.0Built environment and design 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.2Chemical sciences 7.3 5.0 7.9 11.1 10.7 8.1 7.8 3.3 4.5 13.9 5.7 6.3 15.4Commerce, management, tourism and services 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.2 0.1Earth sciences 1.8 1.7 16.9 3.3 3.8 6.0 15.4 11.7 10.9 15.8 9.3 5.6 2.9Economics 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.2Education 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0Engineering 6.6 4.7 2.8 7.5 18.7 15.7 9.6 6.0 7.6 1.1 9.0 7.9 11.9Environmental sciences 0.9 0.3 1.6 2.1 1.0 2.2 7.1 2.9 1.0 3.4 1.7 4.3 1.3History and archaeology 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1Information and computing sciences 3.3 2.1 2.0 1.3 2.7 3.2 1.2 2.1 2.8 0.0 2.6 3.8 2.9Language, communication and culture 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.1Law and legal studies 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0Mathematical sciences 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.8 0.6 2.4 0.7 0.3 3.8 0.0 1.4 2.6 1.8Medical and health sciences 20.0 21.7 3.9 23.2 28.5 18.7 5.3 19.2 17.5 6.8 25.9 27.4 24.8Multidisciplinary 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0Philosophy and religious studies 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0Physical sciences 41.9 42.3 40.8 8.8 8.4 23.5 23.6 28.9 19.0 15.0 20.5 8.4 17.5Psychology and cognitive sciences 1.0 1.0 0.6 2.0 1.0 2.1 0.2 0.3 2.0 3.4 1.0 3.2 0.6Studies in creative arts and writing 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0Studies in human society 0.3 0.3 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 1.8 1.2 0.0 0.6 2.8 0.3Technology 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.9
Source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated on 19 July 2011 (top 10 Australian institutions) and 20 July 2011 (joint publications data); InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2011). Global Comparison report generated 16 August 2011 (Australia and Japan data) and 28 August 2011 (world data)
Shifting focus on research areasChart 3.11 illustrates the changes in ranking of the top five subject areas (counted for all joint publications with Japan over the period between 2000 and 2009) for each of the top 10 Australian institutions.It is clear from this chart that the focus of joint research with Japan has been changing over time. The ranking of subject areas in joint publications with Japan has been relatively stable for the University of Sydney. However, there are still some fluctuations over time. For example, physical sciences was the number one subject area for the University of Sydney’s collaboration with Japan until 2009, when it was replaced by medical and health sciences. Chemical sciences displays the most significant change in ranking among the top five subject areas with its ranking dropping to number six in 2006.The ranking of the University of Melbourne’s subject areas of the joint publications with Japan displays more fluctuation than that of the University of Sydney. Physical sciences is the top subject area for the whole period between 2000 and 2009. But its ranking was the third in 2000 and the second in 2001, and dropped to the second place in 2009 after 7 years in the first place. Chemical sciences, the number four subject area for the whole period, dropped out of the top five list twice (the 7th place in 2004 and the 6th place in 2008). Engineering started from the 6th place in 2000, and fell again to the 8th place in 2008 and the 6th place in 2009.Physical sciences is ANU’s top subject area collaborating with Japan for the whole period between 2000 and 2009, but it was ranked only the fourth place in 2000. Its second top subject area, earth sciences, displays more fluctuation over time. It ranked first at the beginning of the period, and fell to third place in 2002, before rising to second place in 2003. But it fell again to third place in 2007 and to fourth in 2008 before reverting to second place in 2009.The remaining top Australian institutions display even more fluctuation in the ranking of subject areas collaborating with Japan.
Chart3.11 Changing focus of collaboration with Japan for top 10 Australian institutions
Data source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated on 19 July 2011.
Table 3.12 shows the top five subject areas in joint publications with Australia for each of the top ten Japanese institutions. The number and parentheses after the subject area is the number of joint publications with Australia, from that institute, that are in that area.
Note the very strong prevalence of physics and astronomy subjects, which are the top three subject areas for each of the institutions. Compared to all subject areas across all joint publications, physics has an even higher presence in the joint publications of the top ten Japanese institutions than in the overall joint publications output.
After physics, a range of topics appear frequently, including biochemistry and molecular biology, geosciences, plant sciences, nuclear sciences, and instrumentation. Institutions with the strongest collaborative research programs outside physics include Kyoto University (biochemistry and molecular and cell biology), Tokyo University (biochemistry and geosciences), and Osaka University (peripheral vascular disease and biochemistry).
Table 3.12 Top 5 subject areas for joint publications by top 10 Japanese institutions (2000-2009) (defined by number of joint publications in Thomson Reuters subject area)Institution Top subject
area2nd subject area
3rd subject area
4th subject area
5th subject area
Tokyo University
Astronomy & astrophysics (228)
Physics, multidisciplinary (199)
Physics, particles & fields (145)
Biochemistry & molecular biology (53)
Geochemistry & geophysics (43)
Tohoku University
Physics, multidisciplinary (176)
Astronomy & astrophysics (123)
Physics, particles & fields (105)
Geosciences, multidisciplinary (23)
Materials science, multidisciplinary (19)
Nagoya University
Physics, multidisciplinary (191)
Astronomy & astrophysics (188)
Physics, particles & fields (118)
Plant sciences (20)
Geosciences, multidisciplinary (19)
Osaka University
Physics, multidisciplinary (174)
Physics, particles & fields (112)
Astronomy & astrophysics (99)
Peripheral vascular disease (43)
Biochemistry & molecular biology (28)
Kyoto University
Astronomy & astrophysics (80)
Physics, multidisciplinary (63)
Physics, particles & fields (40)
Biochemistry & molecular biology (34)
Cell biology (25)
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Physics, multidisciplinary (170)
Astronomy & astrophysics (128)
Physics, particles & fields (113)
Nuclear science & technology (19)
Instruments & instrumentation (15)
Niigata University
Physics, multidisciplinary (183)
Physics, particles & fields (127)
Astronomy & astrophysics (111)
Nuclear science & technology (17)
Instruments & instrumentation (14)
High Energy Accelerator Research Organisation (KEK)
Physics, multidisciplinary (181)
Physics, particles & fields (127)
Astronomy & astrophysics (101)
Nuclear science & technology (26)
Instruments & instrumentation (25)
Osaka City University
Physics, multidisciplinary (184)
Astronomy & astrophysics (118)
Physics, particles & fields (115)
Polymer science (10)
Biochemistry & molecular biology (4)
Chiba University
Physics, multidisciplinary (174)
Physics, particles & fields (112)
Astronomy & astrophysics (99)
Plant sciences (20)
Chemistry, Medicinal (11) and
Chemistry, organic (11)
Data source: InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated on 11 January 2012
Higher publication influence than the world averageChart 3.13 shows the ratio of actual to expected citations71 of joint publications with Japan by the top 10 Australian institutions as well as of all joint publications between Australia and Japan for selected years between 2000 and 2009.
Several observations may be made from this chart. First, the impact of joint publications with Japan by the top 10 Australian institutions is higher than the world average, as evidenced by the value of the actual/expected citations being greater than 1.0 for all joint publications with Japan by these institutions, especially in recent years.
Second, the influence of joint publications with Japan by these top Australian institutions is generally improving, although there have been fluctuations over time. The ratio of actual/expected citations of joint publications with Japan for the top 10 as a whole increased from 1.40 in 2000 to 2.34 in 2009
71 Ratio of actual citations to expected citations of the same document type in the same database year and same category (subject area). A ratio > 1 indicates that the articles’ citation count is better than average.
Chart 3.13 Category actual/expected citations of joint publications with Japan by top 10 Australian institutions
Data source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated 19 July 2011
Third, the overall influence of the joint publications with Japan by these top 10 Australian institutions is only marginally higher than that of the joint publications by other Australian institutions. This is evident from chart 3.14 which compares the overall ratio of actual/expected citations of joint publications with Japan by top 10 Australian institutions with that by all the Australian institutions for each year as well as the whole period between 2000 and 2009. In five out of 10 years, the top 10 Australian institutions published higher-influence joint publications with Japan than other Australian institutions. As a result, the overall ratio of actual/expected citations for all the top 10 institutions for the whole period is 2.06, compared to 2.03 for all the Australian institutions collaborating with Japan.
Chart 3.14 Citation influence of joint publications with Japan: top 10 Australian institutions versus all Australian institutions
Data source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated 19 July 2011 (top 10 Australian institutions) from Thomson Reuters (2010); on 20 July 2011 (all Australian institutions)
Table 3.15 Category actual/expected citations of joint publications with Japan by top 10 Australian institutions by sector 2000-09
Uni Syd Uni Melb ANU UQ Monash UNSW CSIRO Uni Adel UWA UTAS All top 10 All joint
Agricultural and veterinary sciences 1.29 1.80 1.26 1.02 12.39 1.44 1.99 1.19 0.97 1.22 1.54 1.45
Biological sciences 1.53 1.83 1.56 2.23 1.81 2.11 2.33 1.24 1.18 1.42 1.83 1.95
Built environment and design 2.37 1.49 1.20 1.92 2.04 2.08 2.78 1.93 1.31
Chemical sciences 1.52 1.18 1.08 1.33 1.66 2.17 1.22 1.28 1.34 1.50 1.41 1.29
Commerce, management, tourism and services 4.45 0.56 0.43 0.55 2.94 0.34 6.25 0.63 0.60 0.63 0.44
Earth sciences 1.70 1.49 1.41 0.78 1.04 1.59 4.14 1.69 2.07 2.42 2.09 1.93
Economics 0.88 0.52 0.51 0.28 1.56 0.66 0.44
Education 2.54 0.23 0.93 1.73 1.09 1.08
Engineering 2.32 1.74 2.12 1.97 1.41 2.21 2.20 1.29 1.93 0.75 1.91 1.62
Environmental sciences 2.58 2.33 1.39 1.56 2.65 1.45 2.02 1.31 8.28 1.03 2.13 1.64
History and archaeology 2.82 0.27 0.69 0.60
Information and computing sciences 1.78 1.71 1.73 2.51 0.86 1.17 1.62 0.52 0.97 1.48 1.24
Language, communication and culture 0.63 0.60 0.96 1.01 0.89 1.24
Law and legal studies 0.10 0.10 2.03
Mathematical sciences 1.66 0.63 1.00 1.23 0.58 0.70 0.73 0.45 1.47 1.07 1.06
Medical and health sciences 1.81 1.87 2.27 1.63 1.74 3.03 4.00 1.06 2.01 0.62 1.94 2.26
Multidisciplinary 1.00 3.36 2.68 0.05 2.32 1.99
Philosophy and religious studies 1.00 1.00 0.83
Physical sciences 2.36 4.78 2.41 2.44 1.24 2.01 1.37 2.08 2.27 1.55 2.79 2.50
Psychology and cognitive sciences 1.74 0.84 1.28 0.87 2.19 2.24 0.82 3.35 2.01 0.46 1.48 1.62
Studies in creative arts and writing 1.00 1.00 1.00
Studies in human society 1.92 0.39 0.72 0.08 0.40 0.92 0.93 1.52 0.89 0.75
Technology 2.19 2.26 2.32 1.44 2.09 0.85 2.49 2.27 1.88 3.58
Total 1.98 2.86 1.81 1.90 1.67 2.22 2.35 1.48 1.73 1.43 2.06 2.03
Note: Highlighted cells indicate higher value of actual/expected citations than that of all joint publications between Australia and Japan for a given subject area or total.Source: CIE calculations based on data retrieved from InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated on 19 July 2011 (top 10 Australian institutions) and 20 July 2011 (joint publications data)
Similar observations may be made from table 3.15 which reports the ratio of actual/expected citations of joint publications by subject area for each of the top 10 Australian institutions as well as for all the Australian institutions as a whole. Highlighted cells indicate a higher value of actual/expected citations than that of all joint publications between Australia and Japan for a given subject area.
The top 10 Australian institutions as a whole published higher influence joint publications with Japan in 16 out of 23 subject areas than other Australian institutions. However, the pattern is more mixed when looking at individual institutions.
Table 3.16 shows the relative citation impact of joint publications with Australia by the top ten Japanese institutions in their individual top five joint publication subject areas (as identified in Table 3.13) for 2000 to 2009. Table 3.17 shows the top five impact areas (areas with the highest relative citation impact) of joint publications with Australia by the top ten Japanese institutions for the period 2000-2009.72 Many subject areas have very few joint publications when disaggregated to institution level, so only subject areas with at least five joint publications are included in the top impact areas.
Joint publications with top ten Japanese institutions have high relative impact: most of the institutions achieve higher than world average citation impact in their high volume subject areas, and some smaller subject areas have even higher impacts. Tokyo University maintained a citation impact over five times world average across 199 joint publications in multidisciplinary physics, while Nagoya University maintained a citation impact over five times world average across 191 joint publications in the same field.
Table 3.16 Relative impact in top 5 subject areas (by publications numbers) for joint publications by top 10 Japanese institutions (2000-2009)
Institution Top subject area
2nd subject area
3rd subject area
4th subject area
5th subject area
Tokyo University
Astronomy & astrophysics (2.0)
Physics, multidisciplinary (5.2)
Physics, particles & fields (2.1)
Biochemistry & molecular biology (3.0)
Geochemistry & geophysics (1.0)
Tohoku University
Physics, multidisciplinary (5.3)
Astronomy & astrophysics (1.7)
Physics, particles & fields (4.7)
Geosciences, multidisciplinary (1.6)
Materials science, multidisciplinary (0.7)
Nagoya University
Physics, multidisciplinary (5.3)
Astronomy & astrophysics (2.0)
Physics, particles & fields (1.9)
Plant sciences (1.5)
Geosciences, multidisciplinary (1.2)
Osaka University
Physics, multidisciplinary (2.6)
Physics, particles & fields (1.9)
Astronomy & astrophysics
Peripheral vascular
Biochemistry & molecular
72 In both tables, subject areas are according to the Thomson Reuters 253 subject areas schema, not de-duplicated by subject area.
63
(1.6) disease (1.2) biology (3.1)
Kyoto University
Astronomy & astrophysics (1.5)
Physics, multidisciplinary (2.6)
Physics, particles & fields (2.6)
Biochemistry & molecular biology (1.9)
Cell biology (2.6)
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Physics, multidisciplinary (2.7)
Astronomy & astrophysics (1.8)
Physics, particles & fields (2.0)
Nuclear science & technology (4.8)
Instruments & instrumentation (6.3)
Niigata University
Physics, multidisciplinary (2.7)
Physics, particles & fields (1.9)
Astronomy & astrophysics (1.6)
Nuclear science & technology (5.3)
Instruments & instrumentation (6.1)
High Energy Accelerator Research Organisation (KEK)
Physics, multidisciplinary (5.4)
Physics, particles & fields (4.4)
Astronomy & astrophysics (1.6)
Nuclear science & technology (4.3)
Instruments & instrumentation (5.2)
Osaka City University
Physics, multidisciplinary (2.7)
Astronomy & astrophysics (1.6)
Physics, particles & fields (2.0)
Polymer science (1.3)
Biochemistry & molecular biology (1.5)
Chiba University
Physics, multidisciplinary (2.7)
Physics, particles & fields (2.1)
Astronomy & astrophysics (1.6)
Plant sciences (3.0)
Chemistry, Medicinal (1.5) and Chemistry, organic (1.0)
Data source: InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated on 11 January 2012
Table 3.17 Relative impact in top 5 subject areas (by relative impact) for joint publications by top 10 Japanese institutions (2000-2009)
Institution Top subject area
2nd subject area
3rd subject area
4th subject area
5th subject area
Tokyo University
Materials science, multidisciplinary (10.8)
Clinical neurology (10.3)
Instruments & instrumentation (7.6)
Ecology (7.2)Spectroscopy (6.5)
Tohoku University
Physics, nuclear (65.6)
Spectroscopy (8.4)
Instruments & instrumentation
Genetics & heredity (7.1)
Nuclear science &
64
(7.7)technology (6.7)
Nagoya University
Instruments & instrumentation (14.1)
Physics, multidisciplinary (5.3)
Materials science, multidisciplinary (3.4)
Biochemistry & molecular biology (2.6)
Cell biology (2.4)
Osaka University
Instruments & instrumentation (7.3)
Spectroscopy (6.3)
Nuclear science & technology (4.9)
Urology and nephrology (3.6)
Developmental biology (3.3)
Kyoto University
Spectroscopy (9.2)
Immunology (7.1)
Instruments & instrumentation (6.8)
Nuclear science & technology (5.8)
Biotechnology & applied microbiology (5.7)
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Spectroscopy (6.3)
Instruments & instrumentation (6.3)
Nuclear science & technology (4.8)
Physics, multidisciplinary (2.7)
Physics, particles & fields (2.0)
Niigata University
Spectroscopy (6.7)
Instruments & instrumentation (6.1)
Nuclear science & technology (5.3)
Physics, multidisciplinary (2.7)
Urology and nephrology (2.2)
High Energy Accelerator Research Organisation (KEK)
Physics, multidisciplinary (5.4)
Instruments & instrumentation (5.2)
Spectroscopy (4.9)
Physics, particles & fields (4.4)
Nuclear science & technology (4.3)
Osaka City University
Physics, multidisciplinary (2.7)
Physics, particles & fields (2.0)
Astronomy & astrophysics (1.6)
Biochemistry & molecular biology (1.5)*
Polymer science (1.3)
Chiba University
Oncology (7.9)Plant sciences (3.0)
Physics, multidisciplinary (2.7)
Biotechnology & applied microbiology (2.6)
Physics, particles & fields (2.1)
Data source: InCites™, Thomson Reuters (2010). Research Performance Profiles report generated on 11 January 2012
65
3.2. Qualitative characteristics
Key FindingsAs part of its engagement in the region, Japan sees value in pursuing multilateral science and research initiatives with other key Asian knowledge producing nations, leading also to potential opportunities for Australian research institutions.
Consultations with Australian research organisations indicate that the collaborative science and research relationship with Japan is currently characterised more by bottom-up researcher-led initiatives based on complementary research strengths, than a strategic, institution-wide approach to engaging with Japan in science and research.
Large-scale rebuilding efforts in the disaster-affected prefectures and energy security concerns are expected to preoccupy the Japanese government into the future, possibly providing further research opportunities for Australia.
Australia’s relative strength in applied science can be seen as complementary to Japan’s fundamental science strengths, particularly as Japan looks to gain greater economic returns from its public investment in science and research.
The declining number of Japanese students studying in Australia can be seen as one possible impediment to strengthening science and research links with Japan.
Less focus on Australia–Japan relationshipAustralia’s overall science and research relationship with Japan has not experienced the rate of growth or the level of policy attention associated with relationships with other countries (e.g. China, India) over recent years. Feedback from various science and research organisations in Australia (universities, public research organisations, government agencies) indicates a relatively weak overall focus on Japan, limited investment, and uncertainty regarding opportunities and mechanisms for strengthening the nature and value of the relationship. For example, our consultations with science and research organisations in Australia revealed that:
most current collaborations involve individuals or small teams, and have been developed in a ‘bottom-up’ manner with little reference to national or organisational goals;
there is limited evidence of organisations building and sustaining long-term (i.e. > 10 years) strategic relationships, e.g. through systematic linkages at multiple levels of respective partner organisations, as a basis for fostering specific, targeted collaborative programs;
perceived barriers to collaboration, e.g. limited understanding of funding systems and opportunities in the other country are not being addressed actively.
The limited focus on Japan over recent years stands in stark contrast to ongoing or increasing attention on traditional (e.g. USA, United Kingdom) and emerging (e.g. China, India) areas for collaboration. In part, this may reflect the perceived benefit–cost ratio for organisations seeking value through international science and research collaboration.
66
From Australia’s perspective, science and research collaboration with Japan to date is not underpinned by the depth and scale of long-term networks, familiarity with funding agencies and programs and active bilateral mechanisms that are associated with traditional partners such as the USA and United Kingdom. Perceived opportunities for science and research collaboration with Japan also appear to be constrained by limited awareness of the substantial science and research investment and infrastructure there.
There is some emerging evidence that science and research organisations are becoming more interested in, and committed to reinvigorating science and research linkages with Japan. The University of Queensland, for example, sent a top-level delegation to Japan in October 2011, to foster science and research relationships with key partners there. Many universities with memoranda of understanding, at the organisation, faculty and/or department levels with partners in Japan, are looking at ways to take a broader and more strategic approach to these relationships. The Australian Institute of Marine Sciences (AIMS), working through the Australia-Japan marine forum, has identified specific research priorities in Pacific Ocean biodiversity, resilience of marine ecosystems to global change, technologies for coastal and ocean observations, and marine bioresources management.
‘Bottom-up’ collaborationsThe range of collaborations between science and research organisations in Australia and Japan is very wide. The University of Melbourne, for example, has reported 60 academic staff currently involved in links with 55 Japanese institutions – spanning Japanese cultural studies, language and linguistics, physics, architecture and business. Many Australian universities have noted that collaborations tend to be driven by researcher-researcher links, which are often enabled, rather than directed, through whole-of-university and/or faculty level agreements with Japanese universities.
Successful collaborations are often based on aligning complementary strengths, and key areas are emerging from wide-ranging researcher-led collaborations. For the University of Melbourne, for example, collaborations appear to be concentrating in six areas – physics and astronomy, medicine, biochemistry genetics and molecular biology, mathematics, engineering, and chemistry. Similarly, for Murdoch University (with a much smaller overall scale of collaborations with Japan), collaborations are concentrating around four areas – clinical sciences and health, agriculture, social/political sciences and economic development, humanities and creative arts. CSIRO’s collaborations with Japan are concentrated around a number of areas (clean coal, marine and atmospheric research, remote sensing and space research, and new materials, and agricultural sciences). CSIRO has active relationships with a number of partner organisations to facilitate further cooperation in these research areas.
The Australian Research Council (ARC) funds high-quality fundamental and applied research and research training through a competitive grants process (under the National Competitive Grants Program). In projects funded in 2011, the number of projects involving collaboration with Japan ranked seventh highest out of all partner countries, and comprised 4% of all projects involving international partnerships. Key disciplines involved in these collaborations included materials engineering; atomic molecular, nuclear, particle and plasma physics; astronomical and space sciences; macromolecular and materials chemistry; and biochemistry and cell biology. Funding for international research collaboration provided under the NCGP includes support for International Collaboration Awards (ICAs) under the Discovery Projects scheme. ICAs are awarded to enable researchers to travel overseas, or partner investigators
67
living overseas to travel to Australia, to work on their projects for between one and six months. They specifically aim to provide opportunities to build collaborations among researchers, research teams and/or research centres in Australia and overseas.
Collaborations through third partiesThe current priority accorded by Australian science and research organisations (at least informally) to collaborations with US and European partners may indirectly facilitate linkages with Japanese partners.
Similarly, high-energy particle physics researchers at several Australian universities (e.g. University of Sydney, University of Melbourne, University of Melbourne) are actively involved in global scale experiments (most notably at CERN, Switzerland) working with scientists from many countries. Another key facility for this global community is the KEK High Energy Accelerator Research Organisation in Japan (at Tsukuba), so Australian researchers have built collaborations with Japanese partners through this global community rather than relying simply on bilateral connections.
Japanese participation in multilateral relationships may reflect the underlying quality of science and research in Japan, and the substantial infrastructure investments made by Japanese science and research organisations. Such relationships are more likely in science and research areas addressing large-scale global or regional issues and/or involving large, complex and expensive infrastructure.
Australia’s importance to JapanRecent developments in science and research policy in Japan point to an increasing focus on linkages and leadership in the Asia region. This trend will almost certainly affect the way science and research organisations in Japan, and their staff, perceive opportunities and priorities for international collaboration.
Within the Strategic International Cooperative Program, overseen by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JSTA), collaborations with China (32 current projects), China-South Korea (10 current projects) and India (18 current projects) feature prominently. The JSTA also sponsors Japan’s involvement in the ‘Asia Science and Technology Portal’73, which provides science and research information and links for the 10 countries of ASEAN plus Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand.
Recent funding initiatives, such as the JSPS’s Asian CORE Program, are actively fostering research hubs capable of world-standard research and human resource development in the Asia region (with a particular focus on China, South Korea and India). While this involves establishing sustainable collaborative relationships among science and research organisations in Japan and other Asian countries, individual researchers from other countries or regions, including non-Asian, are eligible to participate. The JSPS is also sponsoring Japan’s participation in the ‘A3 Foresight Program’. This is based on an agreement between the JSPS, the National Research Foundation of Korea, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, for the three Asian countries (A3) to work as a consortium in advancing leading-edge research in order to build world-class hubs in the Asia region.
73 JSTA 2011, Asia Science and Technology Portal, Japan Science and Technology Agency (JSTA), Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://astp.jst.go.jp>.
68
Limited Student exchangesThe recent trend of declining numbers of Japanese science and research people studying abroad could impede the development of science and research collaborations between Australia and Japan.
Internationally, many long-term science and research linkages can be traced to international student exchanges, which often result in employment and permanent migration, with spillovers for fostering and sustaining international collaboration. The US Institute of International Education’s (IIE) “Open Doors” annual reports74 show that the number of Japanese students in the US peaked in 1997-98 (at 47 073) and has since declined by nearly 50% (to just 24 842 in 2009-10). Once the largest source of foreign students in the USA, Japan is now sixth – behind China, India, South Korea, Canada and Taiwan.
The numbers of Japanese students in Australia are relatively low – and are declining both in absolute numbers and especially as a proportion of total foreign students in Australia (table 3.18). Because student exchanges generally play a vital role in long-term science and research collaboration, this trend points to future difficulties in building and sustaining science and research linkages between Australia and Japan. Similarly the number of Australians studying in Japan (318 in 201075) is relatively low, accounting for only 0.2% of the total of international students in Japan, with the bulk of international students in Japan coming from China and South Korea. Indeed, relative to the populations of the respective countries, there are fewer Australians studying in Japan (14 per million population) than Japanese studying in Australia (46 per million population).
Table 3.18 International students in Australia, including those from Japan
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Total number of student visa applications granted by citizenship 191 347 230 807 278 715 319 632 270 499 250 438
Japan 10 322 8 987 7 664 6 836 6 374 5736
Source: Australian Government Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2010, Student visa program trends, 2004-05 to 2010-1176
74 IIE 2011, Open Doors, Institute of International Education, USA, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors>.75 JSSO 2010, International Students in Japan 2010, Japan Student Services Organization (JSSO), Kanagawa, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.jasso.go.jp/statistics/intl_student/data10_e.html>.76 For the full report see: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/study/_pdf/student-visa-program-trends-2010-11.pdf
69
Research–industry linkagesBudgetary restraints and greater public accountability in government spending, coupled with growing demand for more tangible returns from Japan’s high-level of public investment in science and research, have led to an increased focus on commercialising research. This issue is also of growing interest in Australia.
The Japanese government’s New Growth Strategy explicitly views investment in developing new technologies as opening up ‘new frontiers’ for Japanese industry, resulting in Japan’s top universities and PROs becoming more focused on turning public science and research into commercial opportunities. The introduction of the Japanese version of the ‘Bayh-Dole Act’ in 1999,77 which facilitates a process by which private sector firms obtain licences for intellectual property generated by universities and PROs, has considerably assisted in attaining this goal78. The Australian Government has also launched several initiatives, such as the establishment of Commercialisation Australia, and the launching of a feasibility study on possible approaches for developing a research impact assessment mechanism to evaluate the wider benefits of publicly funded research.
Substantial Japanese private sector scientific research, particularly by its highly competitive MNCs, has long been driven by economic considerations to great success. With Australia and Japan both placing a higher priority on commercialising public funded scientific research, mutual benefits could be generated through identifying areas of complementary expertise. For instance, Australian businesses can learn from Japan’s success in moving up the value chain from low technology to high technology manufacturing, while also linking into Japanese MNCs’ supply chains, which are based on large numbers of small and medium enterprises, by exporting world-class Australian generated knowledge.
March 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunamiThe 2011 earthquake and tsunami that resulted in well over 20,000 dead or missing and over $200 billion in damaged property, has been a highly traumatic and disruptive event for Japan. In addition to the tragic loss of human life and great economic and social dislocation, science and research capabilities in the front line prefectures were also affected. The damage caused to the greater Tohoku region (mostly centred on the prefectures of Fukushima and Miyagi) and the associated radiation leak from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant, not only caused most education and research institutions across this region to be greatly affected in terms of staffing, enrolment and scheduling, a number of key science and research institutions also incurred substantial structural damage. Notably, many foreign researchers and students left Tohoku (and even Japan) immediately following the natural disaster, but
77 The 1980 Bayh-Dole Act permitted American universities to retain intellectual property ownership from publicly-funded research activities and, and where possible, to commercialize that knowledge through licensing to industry or to start-up companies. In Japan it is known as the Industrialization Revitalization Law or Sangyou Katsuryoku Saisei Tokubetsu Sochiko, Chp 3, Art. 30 to 33, Japanese Law No. 131 of 1999. Two other important legislative changes are the Law Promoting Technology Transfers from Academia (1996) and changing the legal status of national universities from government institutions to independent administrative entities (2004), thus enabling them to legally own the technologies and inventions they create. See R Nezu, et al. Also see T Takenaka, Technology Licensing and University Research in Japan, 2005, International Journal of Intellectual Property, pp. 27-36.78 This reform has caused an increase in the number of academic spin-off companies, through which intellectual property is being commercialised, increasing from 14 in 1995 to 138 in 2003. See M Kondo, ‘University-industry partnerships in Japan‘, 21st Century Innovation Systems for Japan and the United States, Lessons from a decade of change: Report of a Symposium, 2009, pp. 186-205, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12194&page=186>.
70
well-targeted government policies aimed at bringing back the 40% of Japan’s 175,000 international students who had left was highly successful with most tertiary institutions now back to normal operations.79 Tohoku University in the city of Sendai, the biggest university in the affected region (ranked as Japan’s 5th best university and particularly strong in materials science, engineering and biomedicine) is making a rapid return to normal operations following a determined rebuilding effort.
Further from the epicentre, the High-Energy Accelerator Research Organisation, at Tsukuba City in Ibaraki prefecture (Tsukuba being Japan’s foremost ‘science city’), also sustained significant damage, as did other important science facilities in that area, resulting in a number of short-term closures and disruptions as repairs continue to take place.
New research opportunities will ostensibly arise following expected official announcements from Japan’s recently created Reconstruction Agency, which will publicly signal where medium- and long-term reconstruction investment will be targeted (through allocating funds and deciding special zones), with several large Japanese MNCs already openly canvassing how they would build ‘smart cities’ in these areas. Japanese universities will not only be involved in these broader plans, but will also focus research efforts on the causes and effects, and the longer-term implications, of Japan’s most significant post-war natural disaster. In fact, some universities have already commenced a number of research programs directly related to the disaster and reconstruction efforts:
Tohoku University, which suffered substantial structural damage in the earthquake, has complemented its own reconstruction efforts with new research projects centred on restoration, including in fields such as engineering, medicine, economics, business;80
Waseda University has established an ‘Office for Aiding Reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake’, and has subsequently awarded over $320 000 for 17 projects on a wide-range of research topics relating to medicine and healthcare, infrastructure and disaster management, and urban planning and social design.81
New priorities in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan present some new opportunities for Australian science and research organisations. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), for example, will be collaborating with relevant agencies in Japan in the area of radiation protection and nuclear safety, specifically on dose assessment and remediation of contamination. More broadly however, the tragic events of 11 March 2011 have prompted a major re-evaluation of Japan’s energy requirements. This has resulted in renewable energies and the range of technologies essential for building eco-friendly ‘smart cities’ to enter the public debate (driven by both large firms such as Hitachi and civic groups) on how best to rebuild the Tohoku region and reduce Japan’s dependency on fossil fuels and nuclear energy.82 In light of this public discourse, it
79 See The Japan Times, 12 July 2011, ‘Foreign Students Back but Numbers Likely to Fall’, viewed 13 January 2012, <http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20110712zg.html>.80 K Suematsu, Japan’s Response to the March 11 Earthquake, Tsunami, and Fukushima Accident, 2011, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.jafsa.org/uploads/photos/806.pdf>.81 Waseda University 2011, Recovery aid research project, Office for Aiding Reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake, Waseda University, Japan, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/adv/wol-fukkou/en/project/base.htm>.82 A DeWit, ‘Fallout from the Fukushima Shock’, Japan Focus, 7 November 2011, viewed 13 January 2012, <http://japanfocus.org/-Andrew-DeWit/3645>.
71
seems apparent that science and research across a myriad of disciplines will underpin important elements of the planning and reconstruction stages that Japan’s Tohoku region will see in coming years.
72
4. Opportunities and ChallengesIn this chapter we highlight impediments to science and research collaboration between Australia and Japan, and opportunities for stimulating a higher level of collaboration between the two countries.
Key Findings
Key issues to address in strengthening the bilateral science and research relationship include the importance of researcher and student mobility, cross-organisational support, and the need for new and innovative forms of funding. Government therefore, in particular DIISRTE, can play a lead role by initiating a ‘systems approach’ that will build an enduring, strategic science and research relationship with Japan.
A systems level government approach may be seen as the most efficient way of facilitating both researcher-to-researcher links that build on complementary strengths and organisational linkages that target large-scale scientific challenges.
The limited degree of internationalisation in Japan’s research system and the tendency in Australia to overlook the advantages of partnering with Japan are policy challenges.
Furthering the science and research partnership with Japan requires government to government action including sending high-level delegations to Japan to signal Japan’s strategic importance; identifying and facilitating collaborative opportunities; and providing dedicated funding for strategic priorities and seed funding for projects that drive bilateral research collaboration.
4.1. Fostering a ‘culture’ of exchange
Long term science and research collaborations typically depend on two-way exchanges and value. While there is already a strong culture of international collaboration amongst science and research people and organisations throughout Australia, Japan does not feature strongly relative to the share of global science and research efforts it is presently undertaking. The key challenge for Australia – individuals, organisations and government – is therefore to foster a ‘culture’ of science and research engagement between Australia and Japan, whereby scientists and researchers regularly and routinely interact with colleagues in the other country.
The opportunities for strengthened science and research collaboration with Japan have three features:
realising potential – given the overall scale of science and research in Japan, and the quality of Japan’s science and research system, there is considerable untapped potential for strengthened collaboration;
working with Japan on internationalisation – given the policy priority in Japan to strengthen international science and research linkages, rewards for science and research people from other countries who help Japanese colleagues address this priority are likely to be substantial;
capitalising on complementary strengths – both countries have clear areas of research strength that could be of value to the other.
73
The range and scale of collaboration opportunities for Australian researchers are therefore substantial. These opportunities may be particularly valuable for Australian science and research, as Japan sits within a region of relatively rapid economic growth and associated science and research investment.
Based on the evidence provided in Chapter 3, fostering a ‘culture’ of science and research exchange between Australia and Japan will involve tackling the following impediments;
mobility – declining numbers of Japanese students studying abroad (including Australia) and the low numbers of Australians studying in Japan. Measures to increase student exchanges, as well as researcher mobility, can be expected to build a stronger foundation for future science and research collaboration;
organisational support – the relatively ‘passive’ approach taken towards collaboration with Japan by many science and research organisations, consistent with the relatively low frequency and scale of collaborations to date. The considerable effort required to build long-term international collaborations with peer scientists and organisations in other countries is usually sustained more successfully where enduring research relationships are built and reinforced at multiple levels – politically (Federal and State Government), organisationally (especially at Vice Chancellor/Chief Executive level), and individually (top scientists seeking out collaborators who can add value to their work);
funding systems – the limited awareness of funding systems in each others’ countries. Promoting more awareness of, and facilitating access to funding mechanisms in each others’ countries will be important for attracting science and research people who may otherwise choose a ‘path of least resistance’ when exploring options for collaboration;
seed funding – the lack of dedicated mechanisms for seeding new science and research collaborations with Japan. Seed funding can be used to signal priorities for international collaboration, by attracting science and research people who may otherwise face significant ‘start-up’ hurdles (e.g. costs of travel involved in identifying collaborative project opportunities before specific project funding is sought).
Addressing these impediments in a systematic way will take inevitably take time, and require concerted and sustained efforts from individuals, science and research organisations and governments.
4.2. Opportunities for government
Government leadership will play a critical role in fostering science and research collaboration between Australia and Japan, with DIISRTE performing a central role in managing Australia’s international science and research partnerships with priority partner countries, such as Japan, in fields of research that are of strategic importance to Australia. While individual initiatives may be initiated, managed and/or delivered at various levels within Australia’s science and research system, a systems view of the overall goal, progress and critical roles of the key players and their responsibilities will need to be maintained centrally in order to build an enduring and strategic science and research relationship with Japan. This is a pivotal role for the Department given its experience in priority setting and strategic relationship building with
74
Australia’s key international science partners. Science and research agreements can lay important foundations for future collaboration, but need to be followed up with practical action. Key mechanisms for further action by a central science and research coordinating agency such as DIISRTE might include;
information – providing access to information, from a range of sources in both Australia and Japan about collaboration opportunities and mechanisms for addressing these;
‘expert’ advice – providing advice based on first-hand experience of science and research organisations and processes in Japan, to help people without previous experience of science and research in Japan to get ‘up to speed’ quickly;
representation – promoting Australia’s science and research capabilities and collaboration opportunities to science and research organisations in Japan, in order to raise awareness and interest there so approaches from Australia are received more enthusiastically.
In addition to DIISRTE, several agencies at the federal level also have formal linkages with Japan, illustrating a broad base from which to build an enduring and strategic science and research relationship with Japan. These linkages – operating at ministerial, senior official and working levels – underpin stable, long-term relationships, facilitate active responses to specific needs, and provide a foundation for ‘bottom-up’ collaborations between individuals and organisations. State governments can also play an important role, particularly to support efforts by local universities and to sponsor specific regional initiatives. Coherence across these various government interests will be important for fostering a ‘culture’ of collaboration.
Active representation of Australian science and research interests in Japan is likely to require ‘on the ground’ capability, to build and sustain networks with key science and research organisations in Japan, collating and passing on information about relevant organisations and funding systems, interpreting key policy developments, and promoting distinctive strengths of Australia’s science and research teams and organisations.
Funding will be critical for catalysing an increased level and value of science and research collaboration between Australia and Japan. Funding may be provided through general instruments (e.g. competitive grant funding from the ARC and NHMRC) as well as strategic government to government initiatives.
4.3. Opportunities for science and research organisations
Science and research organisations – especially public research organisations and universities – play very important leadership roles by facilitating practical linkages for individuals and teams.
A key role for such organisations, in fostering a ‘culture’ of science and research collaboration, is active promotion of opportunities and potential benefits, such as;
gaining access to sophisticated infrastructure and facilities;
being included in large-scale and world-class research teams; and
75
improving the quality and influence (and associated recognition) of their research publications.
The mutual value of collaboration will generally increase with increasing scale and complexity of the science and research activities involved, as shown in chart 4.1. Science and research organisations can enable the aggregation of comprehensive science and research capability (that may be distributed across teams and organisations) to achieve the scale needed to collaborate effectively with Japanese counterparts, on common national and/or global-scale challenges.
76
Chart 4.1 Categories of international science and research collaboration
Source: CIE
Science and research organisations can facilitate linkages between teams in each country, to capitalise on the complementary areas of specialisation between Australia and Japan. The analysis provided in chapter 2 indicates that mutual benefit from collaboration is more likely to apply at the national level, than within individual science and research areas. In an area where Australia is relatively strong, Japan is likely to benefit disproportionately from collaboration, and vice versa. This is analogous to bilateral trade involving complementary industries, and is also an argument for the involvement of government in addition to increased strategic direction at the level of organisations.
Another key area of mutual interest is where excellent researchers from each country link in order to make more rapid progress in their particular research field. While this process tends to be organic, there is merit in maintaining an overview of such collaborations and their progress, as they are likely to increase the international profile of the collaboration (perhaps more so than of the researchers individually).
A systems approach that includes all the key government agencies working in tandem with the science and research players to facilitate multilevel linkages may therefore be required. Scientist-scientist linkages, which dominate current collaborations between Australia and Japan, will generally concentrate in the ‘complementary strengths’ and ‘networked eminence’ domains shown in chart 4.1. Organisation linkages will generally be important for facilitating collaborations targeting ‘common national challenges’ and ‘global scale challenges’.
77
Science and research organisations can also play an important role in linking teams and individuals into regional initiatives across the wider Asia region, where Japan is putting more emphasis. In particular, the focus of Japanese science and research organisations on building world-class strengths in the Asia region (especially with China and South Korea) may provide much more attractive collaboration opportunities for Australian science and research people, than those offered by Japan alone. Taking such a regional perspective will however require strategic leadership to identify and pursue options with the best long-term value. Existing collaborations will provide a good foundation, but proactive development of a limited number of these will be needed to build the critical scale and impact required to sustain an integral role in emerging multi-lateral priorities for the Asia region.
Perhaps the most important issue for science and research organisations seeking greater and higher-value collaboration with Japan will be demonstrating genuine commitment to potential Japanese partners. The combination of limited internationalisation of Japan’s overall science and research system, and the tendency by Australia to often overlook the potential benefits of science and research relationships with Japan represents a significant hurdle to overcome.
Demonstrating genuine commitment may require further initiatives that integrate symbolism and pragmatism, such as:
top-level delegation(s) – demonstrating a strategic interest in Japan’s science and research system and organisations, and practically identifying priority areas for further development;
targeted collaboration ‘events’ (such as topic-specific workshops) – identifying and facilitating medium- and long-term collaboration opportunities and priorities;
dedicated/reciprocal funding – incentivising and enabling new and/or more intensive collaboration in priority areas;
seed funding and mobility programs aimed at fostering and developing new relationships, particularly in the critical pre-research phase;
4.4. Opportunities for businesses
The key challenge for businesses in Australia seeking to expand science and research collaborations with Japan will be seizing opportunities aligned to efforts in Japan to strengthen business innovation and international competitiveness there. In particular, there may be significant potential through linking into Japanese efforts to stimulate university-industry linkages. Japanese business leaders are voicing increasing concern about a growing mismatch between the needs of industry and academe that is damaging Japan’s international competitiveness.83 This issue is also a concern in Australian policy.
Two avenues for building science and research collaborations at the business level may be identified:
commercialising developments from collaborative research – while Australian science and research organisations are actively pursuing commercialisation opportunities across various fronts, specific approaches may be needed to capitalise on
83 McNeill, D, ‘Japan’s Top Industrial and Academic Leaders Join in Effort to Stop Global Slide’, The Chronicle 25 January 2011, viewed 3 November 2011, <http://chronicle.com/article/Japans-Top-Industrial-and/126053/>.
78
opportunities emerging from collaborations with Japan. In particular, funding mechanisms for early-stage technology development in the two countries may need to be aligned;
fostering research linkages with major corporations – promoting distinctive research capabilities arising from collaboration, to complement ‘in-house’ capabilities of major corporations, may lead to new opportunities to link collaborative science and research to businesses. Existing research-business linkages in each country may provide a suitable starting point for such promotion activity.
Such business challenges may indeed be best tackled by businesses working with their science and research organisation partners (rather than directing such challenges at businesses alone). A subsidiary of an international company can act as a bridge to the innovation system in the country of its head office. In a similar way, a science and research organisation with collaborative linkages in another country can act as a bridge for collaboration with that country. The capabilities and reputation of science and research organisations can also be an important focal point for attracting potential new business investment in collaborative innovation activities. As science and research organisations deepen collaborative linkages, they should gain access to the business networks of their respective international partners and associated commercialisation opportunities. Strengthening connections to collaborative relationships by business groups – such as the Australia Japan Business Association84 and the Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry85 – could be valuable for improving awareness and understanding of opportunities, as well as for facilitating new connections and relationships.
4.5. Conclusion
Japan is at the forefront of world science and is a major knowledge producing country. Japan’s commitment to research and development, including through its long term policies and plans and investments, will ensure it retains a prominent place within the dynamic East Asian region and the global research and innovation network.
There are solid foundations on which to build efforts to define the next phase of science and research collaboration. Australia and Japan are trusted science partners, with formal science linkages spanning more than three decades since the signing of the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan on Co-operation in Research and Development in Science and Technology in 1980.
Japan’s significant science and research investments – in infrastructure and people – represent a rich resource for enhancing the scale and scope of Australia’s own science and research capabilities and performance. Similarly, the high quality of Australia’s science and research makes Australia an attractive collaboration partner for Japanese parties. In forging connections between our respective systems, measures to support the mobility of researchers between Australia and Japan will continue to be important.
84 Business.gov.au 2011, Australia Japan Business Association (AJBA), viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.business.gov.au/GBDirectory/A/Pages/AustraliaJapanBusinessAssociation(AJBA).aspx>.85 JCCI, Sydney Inc. 2011, Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Sydney Inc. (JCCI, Sydney Inc.), viewed 3 November 2011, <http://www.jcci.org.au/english/e.htm>.
79
As both Australia and Japan seek to increase the contribution of science and research to economic and social progress, there are significant opportunities for collaboration. An increasing focus on identifying successful models for research-industry links between Australia and Japan will be valuable for those on both sides who seek to expand the commercial potential of their own science and research efforts as well as broader utilisation outcomes.
Seizing these opportunities though is not without challenge – for governments, science and research organisations and businesses in both countries. Growing linkages at the rapid rate enjoyed with other regional partners will not be easy. A coordinated approach – integrating interests and resources across science and research organisations, business and governments will be vital.
80
5. Appendix AMapping of subject areas between Web of Science and Australia and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC)
ANZSRC WoS
Agricultural and veterinary sciences
Agriculture, dairy and animal science; Agriculture, multidisciplinary; Agronomy; Fisheries; Forestry; Horticulture; Plant sciences; Veterinary sciences
Biological sciences
Biochemical research methods; Biochemistry and molecular biology; Biology; Biology, miscellaneous; Biophysics; Biotechnology and applied microbiology; Cell biology; Cytology and histology; Developmental biology; Entomology; Evolutionary biology; Genetics and heredity; Immunology; Limnology; Marine and freshwater biology; Microbiology; Mycology; Ornithology; Parasitology; Physiology; Reproductive biology; Zoology
Built environment and design
Architecture; Construction and building technology; Ergonomics; Planning and development; Urban studies
Chemical sciences
Chemistry, analytical; Chemistry, applied; Chemistry, inorganic and nuclear; Chemistry, medicinal; Chemistry, Multidisciplinary; Chemistry, organic; Chemistry, physical; Electrochemistry; Materials science, characterisation and testing; Materials science, coatings and films; Materials science, multidisciplinary
Commerce, management, tourism and services
Business; Business, finance; Hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism; Industrial relations and labour; Management; Transportation
Earth sciences Crystallography; Geochemistry and geophysics; Geography, physical; Geology; Geosciences, multidisciplinary; Meteorology and atmospheric sciences; Mineralogy; Oceanography; Paleontology; Water resources
Economics Agricultural economics and policy; Economics
Education Education and educational research; Education, scientific disciplines; Education, special
Engineering Agricultural engineering; Energy and fuels; Engineering, aerospace; Engineering, biomedical; Engineering, chemical; Engineering, civil; Engineering, electrical and electronic; Engineering, environmental; Engineering, geological; Engineering, industrial; Engineering, manufacturing; Engineering, marine; Engineering, mechanical; Engineering, multidisciplinary; Engineering, ocean; Engineering, petroleum; Food science and technology; Materials science, biomaterials; Materials science, ceramics; Materials science, composites; Materials science, paper and wood; Materials science, textiles; Metallurgy and metallurgical engineering; Metallurgy and mining; Mining and mineral processing; Polymer science; Remote sensing; Robotics; Transportation science
81
and technology
Environmental sciences
Biodiversity conservation; ecology; environmental sciences; soil science
History and archaeology
Archaeology; History; History and philosophy of science; History of social sciences; Medieval and renaissance studies
Information and computing sciences
Automation and control systems; Computer science, artificial intelligence; Computer science,, cybernetics; Computer science, hardware and architecture; Computer science, information systems; Computer science, interdisciplinary applications; Computer science, software engineering; Computer science, theory and methods; Computer science; Information science and library science; Medical informatics; Telecommunications
Language, communication and culture
Asian studies; Communication; Cultural studies; Ethnic studies; Folklore; Language and linguistics; Linguistics; Literary reviews; Literary theory and criticism; Literature; Literature, African, Australian, Canadian; Literature, American; Literature, British Isles; Literature, German, Dutch, Scandinavian; Literature, Romance; Literature, Slavic
Law and legal studies
Law
Mathematical sciences
Mathematical and computational biology; Mathematics; Mathematics, applied; Mathematics, interdisciplinary applications; Operations research and management science; Statistics and probability
Medical and health sciences
Allergy; Anatomy and morphology; Andrology; Anesthesiology; Cardiac and cardiovascular systems; Cell and tissue engineering; Clinical neurology; Critical care medicine; Dentistry, oral surgery and medicine; Dermatology; Emergency medicine; Endocrinology and metabolism; Gastroenterology and hepatology; Geriatrics and gerontology; Gerontology; Health care sciences and services; Health policy and services; Hematology; Infectious diseases; Integrative and complementary medicine; Medicine, general and internal; Medicine, legal; Medicine, research and experimental; Neuroimaging; Neurosciences; Nursing; Nutrition and dietetics; Obstetrics and gynecology; Oncology; Ophthalmology; Orthopedics; Otorhinolaryngology; Pathology; Pediatrics; Peripheral vascular disease; Pharmacology and pharmacy; Primary health care; Psychiatry; Public, environmental and occupational health; Radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging; Rehabilitation; Respiratory system; Rheumatology; Sport sciences; Substance abuse; Surgery; Toxicology; Transplantation; Tropical medicine; Urology and nephrology; Virology; Medicine, miscellaneous
Multidisciplinary a
Multidisciplinary sciences
Philosophy and religious studies
Ethics; Medical ethics; Philosophy; Religion
82
Physical sciences
Acoustics; Astronomy and astrophysics; Imaging science and photographic technology; Instruments and instrumentation; Mechanics; Microscopy; Nuclear science and technology; Optics; Physics, applied; Physics, atomic, molecular and chemical; Physics, condensed matter; Physics, fluids and plasmas; Physics, mathematical; Physics, multidisciplinary; Physics, nuclear; Physics, particles and fields; Spectroscopy; Thermodynamics
Psychology and cognitive sciences
Behavioral sciences; Psychology; Psychology, applied; Psychology, biological; Psychology, clinical; Psychology, developmental; Psychology, educational; Psychology, experimental; Psychology, mathematical; Psychology, multidisciplinary; Psychology, psychoanalysis; Psychology, social
Studies in creative arts and writing
Art; Classics; Dance; Film, radio, television; Music; Poetry; Theater; Comp critical reviews
Studies in human society
Anthropology; Area studies; Criminology and penology; Demography; Environmental studies; Family studies; Geography; Humanities, multidisciplinary; International relations; Political science; Public administration; Social issues; Social sciences, biomedical; Social sciences, interdisciplinary; Social sciences, mathematical methods; Social work; Sociology; Women's studies
Technology Medical laboratory technology; Nanoscience and nanotechnology
83
6. Appendix BWhat determines the area distribution of joint publications between Australia and Japan?
The area distribution of joint publications is determined by the area distributions of publications in both countries. Simple ordinary linear regressions reveal the following relationship:
SAJi = 0.051 + 0.697SAi + 0.290SJi R2 = 0.859 (3.125) (1.713)
SAJi = -2.143 + 0.643SAi + 0.313SJi + 2.565QAi – 0.209QJi R2 = 0.868 (2.744) (1.794) (1.116) (-0.277)
where SAJi, SAi, SJi are shares of subject area i in the total joint publications, total Australian publications and total Japanese publications, respectively; and QAi and QJi are the relative impact of subject area i in Australian and Japanese publications, respectively. Numbers in parentheses are t-statistics for the corresponding coefficient above.
The regressions indicate that the publication influence of subject areas in either Australian or Japanese publications does not affect the distribution of subject areas in the joint publications between Australia and Japan, as evidenced by the low value of t-statistics for the two quality coefficients which are not statistically different from zero.
The subject area distribution of Australia’s publications has a higher influence on the subject area distribution of the joint publications (i.e. the coefficient of SAi has a higher value than that of SJi, and that it is statistically more significant). In the first regression, the coefficient of SAi is significant at the 1% level, while the coefficient of Sji is not significant at the 10% level. The coefficient of Sji becomes significant at 10% level when the two quality variables are included in the second regression.
84