Login | Register

Canadian Nanotechnology and Equity Challenges: Implications for Pro-Poor and Gender-Inclusive Policy

Title:

Canadian Nanotechnology and Equity Challenges: Implications for Pro-Poor and Gender-Inclusive Policy

Ghiasi Hafezi, Gita ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8296-6674 (2018) Canadian Nanotechnology and Equity Challenges: Implications for Pro-Poor and Gender-Inclusive Policy. PhD thesis, Concordia University.

This is the latest version of this item.

[img]
Preview
Text (application/pdf)
Ghiasi-Hafezi_PhD_S2018.pdf - Accepted Version
4MB

Abstract

Nanotechnology has been hailed as a disruptive technology that would revolutionize existing products and processes, open up new markets and business opportunities, as well as offer socio-economic benefits. Research and development (R&D) in this emerging technology presents great importance to many nations, offering a significant technological advantage that gears towards economic growth. However, despite the immense promise of societal benefits from nanotechnology applications, nanotechnology might expose societies to various forms of inequities. The main objective of this thesis is to examine two priority dimensions of equity concerns related to nanotechnology: the lack of R&D for nanotechnology applications that (predominantly) benefit developing nations (pro-poor R&D) and the scant representation of women in nanotechnology fields. This study adopts a combined use of bibliometrics, social network analysis, and survey results to perform both dimensional and cross-dimensional analysis, providing a better understanding of both issues and of how the two are related. The focus of this study is on Canada, a country who prioritizes nanotechnology research and development in its science and technology strategy, and actively practices gender fairness in the scientific system and is strongly involved in international development through its R&D efforts.
The findings reveal that only a narrow spectrum of Canadian nanotechnology articles and patents reflect pro-poor priorities, and acknowledge the importance of promoting and leading research and innovation in pro-poor areas, as it holds the potential to promote the economic development both within and between nations. However, these pro-poor scientific and innovative efforts tend to be highly male-dominated in terms of the scientific community and the workforce involved. Gender differences in citation and journal impact of papers published in the nano-pro-poor applications reveal the presence of the Matilda effect at the level of first-authorship and a strong selection effect at the level of last-authorship for women. While the majority of male authors and male inventors collaborate exclusively with men, those involved in a mixed-gender team outperform male-only teams. Therefore, it is important that policymakers pay attention to both gender and pro-poor initiatives simultaneously, because practices to promote pro-poor innovation might result in a wider gender gap and adversely affect social development. Furthermore, gender analysis of nanotechnology scientific reward system confirms that the gender productivity gap remains a challenge in the field and that these gaps are reinforced by the fact that the most productive researchers are less likely to collaborate with women. The results also show the amount of extra effort that women must devote to their research to retain their top status in academia, and the extent that their recognition when in top positions is fragile compared to men. This study also confirms the cumulative advantage of creating a gender-inclusive culture that enables women to improve their scientific productivity and impact. The results of this study have strong implications for policy development (or reform) targeting both gender equality and poverty alleviation in emerging interdisciplinary areas, promoting a more equitable and inclusive society.

Divisions:Concordia University > Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science > Mechanical, Industrial and Aerospace Engineering
Item Type:Thesis (PhD)
Authors:Ghiasi Hafezi, Gita
Institution:Concordia University
Degree Name:Ph. D.
Program:Industrial Engineering
Date:February 2018
Thesis Supervisor(s):Harsh, Matthew and Schiffauerova, Andrea
Keywords:Nanotechnology; Gender; Pro-poor; Bibliometrics; Social network analysis; Scientific award
ID Code:983792
Deposited By: GITA GHIASI HAFEZI
Deposited On:05 Jun 2018 14:17
Last Modified:05 Jun 2018 14:17

References:

Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., Uddin, S., & Rasmussen, K. J. (2011). ‘Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: multi-levels and cross-time analysis’, Scientometrics, 89/2: 687–710.
Ackers, L. (2004). ‘Managing relationships in peripatetic careers: Scientific mobility in the European Union’. Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 27, pp. 189–201. Elsevier.
Aksnes, D. W. (2003). ‘Characteristics of highly cited papers’, Research Evaluation, 12/3: 159–170.
Alberta Advanced Education and Technology. (2007). Alberta nanotechnology strategy: [unleashing Alberta’s potential]. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Advanced Education and Technology.
Astin, H. S., & Davis, D. E. (1985). ‘Research productivity across the life and career cycles: Facilitators and barriers for women’, Scholarly writing and publishing: Issues, problems and solutions, 147–160.
AUCC. (2006). ‘Highlighting the impacts of North–South research collaboration among Canadian and southern higher education partners’. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). ‘The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities?’, Journal of economic behavior & organization, 63/4: 599–623.
Bagilhole, B., Powell, A., Barnard, S., & Dainty, A. (2008). ‘Researching cultures in science, engineering and technology: an analysis of current and past literature’, UK resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology.
Barirani, A., Agard, B., & Beaudry, C. (2013). ‘Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective’, Scientometrics, 94/3: 1111–1136.
Bassecoulard, E., & Zitt, M. (2004). ‘Patents and Publications’. Moed H. F., Glänzel W., & Schmoch U. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, pp. 665–94. Springer Netherlands. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_31
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). ‘Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks.’ International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
Beaudry, C., & St-Pierre, C. (2016). ‘What factors influence scientific and technological output: The case of Thailand and Malaysia’. 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators-STI 2016. Book of Proceedings.
Beaudry, Catherine, & Larivière, V. (2016). ‘Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine’, Research Policy, 45/9: 1790–1817.
Beaudry, Catherine, & Schiffauerova, A. (2011). ‘Impacts of collaboration and network indicators on patent quality: The case of Canadian nanotechnology innovation’, European Management Journal, 29/5: 362–376.
Beaver, D. deB. (2004). ‘Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority?’, Scientometrics, 60/3: 399–408.
Becker, P. E., & Moen, P. (1999). ‘Scaling Back: Dual-Earner Couples’ Work-Family Strategies’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 61/4: 995–1007. DOI: 10.2307/354019
Bentley, P. (2012). ‘Gender differences and factors affecting publication productivity among Australian university academics’, Journal of Sociology, 48/1: 85–103. DOI: 10.1177/1440783311411958
Berryman, S. E. (1983). Who Will Do Science?: Minority and Female Attainment of Science and Mathematics Degrees: Trends and Causes. Rockefeller Foundation.
Besselaar, P. van den, & Sandström, U. (2016). ‘Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study’, Scientometrics, 106/1: 143–62. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1775-3
——. (2017). ‘Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance: Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact’, PLOS ONE, 12/8: e0183301. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183301
Bhattacharyya, D., Singh, S., Satnalika, N., Khandelwal, A., & Jeon, S.-H. (2009). ‘Nanotechnology, big things from a tiny world: a review’, Nanotechnology, 2/3: 29–38.
Biscaro, C., & Giupponi, C. (2014). ‘Co-Authorship and Bibliographic Coupling Network Effects on Citations’, PLOS ONE, 9/6: e99502. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099502
Boccaletti, S., Latora, V., Moreno, Y., Chavez, M., & Hwang, D.-U. (2006). ‘Complex networks: Structure and dynamics’, Physics reports, 424/4: 175–308.
Bordons, M., Morillo, F., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2003). ‘One step further in the production of bibliometric indicators at the micro level: Differences by gender and professional category of scientists’, Scientometrics, 57/2: 159–173.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). ‘What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior’, Journal of Documentation, 64/1: 45–80.
Borrego, A., Barrios, M., Villarroya, A., & Ollé, C. (2010). ‘Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: A gender perspective’, Scientometrics, 83/1: 93–101.
Bowman, J., & Ulm, S. (2009). ‘Grants, Gender and Glass Ceilings? An Analysis of ARC-Funded Archaeology Projects’, Australian Archaeology, 68/1: 31–6. DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2009.11681887
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). ‘Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital’, Research policy, 33/4: 599–616.
Brainard, S. G., Allen, E., Savath, V., & Cruz, S. (2014). ‘Factors and perspectives influencing nanotechnology career development: Comparison of male and female academic nanoscientists’, Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20/1. DOI: 10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2014006377
Bronstein, P., & Farnsworth, L. (1998). ‘Gender differences in faculty experiences of interpersonal climate and processes for advancement’, Research in Higher Education, 39/5: 557–585.
Buré, C. (2007). ‘Gender in/and science, technology and innovation policy: An overview of current literature and findings’, Strategic Commissioned Paper for: Innovation, Policy and Science Program Area International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Downloaded on, 24/02: 2012.
Cartwright, S., & Gale, A. (1995). ‘Project management: different gender, different culture?: A discussion on gender and organizational culture – part 2’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 16/4: 12–6. DOI: 10.1108/01437739510089058
Cassiman, B., Glenisson, P., & Van Looy, B. (2007). ‘Measuring industry-science links through inventor-author relations: A profiling methodology’, Scientometrics, 70/2: 379–391.
Clement, T. P. (2013). ‘Authorship Matrix: A Rational Approach to Quantify Individual Contributions and Responsibilities in Multi-Author Scientific Articles’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 20/2: 345–61. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-013-9454-3
Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). ‘The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists’, Advances in motivation and achievement, 2/217–258.
——. (1987). ‘Marriage, motherhood and research performance in science’, Scientific American, 256/2: 119–125.
Collins, J. C. (2007). ‘Nanotechnology and society: a call for rational dialogue’, Nanoscale: issues and perspectives for nano century. Wiley, Hoboken, 115–128.
Conley, C. S., & Carey, D. C. (2013). ‘Academic mothers on leave (but on the clock), on the line (and off the record)’, Mothers in academia, 200–212.
Cooke, F. L. (2007). ‘“Husband’s career first”: renegotiating career and family commitment among migrant Chinese academic couples in Britain’, Work, Employment and Society, 21/1: 47–65. DOI: 10.1177/0950017007073615
Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2011). ‘Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective’, Scientometrics, 88/1: 145–161.
Costas, R., Leeuwen, T. N. van, & Bordons, M. (2010). ‘Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: effects of different calculation methods’, Scientometrics, 82/3: 517–37. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0187-7
Council of Europe. (2001). Promoting the Policy Debate on Social Cohesion from a Comparative Perspective. Council of Europe Publishing.
Cozzens, S. (2008). ‘Equality as an issue in designing science, technology, and innovation policies and programs’,.
——. (2010). ‘Building equity and equality into nanotechnology’. Nanotechnology and the challenges of Equity, Equality and Development, pp. 433–446. Springer.
——. (2012). ‘The Distinctive Dynamics of Nanotechnology in Developing Nations’. Aydogan-Duda N. (ed.) Making It to the Forefront, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, pp. 125–38. Springer New York. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-1545-9_13
Cozzens, S., Cortes, R., Soumonni, O., & Woodson, T. (2013). ‘Nanotechnology and the millennium development goals: water, energy, and agri-food’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15/11: 1–14.
Cozzens, S., Kallerud, E., Ackers, L., Gill, B., Harper, J., Pereira, T. S., & Zarb-Adami, N. (2007). Problems of Inequality in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy. James Martin Institute Working Paper 5. Oxford, UK.
Cozzens, S., & Wetmore, J. (2011). Nanotechnology and the challenges of equity, equality and development., Vol. 2. Springer.
Daar, A. S., Martin, E., Acharya, T., Singer, P. A., & others. (2004). ‘Will Prince Charles et al diminish the opportunities of developing countries in nanotechnology’, Nanotechweb. org.
Davarpanah, M. R., & Moghadam, H. M. (2012). ‘The contribution of women in Iranian scholarly publication’, Library Review, 61/4: 261–71. DOI: 10.1108/00242531211267563
Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2006). ‘Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences’, Science, 313/5787: 665–667.
Dryburgh, H. (1999). ‘WORK HARD, PLAY HARD Women and Professionalization in Engineering—Adapting to the Culture’, Gender & Society, 13/5: 664–682.
Duch, J., Zeng, X. H. T., Sales-Pardo, M., Radicchi, F., Otis, S., Woodruff, T. K., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2012). ‘The Possible Role of Resource Requirements and Academic Career-Choice Risk on Gender Differences in Publication Rate and Impact’, PLOS ONE, 7/12: e51332. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051332
Duque, R. B., Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D.-B. S., & Shrum, W. (2005). ‘Collaboration Paradox Scientific Productivity, the Internet, and Problems of Research in Developing Areas’, Social Studies of Science, 35/5: 755–785.
Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). ‘How to Receive More Funding for Your Research? Get Connected to the Right People!’, PLOS ONE, 10/7: e0133061. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133061
——. (2016). ‘How to boost scientific production? A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors’, Scientometrics, 106/3: 1093–116. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1825-x
Elsevier, B. V. (2016). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Amsterdam: Elsevier BV.
Eslami, H., Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2013). ‘Effect of collaboration network structure on knowledge creation and technological performance: the case of biotechnology in Canada’, Scientometrics, 97/1: 99–119.
Etzkowitz, H., & Gupta, N. (2006). ‘Women in science: a fair shake?’, Minerva, 44/2: 185–199.
Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge University Press.
Fanelli, D., & Larivière, V. (2016). ‘Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century’, PLOS ONE, 11/3: e0149504. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149504
Faulkner, W. (2006). ‘Genders in/of engineering’, A reserach report. ESRC Economic & Social Research Council.
——. (2009). ‘Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. II. Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox’, Engineering Studies, 1/3: 169–189.
Ferber, M., & Huber, J. (1979). ‘Husbands, Wives, and Careers’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 41/2: 315–25. DOI: 10.2307/351699
Filardo, G., Graca, B. da, Sass, D. M., Pollock, B. D., Smith, E. B., & Martinez, M. A.-M. (2016). ‘Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014)’, BMJ, 352: i847. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i847
Forster, N. (2001). ‘A case study of women academics’ views on equal opportunities, career prospects and work‐family conflicts in a UK university’, Career Development International, 6/1: 28–38. DOI: 10.1108/13620430110381016
Foster, C., & Heeks, R. (2013). ‘Conceptualising inclusive innovation: Modifying systems of innovation frameworks to understand diffusion of new technology to low-income consumers’, The European Journal of Development Research, 25/3: 333–355.
Fox, M. F. (2005). ‘Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists’, Social Studies of Science, 35/1: 131–150.
Fox, M. F., & Faver, C. A. (1985). ‘Men, women, and publication productivity: Patterns among social work academics’, The Sociological Quarterly, 26/4: 537–549.
Freeman, R., & Shukla, K. (2008). ‘Jobs in Nanotech–Creating a Measure of Job Growth’, Science and Engineering Workforce Projet Digest.
García-Peñalvo, F. J., de Figuerola, C. G., Merlo, J. A., & Jacsó, P. (2010). ‘Comparison of journal impact rankings in the SCImago Journal & Country Rank and the Journal Citation Reports databases’, Online information review, 34/4: 642–657.
Ghiasi, G., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2015). ‘On the Compliance of Women Engineers with a Gendered Scientific System’, PloS one, 10/12: e0145931.
——. (2016). ‘Gender differences in synchronous and diachronous self-citations’. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Valencia, Spain.
Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. (2006). ‘A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy’, Scientometrics, 67/2: 263–277.
Guan, J., & Liu, N. (2014). ‘Measuring scientific research in emerging nano-energy field’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 16/4. DOI: 10.1007/s11051-014-2356-8
Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). ‘A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator’, Journal of Informetrics, 6/4: 674–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.001
Gunter, R., & Stambach, A. (2005). ‘Differences in men and women scientists’ perceptions of workplace climate’, Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 11/1. DOI: 10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v11.i1.60
Hankin, S. M., & Read, S. A. K. (2016). ‘Governance of Nanotechnology: Context, Principles and Challenges’. Managing Risk in Nanotechnology, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, pp. 29–49. Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-32392-3_3
Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). ‘An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54/10: 952–965.
Harsh, M., & Woodson, T. (2012). ‘Pro-poor nanotechnology applications for water: Characterizing and contextualizing private sector research and development’, Nanotechnology Law and Business, 9/3: 232–52.
Heeks, R., Foster, C., & Nugroho, Y. (2014). New models of inclusive innovation for development. Taylor & Francis.
Hillie, T., & Hlophe, M. (2007). ‘Nanotechnology and the challenge of clean water’, Nature Nanotechnology, 2/11: 663–664.
Ho, Y.-S. (2012). ‘Top-cited articles in chemical engineering in Science Citation Index Expanded: A bibliometric analysis’, Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 20/3: 478–488.
Hobson, D. W. (2009). ‘Commercialization of nanotechnology’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology, 1/2: 189–202. DOI: 10.1002/wnan.28
Holden, G., Rosenberg, G., & Barker, K. (2005). ‘Bibliometrics: A potential decision making aid in hiring, reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions’, Social work in health care, 41/3–4: 67–92.
Hullmann, A. (2007). ‘Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology’, Scientometrics, 70/3: 739–758.
Hunter, L., & Leahey, E. (2008). ‘Collaborative research in sociology: Trends and contributing factors’, The American Sociologist, 39/4: 290–306.
Hutson, S. R. (2006). ‘Self-citation in archaeology: Age, gender, prestige, and the self’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 13/1: 1–18. DOI: 10.1017/S0956792506006462
Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T. D. (1986). ‘The glass ceiling: Why women can’t seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs’, The Wall Street Journal, 24/1.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (2016). Positioning Canada to Lead: An Inclusive Innovation Agenda (Canada: a nation of innovators). Retrieved from <https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/vwapj/InnovationNation_Report-EN.pdf/$file/InnovationNation_Report-EN.pdf>
Invernizzi, N. (2011). ‘Nanotechnology between the lab and the shop floor: what are the effects on labor?’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13/6: 2249–2268.
Invernizzi, N., & Foladori, G. (2005). ‘Nanotechnology and the developing world: Will nanotechnology overcome poverty or widen disparities’, Nanotech. L. & Bus., 2: 294.
Jordan, C. C., Kaiser, I., & Moore, V. C. (2014). ‘2013 nanotechnology patent literature review: Graphitic carbon-based nanotechnology and energy applications are on the rise’, Nanotechnology Law and Business, 11/2: 111–25.
Jowkar, A., Didegah, F., & Gazni, A. (2011). ‘The effect of funding on academic research impact: A case study of Iranian publications’, Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 63/6: 593–602. DOI: 10.1108/00012531111187243
Kanter, R. M. (1977). ‘Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.’,.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). ‘What is research collaboration?’, Research policy, 26/1: 1–18.
Kim, J., Lee, S. J., & Marschke, G. (2010). Impact of University Scientists on Innovations in Nanotechnology. Retrieved January 6, 2014, from <https://www.kdi.re.kr/data/download/attach/8877_1-1.pdf>
King, M. M., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., Bergstrom, C. T., & West, J. D. (2015). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Working paper. Retrieved from http://www. eigenfactor. org/gender/self-citation/SelfCitation. pdf.
King, Molly M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2016). ‘Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time’, arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.00376.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Glynn, C. J. (2013). ‘The Matilda Effect-Role Congruity Effects on Scholarly Communication: A Citation Analysis of Communication Research and Journal of Communication Articles’, Communication Research, 40/1: 3–26. DOI: 10.1177/0093650211418339
Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). ‘Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity’, Science, Technology & Human Values, 21/1: 54–71.
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). ‘Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators*’, The Economic Journal, 114/495: 441–465.
Larivière. (2014). ‘Femmes et sciences : les premières données mondiales valident l’inégalité | Acfas | magazine Découvrir | mars 2014’. Acfas.ca.
Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). ‘Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production’, Social Studies of Science, 46/3: 417–35. DOI: 10.1177/0306312716650046
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013a). ‘Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science’, Nature, 504/7479: 211–3. DOI: 10.1038/504211a
——. (2013b). ‘Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science’, Nature, 504/7479: 211–3. DOI: 10.1038/504211a
Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2017). ‘The end of gender disparities in science? If only it were true...’ CWTS. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from <https://www.cwts.nl:443/blog?article=n-q2z294&title=the-end-of-gender-disparities-in-science-if-only-it-were-true>
Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, E., Villeneuve, C., Gélinas, P., & Gingras, Y. (2011). ‘Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Québec university professors’, Scientometrics, 87/3: 483–498.
Laverdière, H. (2015). ‘Now May Not be the Time for a Development Finance Institution’. The Huffington Post. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from <http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/helene-laverdiere/development-finance-institution_b_6768746.html>
Lawani, S. (1986). ‘Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research’, Scientometrics, 9/1–2: 13–25.
Leahey, E. (2006). ‘Gender differences in productivity research specialization as a missing link’, Gender & Society, 20/6: 754–780.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). ‘The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity’, Social studies of science, 35/5: 673–702.
Litman, T. (2003). ‘Social inclusion as a transport planning issue in Canada’. Transport and Social Exclusion G7 Comparison Seminar. London.
Long, J. S. (1990). ‘The origins of sex differences in science’, Social Forces, 68/4: 1297–1316.
——. (1992). ‘Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity’, Social Forces, 71/1: 159–178.
Magerman, T., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2015). ‘Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint? An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology’, Research Policy, 44/9: 1702–1713.
Mamalis, A. G. (2007). ‘Recent advances in nanotechnology’, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Selected Papers from the 4th Japanese-Mediterranean Workshop on Applied Electromagnetic Engineering for Magnetic, Superconducting and Nano Materials, 181/1: 52–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.03.052
Maraut, S., & Martínez, C. (2014). ‘Identifying author–inventors from Spain: methods and a first insight into results’, Scientometrics, 101/1: 445–76. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1409-1
Marcus, D. (2013). ‘The Hai Hong incident: One boat’s effect on Canada’s policy towards Indochinese refugees’,.
Marx, W., & Bornmann, L. (2015). ‘On the causes of subject-specific citation rates in Web of Science’, Scientometrics, 102/2: 1823–7. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1499-9
Mason, M. A., Wolfinger, N. H., & Goulden, M. (2013). Do babies matter?: Gender and family in the ivory tower. Rutgers University Press.
Mattsson, P., Sundberg, C. J., & Laget, P. (2011). ‘Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position’, Scientometrics, 87/1: 99–105. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0310-9
Mauleón, E., Daraio, C., & Bordons, M. (2013). ‘Exploring gender differences in patenting in Spain’, Research Evaluation, rvt030.
Mayer, E. N., Lenherr, S. M., Hanson, H. A., Jessop, T. C., & Lowrance, W. T. (2017). ‘Gender Differences in Publication Productivity Among Academic Urologists in the United States’, Urology, 103/Supplement C: 39–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.12.064
McAdam, M., & Marlow, S. (2008). ‘The business incubator and the female high technology entrepreneur: a perfect match’. 53rd International Conference on Small Business, Halifax, Canada, July.
McDowell, J. M., Singell Jr, L. D., & Ziliak, J. P. (1999). ‘Cracks in the glass ceiling: gender and promotion in the economics profession’, American Economic Review, 392–396.
Meng, Y. (2016). ‘Collaboration patterns and patenting: Exploring gender distinctions’, Research Policy, 45/1: 56–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.004
Meng, Y., & Shapira, P. (2011). ‘Women and patenting in nanotechnology: Scale, scope and equity’. Nanotechnology and the challenges of equity, equality and development, pp. 23–46. Springer.
Meyer, M. (2006). ‘Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology’, Research Policy, 35/10: 1646–1662.
Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). ‘Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application’, Scientometrics, 42/2: 195–205.
Mihalcea, R., Moghe, P., & Burzo, M. (2015). ‘Women in Mechanical Engineering: The Gender (Im) balance by the Numbers’, Ann Arbor, 1001: 48109.
Miller, B. P., Duque, R., & Shrum, W. (2012). ‘Gender, ICTs, and Productivity in Low-Income Countries Panel Study’, Science, Technology & Human Values, 37/1: 30–63. DOI: 10.1177/0162243910392800
Minister of Industry, & Industry Canada. (2014). Seizing Canada’s moment: moving forward in science, technology and innovation 2014.
Moazami, A., Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). ‘A network perspective of academiaindustry nanotechnology collaboration: A comparison of Canada and the United States’, Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 9/2: 263–93. DOI: 10.1080/09737766.2015.1069966
Moed, H. (2000). ‘Bibliometric indicators reflect publication and management strategies’, Scientometrics, 47/2: 323–346.
Moed, H. F. (1996). ‘Differences in the construction of SCI based bibliometric indicators among various producers: A first over view’, Scientometrics, 35/2: 177–191.
Mongeon, P. (2017). ‘Is there a Matilda effect in academic patenting?’. Metrics 2017. Presented at the Workshop on Informetric and Scientometric Research (Sig/Met).
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). ‘The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis’, Scientometrics, 106/1: 213–28. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Moore, F. N. (2002). ‘Implications of nanotechnology applications: using genetics as a lesson’, Health Law Rev, 10/3: 9–15.
Muchie, M., & Demissie, H. T. (2013). ‘43. Making sense of techno-optimism? The social science of nanotechnology and sustainability’, Conditions and visions for change and sense-making in a rapidly changing world, 295.
Murray, F., & Graham, L. (2007). ‘Buying science and selling science: gender differences in the market for commercial science’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 16/4: 657–689.
Nahata, M. C. (2008). ‘Tips for Writing and Publishing an Article’, Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 42/2: 273–7. DOI: 10.1345/aph.1K616
Nakhaie, M. R. (2002). ‘Gender Differences in Publication among University Professors in Canada*’, Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 39/2: 151–179.
NanoPortal. (2014). ‘NanoPortal - Nanoportal - Home’. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from <http://nanoportal.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=9156F3D3-1>
Nature Nanotechnology. (2007). ‘Tackling global poverty’, Nature Nanotechnology, 2/11: 661.
Newman, M. E. (2001). ‘The structure of scientific collaboration networks’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98/2: 404–409.
Nikulainen, T., & Palmberg, C. (2010). ‘Transferring science-based technologies to industry—Does nanotechnology make a difference?’, Technovation, 30/1: 3–11.
NNI. (2007). National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. National Nanotechnology Initiative.
——. (2014). National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. Retrieved January 5, 2017, from <http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf>
NSERC. (2010). Women in science and engineering in Canada. Retrieved August 2, 2016, from <http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reports-Rapports/Women_Science_Engineering_e.pdf>
Obakeng Mabokela, R. (2011). ‘Gender and Organizational Change: Is it Just a Woman’s Issue?’, Journal of the Professoriate, 4/2.
OECD. (2013). ‘Nanotechnology R&D’. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard. OECD Publishing.
——. (2014a). Considerations in moving towards a statistical framework for nanotechnology: Findings from a working party on nanotechnology pilot survey of business activity in nanotechnology. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from <http://www.oecd.org/sti/biotech/statistical-framework-nanotechnology-business-activity-findings.pdf>
——. (2014b). Mainstreaming Cross-cutting Issues. OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews. OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264205147-en
Ozel, B., Kretschmer, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2014). ‘Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender’, Scientometrics, 98/1: 703–23. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1145-y
Palmberg, C., Dernis, H., & Miguet, C. (2009). Nanotechnology: an overview based on indicators and statistics. OECD.
Parveen, S., & Sreevalsan-Nair, J. (2013). ‘Visualization of Small World Networks Using Similarity Matrices’. Big Data Analytics, pp. 151–170. Springer.
Peñas, C. S., & Willett, P. (2006). ‘Brief communication: Gender differences in publication and citation counts in librarianship and information science research’, Journal of Information Science, 32/5: 480–485.
Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2009). ‘Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom’, Nature Nanotechnology, 4/2: 95–8. DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2008.362
Pierson, E. (2014). ‘In Science, It Matters That Women Come Last’. FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from <https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/in-science-it-matters-that-women-come-last/>
Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009a). ‘How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology?’, Journal of nanoparticle research, 11/5: 1023–1041.
——. (2009b). ‘Where does nanotechnology belong in the map of science?’, Nature Nanotechnology, 4/9: 534–536.
Pravdic, N., & Oluic-Vukovic, V. (1986). ‘V.,(1986).“Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaborator/scientific output relationship”’, Scientometrics, 10: 259–280.
Price, D. J. de S., & Beaver, D. (1966). ‘Collaboration in an invisible college.’, American psychologist, 21/11: 1011.
Prpić, K. (2002). ‘Gender and productivity differentials in science’, Scientometrics, 55/1: 27–58.
Reskin, B. F. (1978). ‘Scientific Productivity, Sex, and Location in the Institution of Science’, American Journal of Sociology, 83/5: 1235–43.
Rexrode, K. M. (2016). ‘The gender gap in first authorship of research papers’, BMJ, 352: i1130. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i1130
Rhoten, D., & Pfirman, S. (2007). ‘Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences’, Research Policy, 36/1: 56–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.08.001
Rifà-Valls, M., Ponferrada, M., & Duarte, L. (2013). Effective gender equality in research and the academia ( No. Project n°612413). EGERA. Retrieved from <http://www.egera.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/Report_on_Mapping___Critical_assessment_of_existing_tools_for_including_gender_in_research_8302.pdf>
Roco, M. C. (2011). ‘The long view of nanotechnology development: the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13/2: 427–445.
——. (2017). ‘Overview: Affirmation of Nanotechnology between 2000 and 2030’. Mensah T. O., Wang B., Bothun G., Winter J., & Davis V. (eds) Nanotechnology Commercialization: Manufacturing Processes and Products, pp. 1–23. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781119371762.ch1
Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. National Science Foudnation. Retrieved from <http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf>
Rodrigues, R., Lodwick, T., Sandler, R., & Kay, W. D. (2007). ‘Nanotechnology and the global poor: United States policy and international collaborations’., Vol. 1, pp. 593–6. Presented at the 2007 NSTI Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show - NSTI Nanotech 2007, Technical Proceedings.
Rosenfeld, R. A., & Jones, J. A. (1987). ‘Patterns and Effects of Geographic Mobility for Academic Women and Men’, The Journal of Higher Education, 58/5: 493–515. DOI: 10.2307/1981784
Rossiter, M. W. (1993). ‘The Matthew Matilda effect in science’, Social studies of science, 23/2: 325–341.
Rusconi, A., & Solga, H. (2008). A Systematic Reflection Upon Dual Career Couples (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1831140). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved October 19, 2017, from <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1831140>
Salamanca-Buentello, F., & Daar, A. S. (2016). ‘Dust of Wonder, Dust of Doom: A Landscape of Nanotechnology, Nanoethics, and Sustainable Development’. Bagheri A., Moreno J. D., & Semplici S. (eds) Global Bioethics: The Impact of the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee, Advancing Global Bioethics, pp. 101–23. Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-22650-7_10
Salamanca-Buentello, F., Persad, D. L., Martin, D. K., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2005). ‘Nanotechnology and the developing world’, PLoS Medicine, 2/5: e97.
Salamanca-Buentello, F., Persad, D. L., Martin, D. K., Daar, A. S., Singer, P. A., & others. (2005). ‘Nanotechnology and the developing world’, PLoS Medicine, 2/5.
Sandhu, A. (2006). ‘Who invented nano?’. Nature Nanotechnology. Books and Arts, . Retrieved February 5, 2018, from <https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2006.115>. DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2006.115
Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi, F. A. (2002). ‘Faculty Research Productivity: Exploring the Role of Gender and Family-Related Factors’, Research in Higher Education, 43/4: 423–46. DOI: 10.1023/A:1015575616285
Schiebinger, L. (2008). Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. Stanford University Press.
——. (2014). ‘Gendered innovations: harnessing the creative power of sex and gender analysis to discover new ideas and develop new technologies’, Triple Helix, 1/1: 9. DOI: 10.1186/s40604-014-0009-7
Schiebinger, L., & Klinge, I. (2013). ‘Gendered innovations: how gender analysis contributes to research’, European Commission, 6: 14.
Schiffauerova, A., & Beaudry, C. (2012). ‘Collaboration spaces in Canadian biotechnology: A search for gatekeepers’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 29/2: 281–306.
Schroeder, D., Dalton-Brown, S., Schrempf, B., & Kaplan, D. (2016). ‘Responsible, inclusive innovation and the nano-divide’, NanoEthics, 10/2: 177–188.
Schulenburg, M. (2004). Nanotechnology: Innovation for Tomorrow’s World. European Commission, Research DG.
Schultz, L. I. (2011). ‘Nanotechnology’s triple helix: a case study of the University at Albany’s College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering’, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36/5: 546–564.
Schummer, J. (2007). ‘Identifying Ethical Issues of Nanotechnologies’. Nanotechnologies, ethics and politics, Ethics series. UNESCO Pub: Paris, France.
SCImago Research Group. (2007). Description of SCImago Journal Rank Indicator. Retrieved March 3, 2018, from <http://www.scimagojr.com/SCImagoJournalRank.pdf>
Sharma, S., & Sharma, M. (2012). ‘Gender equality in the workplace: the perceptive reality’, Social Sciences Directory, 1/1.
Shendruk, A. (2015). ‘Gender inequality in STEM is very real for Canadian women’. Macleans.ca. Retrieved December 11, 2015, from <http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/gender-inequality-in-the-sciences-its-still-very-present-in-canada/>
Smith, R. H. (2001). ‘Social, ethical, and legal implications of nanotechnology’, Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 257–271.
Smith-Doerr, L. (2011). ‘Contexts of Equity: Thinking About Organizational and Technoscience Contexts for Gender Equity in Biotechnology and Nanotechnology’. Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development, pp. 3–22. Springer.
Sparrow, R. (2007). ‘Negotiating the nanodivides’, New global frontiers in regulation: The age of nanotechnology, 97–109.
Stack, S. (2004). ‘Gender, Children and Research Productivity’, Research in Higher Education, 45/8: 891–920.
StatNano. (2018). ‘Nanotechnology in Canada | STATNANO’. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from <http://statnano.com/country/Canada>
Stephan, P., Black, G. C., & Chang, T. (2007). ‘The small size of the small scale market: The early-stage labor market for highly skilled nanotechnology workers’, Research policy, 36/6: 887–892.
Stix, G. (2001). ‘Little big science’, Scientific American, 285/3: 26–31.
Sugimoto, C. R., Ni, C., West, J. D., & Larivière, V. (2015). ‘The Academic Advantage: Gender Disparities in Patenting’, (A. R. Hernandez Montoya, Ed.)PLOS ONE, 10/5: e0128000. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128000
Tahmooresnejad, L., & Beaudry, C. (2015). ‘Does Government Funding Have The Same Impact On Academic Publications And Patents? The Case Of Nanotechnology In Canada’, International Journal of Innovation Management, 19/03: 1540001.
Tahmooresnejad, L., Beaudry, C., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). ‘The role of public funding in nanotechnology scientific production: Where Canada stands in comparison to the United States’, Scientometrics, 102/1: 753–787.
Tang, J. (1997). ‘The glass ceiling in science and engineering’, The Journal of Socio-Economics, 26/4: 383–406.
Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2011). ‘China–US scientific collaboration in nanotechnology: patterns and dynamics’, Scientometrics, 88/1: 1–16.
Taylor, C. J. (2010). ‘Occupational Sex Composition and the Gendered Availability of Workplace Support’, Gender & Society, 24/2: 189–212. DOI: 10.1177/0891243209359912
The Royal Society. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering London. Retrieved from <http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report/Nano%20report%202004%20fin.pdf>
Thiriet, P. D., Franco, A. D., Cheminée, A., Guidetti, P., Bianchimani, O., Basthard-Bogain, S., Cottalorda, J.-M., et al. (2016). ‘Abundance and Diversity of Crypto- and Necto-Benthic Coastal Fish Are Higher in Marine Forests than in Structurally Less Complex Macroalgal Assemblages’, PLOS ONE, 11/10: e0164121. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164121
Toren, N. (1988). ‘Women at the top: Female full professors in higher education in Israel’, Higher education, 17/5: 525–544.
Toutkoushian, R. K. (1994). ‘Using Citations to Measure Sex Discrimination in Faculty Salaries’, The Review of Higher Education, 18/1: 61–82.
Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). ‘Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications’, PLOS Biol, 5/1: e18. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018
Tzanakou, C. (2017). ‘Dual career couples in academia, international mobility and dual career services in Europe’, European Educational Research Journal, 16/2–3: 298–312. DOI: 10.1177/1474904116683185
Uddin, S., Hossain, L., Abbasi, A., & Rasmussen, K. (2012). ‘Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network’, Scientometrics, 90/2: 687–699.
Uddin, S., Hossain, L., & Rasmussen, K. (2013). ‘Network Effects on Scientific Collaborations’, PLOS ONE, 8/2: e57546. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057546
UNESCO. (2007). Science, technology and gender: an international report. Science and Technology for Development series. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
——. (2014). Report of the international bioethics committee on the principle of non-discrimination and non-stigmatization., pp. 23–7. Retrieved June 13, 2016, from <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002211/221196E.pdf>
Urquijo, C. R., & Milan, A. (2011). ‘Women in Canada a gender-based statistical report.’ Statistics Canada, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division.
Van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). ‘Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration’, Research policy, 40/3: 463–472.
Villanueva-Felez, A., Woolley, R., & Cañibano, C. (2015). ‘Nanotechnology researchers’ collaboration relationships: A gender analysis of access to scientific information’, Social studies of science, 45/1: 100–129.
Wallace, J. E. (2014). ‘Gender and Supportive Co-Worker Relations in the Medical Profession’, Gender, Work & Organization, 21/1: 1–17. DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12007
Waltman, L. (2012). ‘An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing’, Journal of Informetrics, 6/4: 700–711.
Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2015). ‘Is There a Relationship between Research Sponsorship and Publication Impact? An Analysis of Funding Acknowledgments in Nanotechnology Papers’, PLOS ONE, 10/2: e0117727. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117727
Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2012). Academic Motherhood: How Faculty Manage Work and Family. Rutgers University Press.
Wei, W., Pfeffer, J., Reminga, J., & Carley, K. M. (2011). Handling weighted, asymmetric, self-looped, and disconnected networks in ORA. DTIC Document. Retrieved February 28, 2018, from <http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA550859>
West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). ‘The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship’, PLOS ONE, 8/7: e66212. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066212
Whittington, K. B., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2005). ‘Gender and commercial science: Women’s patenting in the life sciences’, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30/4: 355–370.
Wiek, A., Foley, R. W., & Guston, D. H. (2012). ‘Nanotechnology for sustainability: What does nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems?’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14/9. DOI: 10.1007/s11051-012-1093-0
Wilson, M. P., Vilke, G. M., Govindarajan, P., & Itagaki, M. W. (2012). ‘Emergency Physicians Research Common Problems in Proportion to their Frequency’, Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13/4: 344–50. DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2011.6.6722
Wilton, S., & Ross, L. (2017). ‘Flexibility, Sacrifice and Insecurity: A Canadian Study Assessing the Challenges of Balancing Work and Family in Academia’, Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 29/1–2: 66–87. DOI: 10.1080/08952833.2016.1272663
World Bank. (2013). China - Inclusive innovation for sustainable inclusive growth ( No. 82519)., pp. 1–95. The World Bank. Retrieved February 8, 2018, from <http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/265021468218658626/China-Inclusive-innovation-for-sustainable-inclusive-growth>
Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). ‘Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle’, American Sociological Review, 847–870.
Zamzami, N., & Schiffauerova, A. (2017). ‘The impact of individual collaborative activities on knowledge creation and transmission’, Scientometrics, 111/3: 1385–1413.
Zehavi, A., & Breznitz, D. (2017). ‘Distribution sensitive innovation policies: Conceptualization and empirical examples’, Research Policy, 46/1: 327–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.007
Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1995). Virtuous circles of productivity: star bioscientists and the institutional transformation of industry. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved February 28, 2018, from <http://www.nber.org/papers/w5342>
——. (1996). ‘Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93/23: 12709–12716.
——. (2005). Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: Initial results and nanobank. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved January 6, 2014, from <http://www.nber.org/papers/w11181>
Zweig, K., Neuser, W., Pipek, V., Rohde, M., & Scholtes, I. (2014). Socioinformatics - The Social Impact of Interactions between Humans and IT. Springer

Available Versions of this Item

  • Canadian Nanotechnology and Equity Challenges: Implications for Pro-Poor and Gender-Inclusive Policy. (deposited 05 Jun 2018 14:17) [Currently Displayed]
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Downloads per month over past year

Back to top Back to top