BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Czerniawska Dominika (University of Warsaw), Fenrich Wojciech (University of Warsaw), Bojanowski Michał (Kozminski University)
Actors, Relations, and Networks : Scholarly Collaboration Beyond Bibliometric Measures
Polish Sociological Review, 2018, nr 2, s. 167-185, rys., aneks, bibliogr. 29 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Szkolnictwo wyższe, Nauka, Współpraca, Analiza bibliometryczna
Higher education, Science, Cooperation, Bibliometric analysis
summ., We thank National Science Centre Poland for support for the project RECON ( pi/) through grant 2012/07/D/HS6/01971.
Scholarly collaboration is relatively well described quantitatively on the macro level thanks to the analyses of large bibliographic databases. At the same time, there are known limitations of the bibliometric approaches to studying collaboration in science. We argue that in order to improve our understanding of social processes operating in science it is necessary to take a more in-depth look: (1) identify kinds of actors that are recognized as potential partners in collaboration, (2) what features of collaborative relations are considered crucial for engaged actors, (3) what kinds of structures of networks composed of collaboration relations actors are embedded in, and what factors influence these structures. With 30 individual in-depth interviews (IDI) with Polish scholars we gathered detailed information about individual collaborations that allowed us to analyze collaborative ties from individual perspective and map respondent-centered networks of collaboration. Scholars identify individuals as well as teams or institutions as collaborators. They also distinguish symmetric and asymmetric collaborations. Structures of respondent-centered collaboration networks are affected by (a) leadership strategies of team principals (especially whether teams are built around positions or individuals); (b) institutional location (by making establishing external collaborations easier for scientists from bigger institutions); (c) scientific degree and recent changes in financing of science (as young scientists receive more freedom from usual organizational hierarchies by receiving substantial grants). (original abstract)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach
  1. Baldwin, R.E., and Forslid, R. 2000. The core-periphery model and endogenous growth: Stabilizing and destabilizing integration, Economica 67: 307-324.
  2. Beaver, D. 2001. Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and its study): Past, Present, and Future, Scientometrics 52: 365-377.
  3. Birnbaum, R., and Edel son, P.J. 1989. How Colleges Work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education 37: 27-29.
  4. Blau, P.M. 1994. The Organization of Academic Work. Rutgers: Transaction Publishers.
  5. Boyer, E.L. 1997. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Wiley: Jossey-Bass.
  6. Cohen, M.D., and March, J.G. 1974. Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College president. ERIC.
  7. Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of Social Science Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
  8. Crosland, M. 1975. The Development of a Professional Career in Science in France, Minerva 13: 38-57.
  9. Csardi, G., and Nepusz, T. 2006. The Igraph Software Package for Complex Network Research, Inter Journal of Complex Systems: 1695.
  10. DeSolla Price, D. 1965. Networks of Scientific Papers, Science 149: 510-515.
  11. Han, Shin-Kap. 2003. Tribal Regimes in Academia: A Comparative Analysis of Market Structure Across Disciplines, Social Networks 25: 251-280.
  12. Hedström, P. 2005. Dissecting the Social on the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Hermanowicz, J.C. 1998. The Presentation of Occupational Self in Science, Qualitative Sociology 21: 129-148.
  14. Kapferer, B. 1969. Norms and the Manipulation of Relationships in a Work Context, in: J.C. Mitchell (ed.), Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  15. Katz, J.S., and Martin, B.R. 1997. What is Research Collaboration? Research Policy 26: 1-18.
  16. Kuwabara, Ko., Luo, J., and Sheldon, O. 2010. Multiplex Exchange Relations, Advances in Group Processes 27: 239-268.
  17. Kwiek, M. 2015. Uniwersytet w dobie przemian: Instytucje i kadra akademicka w warunkach rosnącej konkurencji. Warszawa: PWN.
  18. Lepori, B., Barberio, V., Seeber, M., and Aguillo, I. 2013. Core-periphery Structures in National Higher Education Mystems. A Cross-country Analysis Using Interlinking Data, Journal of Informetrics 7: 622- 634.
  19. Lewis, J.M., Ross, S., and Holden, T. 2012. The How and Why of Academic Collaboration: Disciplinary Differences and Policy Implications, Higher Education 64: 693-708.
  20. Leydesdorff, L., and Wagner, C.S. 2008. International Collaboration in Science and the Formation of a Core Group, Journal of Informetrics 2: 317-325.
  21. Lorrain, F., and White, H.C. 1971. Structural Equivalence of Individuals in Social Networks, Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1: 49-80.
  22. Middlehurst, R., and Elton, L. 1992. Leadership and Management in Higher Education, Studies in Higher Education 17: 251-264.
  23. R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  24. Schneijderberg, Ch., and Merkator, N. 2013. The New Higher Education Professionals, in: B.M. Kehm, U. Teichler (eds.), The Academic Profession in Europe: New Tasks and New Challenges. Berlin: Springer, pp. 53-92.
  25. Slaughter, Sh., and Leslie, L.L. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. ERIC.
  26. Sonnenwald, D.H. 2007. Scientific Collaboration, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 41: 643-681.
  27. Subramanyam, K. 1983. Bibliometric Studies of Research Collaboration: A Review, Journal of Information Science 6: 33-38.
  28. Whitley, R. 2000. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford University Press.
  29. Whitley, R. 2003. Competition and Pluralism in the Public Sciences: The Impact of Institutional Frameworks on the Organisation of Academic Science, Research Policy 32: 1015-1029.
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu