IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v94y2013i1d10.1007_s11192-012-0785-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Love dynamics between science and technology: some evidences in nanoscience and nanotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Qingjun Zhao

    (Fudan University)

  • Jiancheng Guan

    (Graduate University, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

This paper borrows Strogatz’s dynamic model for love affair between Romeo and Juliet and extends this model to nonlinear simultaneous differential equations model in order that we can characterize the dynamic interaction mechanisms and styles between science and technology (S&T). Then we further apply the proposed new model to the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology (N&N) for the purpose of analyzing the reciprocal dependence between S&T. The empirical results provide an understanding of the relationship between S&T and their dynamic potential of interdependence in the selected 20 leading universities in the field of N&N. We find that at present nanotechnology depends mainly on the scientific-push rather than the technology-pull and nanotechnology is science-based field. In contrast, a parallel development of the technology is not visible. Policy implications are at last put forward based on the several interesting findings for the interaction mechanisms between S&T in the field.

Suggested Citation

  • Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2013. "Love dynamics between science and technology: some evidences in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 113-132, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:94:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0785-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0785-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0785-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-012-0785-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Meyer, 2006. "Are Co-Active Researchers on Top of their Class? An Exploratory Comparison of Inventor-Authors with their Non-Inventing Peers in Nano-Science and Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 144, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2011. "International collaboration of three ‘giants’ with the G7 countries in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 159-170, April.
    3. Pavitt, K, 2001. "Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn)," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(3), pages 761-779, September.
    4. Catherine Durham & James Eales, 2010. "Demand elasticities for fresh fruit at the retail level," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(11), pages 1345-1354.
    5. Meyer, Martin, 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, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    6. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Glänzel, Wolfgang & Hussinger, Katrin, 2009. "Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 26-34, February.
    8. Schmoch, Ulrich, 2007. "Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1000-1015, September.
    9. Phil Yihsing Yang & Yuan-Chieh Chang, 2010. "Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion: the moderating effects of entrepreneurial commitment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 403-421, May.
    10. Arnold Verbeek & Koenraad Debackere & Marc Luwel & Petra Andries & Edwin Zimmermann & Filip Deleus, 2002. "Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 399-420, July.
    11. Xianwen Wang & Xi Zhang & Shenmeng Xu, 2011. "Patent co-citation networks of Fortune 500 companies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 761-770, September.
    12. Hoekman, Jarno & Frenken, Koen & Tijssen, Robert J.W., 2010. "Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 662-673, June.
    13. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2001. "Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science-technology interactions and knowledge flows," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 35-54, January.
    14. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    15. Guan, Jiancheng & Ma, Nan, 2007. "China's emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience `giants'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 880-886, July.
    16. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou, 2007. "Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 693-713, March.
    17. Ponomariov, Branco L. & Boardman, P. Craig, 2010. "Influencing scientists' collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 613-624, June.
    18. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Thoma, Grid, 2007. "Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 813-831, July.
    20. Martin Meyer, 2007. "What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 779-810, March.
    21. Etzkowitz, Henry & Webster, Andrew & Gebhardt, Christiane & Terra, Branca Regina Cantisano, 2000. "The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 313-330, February.
    22. Jiancheng Guan & Ying He, 2007. "Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science — technology linkages," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 403-425, September.
    23. Chan-Yuan Wong & Kim-Leng Goh, 2010. "Modeling the behaviour of science and technology: self-propagating growth in the diffusion process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 669-686, September.
    24. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    25. Eom, Boo-Young & Lee, Keun, 2010. "Determinants of industry-academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 625-639, June.
    26. Sujit Bhattacharya & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Large firms and the science-technology interface Patents, patent citations, and scientific output of multinational corporations in thin films," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 265-279, October.
    27. Bart Looy & Tom Magerman & Koenraad Debackere, 2007. "Developing technology in the vicinity of science: An examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 441-458, February.
    28. Mogoutov, Andrei & Kahane, Bernard, 2007. "Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 893-903, July.
    29. Audretsch, David B. & Bozeman, Barry & Combs, Kathryn L. & Feldman, Maryann & Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Stephan, Paula, 2002. "The Economics of Science and Technology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 155-203, April.
    30. Richard A. Bettis & Michael A. Hitt, 1995. "The new competitive landscape," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(S1), pages 7-19.
    31. Nightingale, Paul, 1998. "A cognitive model of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 689-709, November.
    32. Sternitzke, Christian, 2010. "Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 810-821, July.
    33. Joachim Schummer, 2004. "Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(3), pages 425-465, March.
    34. Wang, Gangbo & Guan, Jiancheng, 2010. "The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 338-350.
    35. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 561-579, February.
    36. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2006. "The emergence of China as a leading nation in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 83-104, February.
    37. Jiancheng Guan & Gangbo Wang, 2010. "A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 331-343, August.
    38. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.
    39. Martin Meyer, 2002. "Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(2), pages 193-212, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Manuel Castriotta & Maria Chiara Guardo, 2016. "Disentangling the automotive technology structure: a patent co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 819-837, May.
    2. Guijie Zhang & Guang Yu & Yuqiang Feng & Luning Liu & Zhenhua Yang, 2017. "Improving the publication delay model to characterize the patent granting process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 621-637, May.
    3. Feldman, Maryann & Tavassoli, Sam, 2014. "Something New: Where do new industries come from?," Working Papers 2014/02, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Department of Industrial Economics.
    4. Liu Li & Chaoying Tang, 2020. "How Does Inter-Organizational Cooperation Impact Organizations’ Scientific Knowledge Generation? Evidence from the Biomass Energy Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    5. Guijie Zhang & Yuqiang Feng & Guang Yu & Luning Liu & Yanqiqi Hao, 2017. "Analyzing the time delay between scientific research and technology patents based on the citation distribution model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1287-1306, June.
    6. Xiaoling Sun & Kun Ding, 2018. "Identifying and tracking scientific and technological knowledge memes from citation networks of publications and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1735-1748, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 561-579, February.
    2. Wang, Gangbo & Guan, Jiancheng, 2010. "The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 338-350.
    3. Kang, Inje & Yang, Jiseong & Lee, Wonjae & Seo, Eun-Yeong & Lee, Duk Hee, 2023. "Delineating development trends of nanotechnology in the semiconductor industry: Focusing on the relationship between science and technology by employing structural topic model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    4. Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
    5. Mariia Shkolnykova, 2021. "Who shapes plant biotechnology in Germany? Joint analysis of the evolution of co-authors’ and co-inventors’ networks," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 27-54, April.
    6. Christoph Grimpe & Roberto Patuelli, 2011. "Regional knowledge production in nanomaterials: a spatial filtering approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 46(3), pages 519-541, June.
    7. Martin Meyer & Kevin Grant & Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska, 2014. "Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 151-174, April.
    8. Jiancheng Guan & Gangbo Wang, 2010. "A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 331-343, August.
    9. Guijie Zhang & Yuqiang Feng & Guang Yu & Luning Liu & Yanqiqi Hao, 2017. "Analyzing the time delay between scientific research and technology patents based on the citation distribution model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1287-1306, June.
    10. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel & Toribio, Mª Rosario, 2011. "The use of scientific knowledge by Spanish agrifood firms," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 507-516, August.
    11. Jia Zheng & Zhi-yun Zhao & Xu Zhang & Dar-zen Chen & Mu-hsuan Huang, 2014. "International collaboration development in nanotechnology: a perspective of patent network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 683-702, January.
    12. Jiancheng Guan & Ying He, 2007. "Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science — technology linkages," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 403-425, September.
    13. Meyer, Martin, 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, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    14. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    15. Shu-Hao Chang, 2018. "A pilot study on the connection between scientific fields and patent classification systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 951-970, March.
    16. Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    17. Jiancheng Guan & Yuan Shi, 2012. "Transnational citation, technological diversity and small world in global nanotechnology patenting," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 609-633, December.
    18. Roberto Patuelli & Andrea Vaona & Christoph Grimpe, 2010. "The German East‐West Divide In Knowledge Production: An Application To Nanomaterial Patenting," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 101(5), pages 568-582, December.
    19. Yashuang Qi & Na Zhu & Yujia Zhai & Ying Ding, 2018. "The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 893-911, May.
    20. Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2008. "Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 173-182.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:94:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0785-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.