Theoretical Model and Hypotheses

2.4.2.1 Theoretical Model

This work attempts to add to current understanding of the contribution of research teams to the creation of local S&T capabilities. Furthermore, it focuses on the role

international research collaboration plays in that process. Arguably, as suggested above, whereas on the one hand the structure of teams implicitly brings the cohesion necessary between peers required for a positive performance, on the other hand international collaboration brings the complementarity needed for facilitating creativity, productivity, quality, innovative capacity, and relevance. International research collaboration may also open access to knowledge, provide resources allowing the team to engage students, and helps shape and strengthen the team’s collective research agenda and orientation.

However, international research collaboration may also entail negative effects on team performance. It can decrease team productivity and detour team research orientation. Team characteristics, type of partner, and type of collaborative activity may affect the ways international research collaboration affects team performance.

Regarding the effects of different types of collaboration, one can hypothesize that when the collaboration implies hosting foreign researchers, it may contribute to local knowledge as these researchers probably work in local research teams in part because they are interested in local issues to which they are exposed to. This the “commitment” argument discussed earlier.

However, hosting foreign partners may affect team productivity as it may increase management and coordination costs. This is the “transaction-costs” argument explained above.

Based on the “linear-model” argument, one can hypothesize that working with foreign funding leads to greater team productivity. However, if we agree on the

“opportunity” argument discussed earlier, team contribution to local knowledge may be negatively affected by the fact that foreign funded projects often are designed in funding countries, which may be interested on working on foreign issues more than on local issues. Funding countries may seek to rely on R&D capacity located overseas to meet their own research goals, which may lead to an outsourcing of local capacity and therefore to a sort of brain drain without mobility. Teams located in developing countries may see this as an opportunity but they may be force to work on foreign issues.

Similarly, co-authoring with colleagues located overseas may positively affect team productivity as it may add to local scientific capacity (i.e. the “more-is-better” argument) but it also risks of diverting local capacity to researching in foreign issues, therefore negatively impacting research team contribution to local knowledge (i.e. the “outsourcing” argument).

Regarding the effects of collaborating with different types of partner, and

extrapolating the research collaboration literature discussed earlier, one can hypothesize that, based on the “complementarity-based-on-material-diversity” argument” teams that collaborate with partners from the North are more productive than teams collaborating with partners from the South as the former partners tend to have more to offer in terms of

materials and research experience than partners from the same country or partners from southern countries.

However, when considering the effects on team orientation, the similarity among partners may have better impacts. In this sense, partners from the South may be more interested on local issues than local partners and than partners from the North as they may learn more how to solve their own problems from their partner’s experience. In fact, southern countries share many common characteristics such as history, climate, natural resources, language, traditions, etc., as opposed to what they have in common with their northern partners. This is the “similarity argument” discussed earlier. In this sense,

cognitive and epistemological complementarity resulting from collaborating with partners from southern countries contributes to team capacity to contribute to local knowledge.

Inversely, given the marginal role developing countries play in global research streams led by northern countries, their relatively weak negotiating capacity leads them to engage in projects of their partners’ interests more than on their own interests. This is the “outsourcing” argument discussed already.

Figure 3: Theoretical Model

2.4.2.2 Summary of Hypotheses

In previous sections we saw that a) there is no consensus on the characteristics of the effects of research collaboration on research performance; b) there is little guide provided by the literature on the ways and extent to which international research

collaboration affects research productivity; and c) there is even less information as to how different types of collaboration affects research productivity and research orientation. For these reasons, as explained earlier, some of the hypotheses proposed are exploratory and intuitively based.

The hypotheses proposed include, on the one hand, the relationships between the three types of international research collaboration discussed and the productivity and

Research Team Characteristics: • Size • Age • Education • Experience • Discipline • Sector • Home Institution • Location Partner Characteristics: • North • South International Research Collaboration Foreign Researchers Foreign Funding Co-Authorship North South RTPC RTCLK -: Trans action- Costs A rgume nt + : Line ar-Mo del A rgume nt + : M ore-is- Bette r Arg umen t + _{: Co} mm itm ent A rgum ent - : Op portu nity A rgum ent - : Outs_ourcin g Argu_ment + : Co mplem entar ity-b ased -on Mater ial-D iversi ty Ar gume nt + : Complementarity-based-on Epistemological-Similarity Argument + -

orientation of the research teams, and on the other, the relationship between different types of partners and team performance.

2.4.2.2.1 International Research Collaboration and Research Team Output

The following are the hypotheses regarding the overall effects of international research collaboration; of the different types of collaboration considered (co-authoring with partners located overseas, working on projects with foreign funding and hosting foreign researchers); and of different types of partners: North and South):

H1. International research collaboration (IRC) positively affects team productivity in Colombia. This hypothesis is grounded on the literature that claims that research

collaboration facilitates access to materials, financial resources, new knowledge, and relevant information, and that by so doing it increases creativity and productivity.

H2. Hosting foreign researchers reduces team output. This hypothesis is based on the “transaction costs” argument discussed earlier.

H3. Receiving foreign funds to support R&D activities increases team output. The reason supporting this hypothesis is apparent as foreign funding usually implies the elaboration of research products. For our purposes this is the “linear-model” argument.

H4. Co-authoring with foreign partners located overseas increases overall team output. This hypothesis is based on the “more-is-better” argument.

The origin of the partner may also have mixed effects on the performance of the teams. Whereas research teams may have more to learn and may gain more access to scarce resources by collaborating with researchers from the North, they may gain more

understanding of local issues when collaborating with researchers from the South, who have similar research questions, approaches, resources and historical background.

H5. Teams that collaborate with partners from the North have more bibliographic products. This hypothesis is based on the “complementarity-based-on-material-diversity” argument.

Finally, there might be combined effects regarding partner origin and type of collaboration.

H6. Working with projects funded by foreign institutions increases team output more for teams that collaborate with northern countries than for those that collaborate with partners from the south. This implies the combination of two positive effects: the effects derived from working on projects with foreign funding (the “linear-model” argument), and the effects derived from the “complementarity-based-on-material- diversity” argument.

2.4.2.2.2 Hypotheses on Research Team Ability to Contribute to Local Knowledge

The hypotheses associated with the effects of international research collaboration both considering the different types of collaboration and partners include:

H7.Teams that collaborate internationally are less likely to use ‘Colombia’ in

their research activities.

H8. Hosting foreign researchers increase the probability of teams to involve ‘Colombia’ in their research. This is based on the “commitment argument.”

H9. Receiving foreign funding reduces the probability of teams to work on research activities involving ‘Colombia’. This hypothesis is based on the “opportunity” argument.

H10. Co-authoring with foreign partners located overseas reduces the probability of teams to work on research activities involving ‘Colombia’. This hypothesis is based on the “outsourcing” argument.

H11. Teams that collaborate with partners from the South are more likely to use

‘Colombia’ in their research projects and products. This hypothesis is based on the “similarity argument.”

H12. Working on projects funded by foreign institutions decreases the probability of using Colombia in their research more for teams that collaborate with northern

countries than for those that collaborate with partners from the south. This implies the combination of the two effects discussed earlier: the negative effects derived from working on projects with foreign funding, and the negative effects derived from the “outsourcing argument.”

Table 2 summarizes the hypotheses discussed in this chapter. The next chapter introduces the operation definitions, the data and the models used.

Table 2: Summary of Research Hypotheses

Variable Research Team Output Research Team Contribution to Local Knowledge

Internat. Res. Collab. > than No Internat. Res. Collab. Less likely than No- Internat. Res. Collab. Foreign Researchers < than No Foreign Researcher More likely than No Foreign Resear. Foreign Funding > than No Foreign Funding Less likely than No Foreign Funding Internat. Co-Author > than No Inter. Co-Author Less likely than No Internl. Co-Author Partner from North > than No Partner from North Less likely than Partner from South

CHAPTER 3