Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital

By Barry Bozeman, Elizabeth A. Corley. 2004

973 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Management of Technology and Innovation, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/23c953bebd0040d2f3b52f6db135e58d958cc936

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

International Scientist Mobility and the Locus of Knowledge and Technology Transfer (2011, methodology): “Our theoretical reasoning is guided by the scientific and technical human capital approach (e.g. Bozeman et al., 2001; Bozeman and Corley, 2004; Boardman, 2009; Ponomariov and Boardman, 2010).”
Does Co‐authorship Lead to Higher Academic Productivity? (2015, neutral): “This raises an interesting question: why is the effect of co-authorship not always unambiguously 1 Ubfal and Maffioli (2011), Bozeman and Corley (2004) and Lee and Bozeman (2005), Defazio, Lockett and Wright (2009) find a positive relationship between research grants and intellectual collaboration.”
Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects (2012, background): “of disciplinary knowledge, to the specific characteristics and idiosyncrasies of existing formal and informal research networks and alliances [9-10].”
Chinese researchers returning home: Impacts of international mobility on research collaboration and scientific productivity (2008, background): “…a data source for the evaluation of research programs [GAUGHAN & BOZEMAN, 2002; GAUGHAN & AL., 2007; CAÑIBANO & AL., 2006] , the study of scientific mobility [LAUDEL, 2003; BOZEMAN & CORLEY, 2004] and career development [DIETZ & AL., 2000; DIETZ, 2004; DIETZ & BOZEMAN, 2005; LEE & BOZEMAN, 2005].”
Deepening our understanding of academic inbreeding effects on research information exchange and scientific output: new insights for academic based research (2013, positive): “As shown in Table 3, on average, faculty tends to exchange more information within the university, something which is expected (see Bozeman and Corley 2004).”
Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital☆ (2010, background): “…(Katz and Martin, 1997), other studies operationalize research collaboration using survey responses focused on self-reports of time allocation (Bozeman and Corley, 2004) insofar that not all collaboration, especially that between university and industry scientists, result in publications.”
Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry (2014, background): “The complexity of scientific problems and the required investments (time, expertise, and materials) to solve them dramatically increased within the last decades and necessitated the breaking of new grounds in external collaboration (Bozeman and Corley 2004).”
Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit (2012, background): “The authors focus either on PRO (e.g., Melin, 2000; Bozeman and Corley, 2004; Eun, et al. 2006; D’Este and Patel, 2007; Boardman and Ponomariov, 2009; Göransson, et al. 2009; D’Este and Perkmann, 2010; Wigren et al, 2011) or on the perspective of firms (e.”
Formal and Informal Knowledge and Technology Transfer from Academia to Industry: Complementarity Effects and Innovation Performance (2013, methodology): “Another theoretical approach which adopts the perspective of the individual scientist and that may consequently help explaining formal and informal modes of transfer is the scientific and technical human capital approach (Bozeman and Corley, 2004; Ponomariov and Boardman, 2010).”