Author Details

Affiliations
1 Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research, CSIR-National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies Campus, Pusa Gate, K.S. Krishnan Marg, New Delhi 110 012, IN

Source

Current Science, Vol 113, No 09 (2017), Pagination: 1668-1674

Abstract

Water scarcity and quality are among the key challenges of the 21st century. Compelling necessity to address this problem has led to the emergence of various types of international collaboration. India is one of the countries seriously affected by water scarcity and quality. International collaboration has emerged as an important component of India’s strategy for mitigating the water-related challenges. One of the key linkages in India’s international cooperation in water sciences is observed with France. This cooperation has led to the establishment of two joint laboratories: Indo-French Centre for Groundwater Research and Indo-French Cell for Water Sciences.

The present study examines the structure of this research cooperation through co-authorship analysis. Analysis over a period of time showed that authors from the two laboratories played a key role in developing the network. The importance of this network is also discussed.

Keywords

Co-Authorship Network, International Collaboration, Research Dynamics, Social Network Analysis, Water Sciences.

Full Text

References

OECD, Environmental Outlook to 2050: the consequences of inaction, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, 2012.

FAO, How to feed the world in 2050, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

The Economist, 5–11 November 2016, p. 10.

United Nations Division of Sustainable Development.

http://www.globalwaterresearchcoalition.net/

http://www.svensktvatten.se/forskning/the-swedish-water-platform/eu-plattform-for-samarbete-wsstp/

Adams, J., Gurney, K. and Marshall, S., Patterns of international collaboration for the UK and leading partners. Report commissioned by the Office of Science and Innovation, Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, London, 2007, p. 27.

Leydesdorff, L. and Wagner, C. S., International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. J. Informetr., 2008, 2(4), 317–325.

King, C., Multiauthor papers: onward and upward. Sci. Watch, 2012, 23, 1–2.

Bhattacharya, S. and Shilpa, Capturing the growth dynamics of science: a publication-based analysis. Curr. Sci., 2016, 110(8), 1419–1425.

Knowledge, Network and Nations, Royal Society Publishing, UK, 2011.

Malerba, F., Sectoral systems of innovation: a framework for linking innovation to the knowledge base, structure and dynamics of sectors. Econ. Innov. New Technol., 2005, 14(1–2), 63–82.

Bhattacharya, S., Kaul, A., Shilpa and Sharma, P., Role of bilateral institution in influencing collaboration: case study of CEFIPRA – a bilateral S&T institution established by India and France. Scientometrics, 2015, 102(1), 169–194.

Bhattacharya, S., Sharma, P., Shilpa, Kaul, A., Nokleyangla and Ahmed, F. A., CEFIPRA 25: strengthening bilateral collaboration and cooperation in science, technology and innovation between India and France. Study conducted by CSIR-NISTADS for CEFIPRA.

Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L. and Sompel, H. V., Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Inform. Process. Manage., 2005, 41, 1462–1480.

Vidgen, R., Henneberg, S. and Naude, P., What sort of community is the European Conference on Information Systems? A social network analysis 1993–2005. Eur. J. Inf. Syst., 2007, 16(1), 5–19.

https://sites.google.com/site/ucinetsoftware/home

https://sites.google.com/site/netdrawsoftware/download

Scott, J., Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, Sage Publications, Cambridge, UK, 2000.

Kretschmer, H., Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks and visibility on the Web. Scientometrics, 2004, 60(3), 409–420.

Burt, R. S., Autonomy in a social topology. Am. J. Sociol., 1980, 85, 892–925.

Freeman, L. C., Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarification. Soc. Networks, 1979, 1, 215–239.

Borgatti, S. P., Centrality and network flow. Soc. Networks, 2005, 27, 55–71.

http://www.ambafrance-in.org/Indo-French-Water-Network-launch

Bhattacharya, S. and Shilpa, Bilateral S&T organisation as an innovation intermediary: case study of Indo-French Cell for Water Sciences. In Paper presented at the National Conference on Science, Technology, and Innovation in Manufacturing, India International Centre, New Delhi, 15 October 2015.

Science and Innovation in the 21st Century:New Paradigms and Challenges for Policy Design

Abstract Views :278 | PDF Views:74

Authors

Sujit Bhattacharya ¹

Affiliations
1 CSIRNational Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies, and Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research, NISTADS Campus, K.S. Krishnan Marg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110 012, IN

Source

Current Science, Vol 118, No 3 (2020), Pagination: 348-349

Abstract

Responsible innovation, entrepreneurial university, translation gap, valley of death, sustainability, risk, regulation and governance broadly encompass the oeuvre of innovation studies, and are becoming ubiquitous concepts in the debate on science, technology and innovation (STI). Close reading of the literature shows distinct strands of research within this domain; lack of convergence in terms of conceptual framework leading to articulation of different models for conduct and governance of science and technology (S&T). The persistent selective framing of innovation is leading to considerable bias in the way we theorize and define innovation, resulting in articulation of weak policy frameworks. This note draws attention to two dominant strands of scholarship within innovation studies, one influenced by economic thinking and the other STS (science– technology–society studies) to make the above claim. Keeping this as the basis of argument, the note posits that this divergence is creating impediments in developing successful models for translation of S&T for socio-economic benefits. Thus it calls for exploring and exploiting models that can build convergence between the different strands of innovation research. In this context, it draws attention to the promising possibilities of the ‘post-normal science’ thesis to show this as one of the useful analytical frameworks in the contemporary context.

Full Text

References

Tidd, J., Discussion paper, Tanaka Business School, Imperial College, London, UK, 2006; http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.8227&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Huggins, R. and Izushi, H., Competing for Knowledge: Creating, Connecting and Growing, Routledge, New York, USA, 2007.

Bush, V., Science, the Endless Frontier, United States Office of Scientific Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA, 1945, 2nd edn.

Kline, S. J. and Rosenberg, N., In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing technology for Economic Growth (eds Rosenberg, N. and Landau, A.), The National Academic Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1986.

Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. J., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1982.

Edquest, C., In Lead paper presented at the DRUID Conference, Aalborg, Denmark, 12–15 June 2001.

Lundvall, B.-Å. (ed.), National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London, UK, 1992.

Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdroff, L., Res. Policy, 2000, 29(2), 109–121.

Pinch, T. J. and Bijker, W. E., In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (eds Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Trevor, J. P.), The MIT Press, London, UK, 1987.

May, C. and Sell, S. K., Intellectual Property Rights: A Critical History, Viva Books, New Delhi, 2008, pp. 187–188.

Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. R., Futures, 1993, 25, 735–755.

BecK, U., Econ. Soc., 2006, 35(3), 329– 345.

Giddens, A., The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990.

Wynne, B., In Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology (eds Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. and Wynne, B.), SAGE, London, UK, 1996, pp. 44–83.

Guston, D. H. and Sarewitz, D., Technol. Soc., 2002, 24(1–2), 93–109.

Schot, J. and Rip, A., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 1997, 54(2-3), 251–268.

Ravetz, J. R., Ecol. Complex., 2006, 3(4), 275–284.

Petersen, A. C., Cath, A., Hage, M., Kunseler, E. and van der Sluijs, J. P., Sci. Technol. Hum. Values, 2011, 36(3), 362–388.

Username
Password
Remember me