References of "International Perspectives on Education & Society"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe European Center of Science Productivity: Research Universities and Institutes in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom
Powell, Justin J W UL; Dusdal, Jennifer UL

in International Perspectives on Education & Society (2017), 33

Growth in scientific productivity over the 20th century resulted significantly from three major countries in European science—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. We chart the development of ... [more ▼]

Growth in scientific productivity over the 20th century resulted significantly from three major countries in European science—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. We chart the development of universities and research institutes that bolster Europe’s key position in global science. We uncover both stable and dynamic patterns of productivity in the fields of STEM, including health, over the twentieth century. On-going internationalization of higher education and science has been accompanied by increasing competition and collaboration. Despite policy goals to foster innovation and expand research capacity, policies cannot fully account for the differential growth of scientific productivity we chart from 1975 to 2010. Our neoinstitutional framework facilitates explanation of differences in institutional settings, organizational forms, and organizations that produce the most European research. We measure growth of published peer-reviewed articles indexed in Thomson Reuters’ Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Organizational forms vary in their contributions, with universities accounting for nearly half but rising in France; ultrastable in Germany at four-fifths, and growing at around two-thirds in the UK. Differing institutionalization pathways created the conditions necessary for continuous, but varying growth in scientific productivity in the European center of global science. The research university is central in all three countries, and we identify organizations leading in research output. Few analyses explicitly compare across time, space, and different levels of analysis. We show how important European science has been to overall global science productivity. In-depth comparisons, especially the organizational fields and forms in which science is produced, are crucial if policy is to support research and development. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 166 (37 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe Worldwide Triumph of the Research University and Globalizing Science
Powell, Justin J W UL; Fernandez, Frank; Crist, John T. et al

in International Perspectives on Education & Society (2017), 33

This chapter provides an overview of the findings and chapters of volume 33 in the International Perspectives on Education and Society (IPES) series. It describes the common dataset and methods used by an ... [more ▼]

This chapter provides an overview of the findings and chapters of volume 33 in the International Perspectives on Education and Society (IPES) series. It describes the common dataset and methods used by an international research team. The chapter synthesizes the results of a series of country-level case studies and cross-national and regional comparisons on the growth of scientific research from 1900 until 2011. Additionally, the chapter provides a quantitative analysis of global trends in scientific, peer-reviewed publishing over the same period. The introduction identifies common themes that emerged across the case studies examined in-depth during the multi-year research project Science Productivity, Higher Education, Research Development and the Knowledge Society (SPHERE). First, universities have long been and increasingly are the primary organizations in science production around the globe. Second, the chapters describe in-country and cross-country patterns of competition and collaboration in scientific publications. Third, the chapters describe the national policy environments and institutionalized organizational forms that fostered scientific research. The introduction reviews selected findings and limitations of previous bibliometric studies and explains that the chapters in the volume overcome these limitations by applying neo-institutional theoretical frameworks to analyze bibliometric data over an extensive period. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 171 (26 UL)