International Graduate Science Training and Scientific Collaboration
International Graduate Science Training and Scientific Collaboration
复制标题
国际研究生科学培训和科学合作
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
W. Shrum
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Ynalvez;W. Shrum
在国外接受研究生培训是发展中国家科学家的典型做法。由于资源稀缺，对于这些人来说，合作是一种常见的研究形式。然而，很少有研究考察研究生教育和科学合作之间的联系。这篇文章在一群科学家中探讨了这个问题，他们经历了三个科学上强大的培训系统的同时影响：澳大利亚、日本和美国。来自菲律宾两个地点的312名农业科学家的调查数据被用来探索研究生教育、互联网使用、专业网络和科学合作之间的关系。调查结果显示，大多数合作是在国内进行的，但最常见的国际合作是日本，其次是澳大利亚，最后是美国。日本的培训，而不是专业网络，与这种合作联系在一起，而美国和澳大利亚的培训似乎对这些地区的合作并不重要。本文通过确定研究生教育不可或缺的两个方面来解释这一点，即学习模式和指导风格，这两个方面可能对发展持久的职业关系并最终促进合作至关重要。结果表明，即使在发达地区的科学培训系统中，相互作用和做法也存在差异，这对科学协作的不同参与具有影响。
Graduate training abroad is typical for scientists in developing countries. Owing to resource scarcities, collaboration is a common form of research for these same individuals. Yet few studies have examined the linkage between graduate education and scientific collaboration. This article examines this question in a population of scientists who have experienced the simultaneous influence of three scientifically strong training systems: Australia, Japan and the US. Survey data from 312 agricultural scientists in two Philippine locations are used to explore the relationships between graduate education, Internet use, professional networks and scientific collaboration. The findings show that most collaboration is domestic, but the most common international collaborations are Japanese, followed by Australian and finally US collaborations. Japanese training, but not professional networks, is associated with such collaborations, while US and Australian training appear unimportant to collaborations in these locations. This the article explains by identifying two aspects integral to graduate education, mode of study and mentoring style , which may be critical to the development of durable professional ties and ultimately to collaborative work. The results show that even among scientific training systems in developed areas, there are variations in interaction and practices that have implications for differential participation in scientific collaboration.