, Volume 70, Issue 2, pp 491–518 | Cite as

Tracking techno-science networks: A case study of fuel cells and related hydrogen technology R&D in Norway

  • Antje Klitkou
  • Stian Nygaard
  • Martin Meyer


This study explores boundary-crossing networks in fuel-cell science and technology. We use the case of Norwegian fuel cell and related hydrogen research to explore techno-science networks. Standard bibliometric and patent indicators are presented. Then we explore different types of network maps — maps based on co-authorship, co-patenting and co-activity data. Different network configurations occur for each type of map. Actors reach different levels of prominence in the different maps, but most of them are active both in science and technology. This illustrates that to appreciate fully the range of science-technology interplay, all three analyses need to be taken into account.


Fuel Cell Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell European Patent Office Fuel Cell Technology Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Avadikyan, A., Cohendet, P., Heraud, J.-A. (2003), The Economic Dynamics of Fuel Cell Technologies. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Balconi, M., Laboranti, A. (2006), The role of academic centres of excellence in connecting university and industry: the case of microelectronics in Italy. Forthcoming in Research Policy.Google Scholar
  3. Bassecoulard, E., Zitt, M. (2004), Patents and publications: The lexical connection. In: Moed et al. (2004) pp. 665–694.Google Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya, S., Meyer, M. (2003), Large firms and the science/technology interface — patents, patent citations, and scientific output in thin films. Scientometrics, 58(2): 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattacharya, S., Kretschmer, H., Meyer, M. (2003), Characterizing intellectual spaces between science and technology. Scientometrics, 58(2): 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coward, H. R., Franklin, J. J. (1989), Identifying the science-technology interface — matching patent data to a bibliometric model. Science, Technology & Human Values, 14(1): 50–77.Google Scholar
  7. Engelsman, E. C., Van Raan, A. F. J. (1994), A patent-based cartography of technology. Research Policy, 23(1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz, H. (1983), Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva, 21(2–3): 198–233.Google Scholar
  9. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (1997), Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Pinter.Google Scholar
  10. Gittelman, M., Kogut, B. (2003), Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns, Management Science, 49(4): 366–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glänzel, W., Schlemmer, B., Schubert, A., Thijs, B. (2005), Proceeding literature as additional data source for bibliometric analysis. Paper presented at the ISSI 2005 — 10th International Conference of the ISSI, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  12. Glenisson, P., Glänzel, W., Persson, O. (2005), Combining full-text analysis and bibliometric indicators: a pilot study. Scientometrics, 63(1): 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Godø, H., Nerdrum, L., Rapmund, A., Nygaard, S. (2003), Innovation in Fuel Cells and Related Hydrogen Technology in Norway—OECD Case Study in the Energy Sector. NIFU, Oslo.Google Scholar
  14. Godoe, H., Nygaard, S. (2005), System failure, innovation policy and patents: Fuel cells and related hydrogen technology in Norway 1990–2002. Energy Policy, In Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, J., Kerr, R. (2003), Innovation dynamics and environmental technologies: the emergence of fuel cell technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11: 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hassan, E. (2003), Mapping the knowledge base for fuel cells: A bibliometric approach. Paper presented at the International Conference on Innovation in Energy Technologies, Washington, 2003.
  17. Hassan, E. (2005), The evolution of the knowledge structure of fuel cells. Scientometrics, 62: 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hullmann, A., Meyer, M. (2003), Publications and patents in nanotechnology. An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3): 507–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaloudis, A., Koch, P. M. (2004). De nœringsrettede instituttenes rolle i det fremtidige innovasjonssystemet. Oslo: NIFU STEP.Google Scholar
  20. Katz, J. S., Martin, B. R. (1997), What is research collaboration? Research Policy. 26: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leydesdorff, L. (2003), The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics. Scientometrics, 58(2): 445–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leydesdorff, L. (2004), The university-industry knowledge relationship: Analyzing patents and the science base of technologies. JASIST, 55(11): 991–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leydesdorff, L., Meyer, M. (2003), The triple helix of university-industry-government relations: A model for innovation in the ‘knowledge-based’ economy. Introduction to the Triple Helix special issue. Scientometrics, 58 (2): 191–203.Google Scholar
  24. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology & Human Values, 17: 101–126.Google Scholar
  25. Mahlck, P., Persson, O. (2000), Socio-bibliometric mapping of intra-departmental networks. Scientometrics, 49(1): 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Melin, G. (1996), The networking university. Scientometrics, 35: 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melin, G., Persson, O. (1998), Hotel cosmopolitan: A bibliometric study of collaboration at some European universities. JASIST, 49(1): 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Melin, G., Persson, O. (1996), Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3): 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Melin, G., Danell, R., Persson, O. (2000), A bibliometric mapping of the scientific landscape on Taiwan. Issues and Studies, 36(5): 61–82.Google Scholar
  30. Meyer, M. (2005), Inventor-Authors: Knowledge Integrators or Weak Links? An Exploratory Comparison of Co-active Researchers with Their Non-inventing Peers in Nano-science and Technology (Report Number 2005/1). Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo.Google Scholar
  31. Meyer, M., Bhattacharya, S. (2004), Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration: an exploration of co-invention and co-authorship analyses. Scientometrics, 61(3): 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer, M., Persson, O., Power, Y.; with Nanotechnology Expert Group and Eurotech Data (2002), Mapping Excellence in Nanotechnologies. Preparatory study for the European Commission, DG Research.Google Scholar
  33. Meyer, M., Siniläinen, T., Utecht, J. T. (2003), Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators — A study of university-related patents and a survey of inventors. Scientometrics, 58(2): 321–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer, M. S. (2001), Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics, 51(1): 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (Eds) (2004), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  36. Murray, F. (2002), Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy, 31(8–9): 1389–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murray, F., Stern, S. (2004), Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge? An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis. SPRU Conference in Honor of Keith Pavitt, Brighton.Google Scholar
  38. Mytelka, L. (2003), New Wave Technologies: Their Emergence, Diffusion and Impact. The Case of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology and the Developing World. Discussion Papers 3, United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies.Google Scholar
  39. Norges forskningsråd (2004), Årsrapport 2003. Forskningsinstituttene: Delrapport for de teknisk-industrielle institutter. Oslo: Norges forskningsråd.Google Scholar
  40. Noyons, E. C. M. (1999), Bibliometric Mapping as a Science Policy and Research Management Tool. Leiden University, Leiden.Google Scholar
  41. Noyons, E. C. M., Buter, R. K., Van Raan, A. F. J., Schmoch, U., Heinze, T., Hinze, S., Rangnow, R. (2004), Mapping Excellence in Science and Technology across Europe: Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  42. Noyons, E. C. M., Van Raan, A. F. J., Grupp, H., Schmoch, U. (1994), Exploring the science and technology interface — inventor author relations in laser medicine research, Research Policy, 23(4): 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nygaard, S. (2003), Innovation in Fuel Cells and Related Hydrogen Technology in Norway: Patents and Knowledge Interaction in a System of Innovation, TIK, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  44. Persson, O. (2001), All author citations versus first author citations. Scientometrics, 50(2): 339–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pilkington, A. (2004a), Inventive concentration in the production of green technology: A comparative analysis of fuel cell patents. Science and Public Policy, 31: 15–25.Google Scholar
  46. Pilkington, A. (2004b), Technology portfolio alignment commercialisation: An investigation of fuel cell patenting. Technovation, 24: 761–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rabeharisoa, V. (1992), A special mediation between science and technology: When inventors publish scientific articles in fuel cells research. In: Grupp, H. (Ed.), Dynamics of Science-Based Innovation, Springer Publishers, Berlin, pp. 45–72.Google Scholar
  48. Schmoch, U. (1997), Indicators and the relations between science and technology. Scientometrics, 38(1): 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmoch, U. (2004), The technological output of scientific institutions. In: Moed et al. (2004), pp. 717–731.Google Scholar
  50. Schummer, J. (2004), Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59: 425–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tijssen, R. J. W. (2004), Science-technology connections and interactions. In: Moed et al. (2004), pp. 695–715.Google Scholar
  52. Tijssen, R. J. W., Korevaar, J. C. (1997), Unravelling the cognitive and interorganisational structure of public/private R&D networks: A case study of catalysis research in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 25(8): 1277–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NIFU-STEP — Studies in Innovation, Research and EducationOsloNorway
  2. 2.Division of InnovationLund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.University of SussexSPRUBrightonUK
  4. 4.Institute of Strategy and International BusinessHelsinki University of TechnologyEspooFinland
  5. 5.Steunpunt O&O StatistiekenKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations