Co-authorship Networks in Development of Solar Cell Technology: International and Regional Knowledge Interaction

  • Katarina LarsenEmail author
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


This paper examines the development of new science-based technology in the research area of nanostructured solar cells development – a science-based technology with potential for advancing renewable energy technology. As for other research areas, the production of new scientific knowledge in this particular field is not evenly spread across all geographic regions. Rather, scientific knowledge production and science-based innovation activities take place in regional nodes that often are located in metropolitan areas with a strong academic research ability and competitive private research and development. Another character of scientific knowledge production undertaken at universities is that one node (or location) of knowledge production within a certain field is connected to other locations through joint research initiatives, collaboration on technical development and mobility of researchers. In areas where advances in science-based technology are published in scientific journals, this interaction and exchange of knowledge can be analyzed through studies of the researchers’ joint publications. These two aspects (concentration of scientific knowledge production and knowledge networks between locations) motivate a regional dimension in studies of science-based technology and innovation. The focus on the regional context also incorporates the notion of cross-regional knowledge networks and mechanisms of knowledge transfer. The regional dimension is also in the core of studies in the area of geography of innovation, following the early work on geographically mediated knowledge spillovers (Jaffe 1989; Acs et al. 1991). Studies of knowledge networks have also examined the effects of knowledge spillovers in science-based technology fields (Owen-Smith and Powell 2004). This paper focuses on examining the mechanisms by which science-based technical knowledge is transferred and applies a regional lens to measures of scientific output, impact and structure. This leads to the following three components of the introduction. First, discussing some central aspects in previous work in studies of knowledge spillovers, then drawing on experiences from studies of science-based knowledge networks, and finally, outlining the scope of the study.


Social Network Analysis Research Output Science Citation Index Knowledge Spillover Knowledge Network 
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.


  1. Acs ZA, Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1994) R&D spillovers and innovative activity. Manage Decision Econ 15(2):131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1991) Real effects of academic research: Comment. Am Econ Rev 82(1):363–367Google Scholar
  3. Aksnes DW (2003) Characteristics of highly cited papers. Res Eval 12(3):157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson ÅE, Persson O (1993) Networking Scientists. Annals Reg Sci 27(1):11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anselin L, Varga A, Acs ZJ (2000) Geographic and sectoral characteristics of academic knowledge externalities. Paper Reg Sci 79:435–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnall HA (2003) Future technologies, today’s choices: Nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics; a technical, political and institutional map of emerging technologies. Greenpeace Environmental Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch DB, Bozeman B, Combs KL, Feldman MP, Link AN, Siegel DS, Stephan P, Tassey G, Wessner C (2002) The economics of science and technology. J Technol Transfer 27:155–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86(3):630–640Google Scholar
  9. Beckman M (1993) The case of scientific interaction at a distance. Ann Reg Sci 27(1):5–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beckman M (1994) On knowledge networks in science: collaboration among equals. Ann Reg Sci 28:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braun T, Schubert A, Zsindely S (1997) Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics 38(2):321–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calero C, Buter R, Cabello Valdés C, Noyons E (2006) How to identify research groups using publication analysis: an example in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics 66(2):365–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen C (2005) CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 57(3):359–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen C, Hicks D (2004) Tracing knowledge diffusion. Scientometrics 59(2):199–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Danell R, Persson O (2003) Regional R&D activities and interactions in the Swedish Triple Helix. Scientometrics 58(2):205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Darby MR, Zucker LG (2003) Grilichesian breakthroughs: Inventions of methods of inventing and firm entry in nanotechnology, NBER working paper 9825, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  17. David PA, Keely LC (2003) The economics of scientific research coalitions: collaborative network formation in the presence of multiple funding agencies. In: Geuna A, Salter A, Steinmueller EW (eds) Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham-NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  18. EC (2000) Towards a European research area. Brussels, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  19. EC (2003) COM (2003)131FINAL: Developing an action plan for environmental technology. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  20. ESRC (2003)The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Report by Wood S, Jones R, Geldart A, ISBN 086226-294-1. The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UKGoogle Scholar
  21. EU (2005) Nanotechnology, (Accessed 4 August 2005)
  22. Feldman MP (1999) The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: A review of empirical studies. Econ Innov New Technol 8:5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feldman MP (2001) Where science comes to life: university bioscience, commercial spin-offs, and regional development. J Comp Pol Anal: Res Practice 2:345–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feldman MP, Audretsch DP (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 43:409–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gauffriau M, Olesen Larsen P (2005) Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies. Scientometrics 64(1):85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glänzel W, Schubert A (2001) Double effort = Double impact? A critical view of international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientomentrics 50(2):199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Godø H, Nedrum L, Rapmund A, Nygaard S (2003) Innovations in fuel cells and related hydrogen technology in Norway – OECD case study in the energy sector, NIFU report 35/2003Google Scholar
  28. Hagfeldt A, Gratzel M (1994) Light induced redox reactions in nanocrystalline systems. Chem Rev 95:49–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hagedoorn J, Link AN, Vonortas NS (2000) Research partnerships. Res Pol 29:567–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hicks D, Tomizawa H, Saitoh Y, Kobayashi S (2004) Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States. Res Eval 13(2):78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hicks D, Katz S (1997) The changing shape of British industrial research. STEEP Special Report No. 6, SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research, University of SussexGoogle Scholar
  32. Heinze T (2006) Emergence of nano S&T in Germany. Network formation and company performance. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Discussion Paper No. 7/2006, ISSN 1612-1430Google Scholar
  33. IVA (2004) Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences’ seminar on Swedish nanotechnology, 16 March 2004Google Scholar
  34. Jacobsson S, Andersson BA, Bångens L (2001) Transforming the energy system – the evolution of the German technological system for solar cells. SPRU electronic Working Paper Series, No. 84, SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research, University of SussexGoogle Scholar
  35. Jaffe AB (1989) Real effects of academic research. Am Econ Rev 79:957–970Google Scholar
  36. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic loclisation of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q J Econ 108:577–598Google Scholar
  37. Jakélius S (2001) Clean technologies for sustainable development. In: Silveira S (ed) Building sustainable energy systems: Swedish Experiences. Svensk Byggtjänst and Swedish National Energy Administration, Stockholm, pp 267–300Google Scholar
  38. Karlsson C, Manduchi A (2001) Knowledge spillovers in a spatial context – A critical review and assessment. In: Fischer MM, Fröhlich J (eds) Knowledge complexity and innovation systems. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Katz JS (1994) Geographic proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics 31:31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Larsen K (2008) Knowledge network hubs and measures of research impact, science structure, and publication output in nanostructured solar cell research. Scientometrics 74(1):123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Larsen K (2003) Research assessment criteria and university–industry links in the social contract of ‘applicable’ science – Experiences from funding of biomedical science and strategic environmental research in Sweden and the UK, presented at conference in honour of Keith Pavitt: What do we know about innovation? Organised by SPRU – Science and Technology Policy, University of Sussex, England, 13–15th November 2003Google Scholar
  42. Law M, Greene LE, Johnson JC, Saykally R, Yang P (2005) Nanowire dye-sensitized solar cells. Nat Mater 4:455–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leydesdorff L, Zhou P (2005) Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometrics 63(3):617–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Melin G, Persson O (1996) Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics 36(3):363–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meyer M (2000a) Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Res Pol 29:409–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meyer M (2000) What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics 49(1):93–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meyer M (2000) Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics 51(1):163–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meyer M, Persson O (1998) Nanotechnology – interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics 42(2):195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Newman MEJ (2001) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(2):404–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. NNI (2005) National Nano Initiative in the US. (Accessed 4 August 2005)
  51. OECD (2003) STI Scoreboard 2003. OECD, Paris, pp 44–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Regan B, Gratzel M (1991) A low-cost, high efficiency solar-cell based on dye-sensitized colloidal TiO2 films. Nature 353(6346):737–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2004) Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organ Sci 15(1):5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pavitt K (1998) Do patents reflect the useful output of universities? Res Eval 7(2):105–111Google Scholar
  55. Powell WW, Koput WK, Smith-Doerr L, Owen-Smith J (1999) Network position and firm performance: Organizational returns to collaboration in the biotechnology industry. Res Sociol Organ 16:129–159Google Scholar
  56. Powell WW, Koput WK, Smith-Doerr L, Owen-Smith J (2005) Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Am J Sociol 110(4):1132–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Royal Society (2003) Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, (Accessed 4 August, 2005)
  58. Schummer J (2004) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59(3):425–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Silveira S (ed) (2001) Building sustainable energy systems: Swedish experiences. Svensk Byggtjänst and Swedish National Energy Administration, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  60. Small H (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inform Sci 24(4):265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. STEM (2004) El från solen – energi och industri i Sverige [Electricity from the sun–energy and industry in Sweden]. Swedish National Energy AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  62. Tijssen RJW (1991) A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: co-classification analysis of energy research. Res Pol 21:27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Varga A (2000) Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity. J Reg Sci 40:289–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KTH - The Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations