University-Industry Research Collaboration: Findings from the Individual Level

Barry Bozeman School of Public Affairs

College of Public Programs

Phoenix, AZ 85004-0685

bbozeman@asu.edu

Presentation to I/UCRC Evaluator Meeting

Arlington, VA, June 6, 2013

Acknowledgments

The research reported here is based on data developed in three projects supported by the National Science Foundation: “Assessing R and D Projects’ Impacts on Scientific and Technical Human Capital Development” (SBR 9818229, Barry Bozeman, PI); “Collaboration in University Research Centers (SBR 98-18229, Barry Bozeman, PI), Department of Energy Basic Energy Sciences “Research Value Mapping” (DE-FGO2-96ER455562, Barry Bozeman, PI) and “NSF CAREER: University Determinants of Women’s Academic Career Success” (REC-0710836, Monica Gaughan, PI) and. The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Collaboration Studies: Past, Present, Future

• Past: Collaboration Strategies and

University-Industry Collaboration

• Present: Collaboration Outcomes

and “Nightmare Collaborations”

What is Research Collaboration?

• Organizational level: university-industry, public and

private laboratory, multiple institutions.

• Individual level: co-authors, knowledge producers and other research enablers (lab assistants, technicians).

• “Mixed”: collaboration patterns of individuals from different institutional settings.

Different approaches to Studying

Individual Level Collaboration

1. Publications based (e.g. Lee and Bozeman,

2005) or patents based (e.g. Dietz and

Bozeman, 2006).

2. CV-based (e.g. Gaughan and Bozeman, 2002).

3. Questionnaire Based (e.g. Bozeman and

Corley, 2004; Bozeman, 2010).

The Data:

Survey of Academic Researchers

• Questionnaire data supplemented with CV data and website data (2004-2005, supplemented in 2009).

• Questionnaire sent to 4,916 targets, yielding 1,794 respondents after three waves of administration (adjusted response: 37%).

• Our target population was tenured and tenure track STEM faculty members in Carnegie research extensive (Research I) universities.

• Women were over-sampled. Results reported here either employ statistical weights or statistical controls for sex.

The Data: “Collaboration Ethics and Practices”

• 77 semi-structured interviews with university researchers

• N= 641 University Researchers in “Research I,” Carnegie Extensive Universities. Stratified sample (by field, gender).

• On-Line questionnaire and bibliometric analysis. • Focus on “most recently published” article

– Provides anchor – Assuming randomness, gives good indication of incidence and

propensities

• Also questions about career experiences in collaboration.

Question 1: Who Does NOT Collaborate?

Answer: Nearly Everyone Collaborates at Some Point

(98% for Tenured STEM faculty), but:

Not everyone spends the same amount of

time collaborating.

Explaining Percentage of Time Working Alone

The Loners: Oldest cohort, math/computer field, untenured, and…male. NOT research center affiliate,

Question 2: Who are the “Cosmopolitan” Collaborators?

• Physicists and chemists

• Lower percentage of time teaching

• Higher percentage of time grants supported

• Male

What does Cosmopolitan mean???

Who are the “Cosmopolitan” Collaborators?

Who are the “Cosmopolitan” Collaborators?

Male

Higher percentage of time grants supported

Lower percentage of time teaching

Physicists and chemists

Collaboration Criterion Scale Scale Origin: Bozeman

and Corley, 2004)

Note: Men and Women Differ

Findings Related to Research

Centers

Measurement: University Research

Center

• URC Affiliation: responses to questionnaire item, member of center with at least 10 researchers, at least two disciplines, not part of on academic department.

• Questionnaire responses AND audited by website check.

• About 32% affiliated with URC

Measurement: Industrial Involvement Scale

• Responses to questionnaire items about types of industrial involvement (e.g. patenting, working at a business, collaborating on article).

• Weighted, additive scale, with weights based on the residual (e.g. if 10% patent, score value 90; if 30% exchange research, score value 70).

– Applications of scale: Lin and Bozeman, 2007; Boardman, 2009; Bozeman

and Gaughan, 2007; Boardman and Ponomariov, 2011

Items for Industrial Involvement Scale (Bozeman and Gaughan, 2007)

Findings: Number of Collaborators

Findings: Number of Collaborators, by Sex

Men and women share predictors: • being grant active • affiliating with a multidisciplinary URC • greater industrial involvement. • following a mentoring strategy

Men experience collaboration gains via three collaboration strategies: Instrumental, Experience and Mentoring. With women, gains only with Mentoring strategy.

Current Study: Bad Collaborations

• What do researchers think of as “bad” or

“good” collaboration?

• Do early bad experiences have long range

effects on careers and propensity to

collaborate?

• When the weak are exploited (e.g. not

credited, insufficiently rewarded) what

conditions encourage exploitation?

• Ghost authors in STEM.

( Inexact) Estimate of Percentage of Articles

including Industry Co-Author

Revised Estimate:

Approximately

9%

Discipline Group % Including Industry Co-Author

Math, Computer Science 9.8%

Economics 5.6%

Biology 8.3%

Physics and Chemistry 4.1%

Engineering 19.4%

Propensity to Include at Industry Co-Author,

by Discipline Grouping

Is there a Gender Gap?

Bad Collaboration Outcomes

No Yes

Some DESERVED co-authorship, did not receive

91.5% 8.5%

Someone DID NOT DESERVE co-authorship but received it

97.3% 2.7%

A co-author made NO contribution at all

98.5% 1.5%

Bad Collaboration Outcomes

Tau Correlation with Industry Co-Author

Some DESERVED co-authorship, did not receive

Not Significant

Someone DID NOT DESERVE co-authorship but received it

Not Significant

A co-author made NO contribution at all

-.147

Collaborations with Industry LESS likely to

have Ghost Authors