Science system path-dependencies and their influences: nanotechnology research in Russia

Scientometrics DOI 10.1007/s11192-016-1916-3 Science system path-dependencies and their influences: nanotechnology research in Russia Maria Karaulova1,2 • Abdullah Gök1 • Oliver Shackleton1 • Philip Shapira1,3 Received: 14 July 2015 Ó The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract In this paper, we study the influence of path dependencies on the development of an emerging technology in a transitional economy. Our focus is the development of nanotechnology in Russia in the period between 1990 and 2012. By examining outputs, publication paths and collaboration patterns, we identify a series of factors that help to explain Russia’s limited success in leveraging its ambitious national nanotechnology initiative. The analysis highlights four path-dependent tendencies of Russian nanotechnology research: publication pathways and the gatekeeping role of the Russian Academy of Sciences; increasing geographical and institutional centralisation of nanotechnology research; limited institutional diffusion; and patterns associated with the internationalisation of Russian research. We discuss policy implications related to path dependence, nanotechnology research in Russia and to the broader reform of the Russian science system. Keywords Russia
Nanotechnology
Path dependence An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 15th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, 29/06/2015–04/07/2015, Istanbul (Karaulova et al. 2015). & Maria Karaulova Abdullah Gök Oliver Shackleton Philip Shapira 1 Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK 2 Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy 3 School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA 123 Scientometrics Introduction In recent years, national governments in developed and developing countries have often sought to optimise their science systems, for example, by invoking large-scale reforms (Huang et al. 2015), by implementing research assessment programmes (Weingart 2005), or by changing mechanisms of funding to incentivise priority research areas (Roco 2011). At the same time, national science policies have increasingly pursued goals to target frontier or emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology or synthetic biology, that promise new economic and competitive advantages and new capabilities to meet societal and environmental challenges (Hullmann 2006; Shapira and Wang 2010). Policy ambitions to simultaneously improve efficiency and performance yet also to address emerging research areas present major challenges for science systems. This is particularly the case when emerging research areas require not only additional resources but also new methods and interdisciplinary collaborations. From an evolutionary perspective (Dosi and Nelson 1994), the relative performance of reforms and policy initiatives on emerging technologies depends on current as well as past features of the system. Rapid and visible change is frequently demanded by policy makers, yet research systems and their constituent scientific institutions and practices are typically slow, or even resistant, to give up established ways. Path dependence—where institutional forms and practices formed in earlier periods persist and disproportionately influence current activities and trajectories—is potentially an underpinning factor that not only shapes change, but which can also inhibit progress through lock-in and negative feedback loops (Nelson and Winter 1982; Schienstock 2007). In this paper, we study the influence of path dependencies on the development of an emerging technology in a transitional economy. We use this case to examine the path-dependent factors that limit research system change and subsequent performance. Our focus is the development of nanotechnology1 in Russia from 1990 to 2012. Following the disbanding of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has experienced a series of political and economic crises that profoundly impacted its research capabilities. From the 1990s through to the present, Russian scientific research has remained severely underfunded: over the last decade, R&D spending as a share of the Gross Domestic Product has plateaued at the level of about 1.1 % (UNESCO 2015). This has been accompanied by high rates of scientific out-migration (Graham and Dezhina 2008), when Russia lost nearly onequarter of its authorship share of the world’s scientific articles between 1996 and 2008 (The Royal Society 2011). Nevertheless, Russia has well-established capabilities in nanoscience and its underlying disciplines (including physics, chemistry, materials science, and electronics). By encouraging nanoscience research, the Russian government hoped to leverage Russia’s position back to the top and join the leading countries in terms of nanotechnology research and commercialisation. This was also expected to bolster the indigenous science, technology and innovation system. Russia has been reforming its research system throughout the post-Soviet period, including ambitious projects to build a more effective system of innovation (OECD 2011). However, Soviet-style institutional models (Fortescue 1992), especially within the Academy of Sciences, have persisted. In fact, although the organisation of science was broadly perceived as inefficient within Russia, government-led science system reforms did not start in earnest until the late 2000s. To date, Russia’s nanotechnology initiatives have not 1 For discussion of technical and bibliometric definitions of nanotechnology, see Porter et al. (2008), and Arora et al. (2013). 123 Scientometrics yielded the desired results. Whereas China is lauded as a successful case of using emerging technologies to catch up with the leaders in terms of publication outputs (Arora et al. 2013), Russia has lagged. Russia ranked sixth in annual nanotechnology publication outputs in 1990, but dropped to tenth place by 2010 (Terekhov 2012). In the 1990s and 2000s, the growth of nanotechnology papers and patents was significantly lower in Russia than in China and India (Liu et al. 2009). Research objectives It has been suggested that Russia’s efforts in leveraging its science and technology outputs have been hindered by ‘stubborn path-dependencies’ (Klochikhin 2012). Russia’s recent designs to build a competitive basis for nanotechnology research provide a lens through which we can examine the extent to which the Russian science system has (or has not) developed. This research is based on bibliometric analyses to identify path-dependent practices, patterns, and institutions in Russian nanoscience, that appear to be resistant to reform. We build on a line of work that includes an earlier overview of Russia’s profile in nanotechnology in the post-Soviet period (Karaulova et al. 2014) and comparative research, which examines post-Sociali (...truncated)