Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

PL EN


2017 | 53 | 3(213) | 285-308

Article title

Znaczenie bliskości w nawiązywaniu współpracy naukowej przez polskich naukowców

Content

Title variants

EN
The scientific centre standing and the establishment of scientific collaboration

Languages of publication

PL

Abstracts

PL
W ostatnich dziesięcioleciach nastąpiła bezprecedensowa intensyfi kacja różnych wymiarów współpracy naukowej. W Polsce skala współpracy, zwłaszcza zagranicznej, jest wyraźnie niższa niż w większości krajów europejskich. Celem artykułu jest analiza mechanizmów i preferencji w zakresie nawiązywania współpracy naukowej przez polskich naukowców. Wykorzystując koncepcję bliskości R. Boschmy zbadano jakie jest znaczenie różnych kategorii bliskości w nawiązywaniu współpracy naukowej w zależności od rangi ośrodka naukowego. Analizę oparto na 61 wywiadach z pracownikami naukowymi uczelni wyższych i instytutów badawczych w czterech polskich ośrodkach naukowych. Badania wykazały, że w procesach nawiązywania współpracy największe znaczenie miała bliskość kognitywna, a w dalszej kolejności także organizacyjna i społeczna. Bliskość geograficzna i instytucjonalna miały minimalne znaczenie. Ponadto, dla naukowców z ośrodków peryferyjnych kontakty krajowe odgrywały istotną rolę w nawiązywaniu współpracy zagranicznej. Na podstawie uzyskanych wyników sformułowano rekomendacje dla polityki naukowej służące rozwojowi współpracy naukowej
EN
In the recent few decades we have witnessed unprecedented intensifi cation of scientific collaboration worldwide. In Poland, the scale of collaboration, especially international, is clearly lower than in most of the European countries. The aim of the article is to analyze the mechanisms and preferences of establishing scientific collaboration by the Polish researchers. Using R. Boschma’s concept of proximity we investigated how the role of various types of proximity differs in establishing scientific collaboration depending on the standing of a scientific centre. The analysis is based on 61 interviews with scientists in four Polish cities. It was revealed that in establishing scientific collaboration the most important was cognitive proximity, and – to a lesser extent – organizational and social. Geographical and institutional proximities were of a minor signifi cance. Additionally, for scientists from peripheral scientific centres national contacts played an important role in establishing international collaborative links. Based on the results, we proposed recommendations for science policy focused on spurring scientific collaboration.

Year

Volume

53

Issue

Pages

285-308

Physical description

Dates

published
2017-09

Contributors

  • Centrum Europejskich Studiów Regionalnych i Lokalnych EUROREG, Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Centrum Europejskich Studiów Regionalnych i Lokalnych EUROREG, Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Centrum Europejskich Studiów Regionalnych i Lokalnych EUROREG, Uniwersytet Warszawski
author
  • Centrum Europejskich Studiów Regionalnych i Lokalnych EUROREG, Uniwersytet Warszawski

References

  • Adams, J., 2013, The fourth age of research, “Nature”, 497: 557–560.
  • Balland, P.A., 2012, Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks: evidence from research and development projects within the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) industry, “Regional Studies”, 46.6: 741–756.
  • Barabási, A.L., Albert, R., 1999, Emergence of scaling in random networks, “Science”, 286.5439: 509–512.
  • Bassand, M., 2007, Métropoles et métropolisation, „Enjeux de la sociologie urbaine”, 15–32.
  • Beaver, D., Rosen, R., 1978, Studies in scientific collaboration: Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship, “Scientometrics”, 1.1: 65–84.
  • Boschma, R.A., 2005, Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment, “Regional Studies” 39.1: 61–74.
  • Bozeman, B., Corley, E., 2004, Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital, “Research Policy”, 33.4: 599–616.
  • Bozeman, B., Gaughan, M., 2011, How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers, “Research Policy”, 40.10: 1393–1402.
  • Catalini, C., Fons-Rosen, C., & Gaulé, P., 2016, Did cheaper fl ights change the direction of science? CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP11252, Dokument internetowy: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2774366 [dostęp: 18.09.2017].
  • Cummings, J.N., Kiesler, S., 2005, Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries, “Social studies of science”, 35.5: 703-722.
  • Czakon, W., 2012, Sieci w zarządzaniu strategicznym, Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
  • Doré, J.C., Ojasoo, T., Okubo, Y., Durand, T., Dudognon, G., Miquel, J.F., 1996, Correspondence factor analysis of the publication patterns of 48 countries over the period 1981–1992, “Journal of the American Society for Information Science”, 47.8: 588–602.
  • Duranton, G., Puga, D., 2000, Diversity and specialisation in cities: why, where and when does it matter?, “Urban studies”, 37.3: 533–555.
  • Ejermo, O., & Karlsson, C., 2006, Interregional inventor networks as studied by patent coinventorships, “Research Policy”, 35.3: 412–430.
  • Fernández, A., Ferrándiz, E., & León, M.D., 2016, Proximity dimensions and scientific collaboration among academic institutions in Europe: The closer, the better?, “Scientometrics”, 106.3: 1073–1092.
  • Flick, U., von Kardoff, E., Steinke, I., red., 2004, A companion to qualitative research, London: Sage.
  • Franceschet, M., Costantini, A., 2010, The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers, “Journal of informetrics”, 4.4: 540–553.
  • Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C.R., Didegah, F., 2012, Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries, “Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology”, 63.2: 323–335.
  • Georghiou, L., 1998, Global cooperation in research, “Research policy”, 27.6: 611–626.
  • Gingras, Y., 2014, Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation. Uses and Abuses. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Czerwon, H., 1999, A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union, “Scientometrics”, 45: 185–202.
  • Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 2009, Odkrywanie teorii ugruntowanej: strategie badania jakościowego, Kraków: Zakład Wydawniczy „Nomos”.
  • Gordin, M.D., 2015, Scientific Babel: How science was done before and after global English, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Granovetter, M., 1985, Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness, “The American Journal of Sociology”, 91.3: 487.
  • Hâncean, M.G., Perc, M., 2016, Homophily in coauthorship networks of East European sociologists, “Scientific Reports”, 6.
  • Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.L., Sonnenwald, D.H., 2003, An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration, “Journal of the American Society for Information science and Technology”, 54.10: 952–965.
  • Hardeman, S., Frenken, K., Nomaler, Ö., & Ter Wal, A.L., 2015, Characterizing and comparing innovation systems by different ‘modes’ of knowledge production: A proximity approach, “Science and Public Policy”, 42.4: 530–548.
  • Heringa, P.W., Hessels, L.K., van der Zouwen, M., 2016, The influence of proximity dimensions on international research collaboration: an analysis of European water projects, “Industry and Innovation”, 23.8: 753–772.
  • Heringa, P.W., Horlings, E., van der Zouwen, M., van den Besselaar, P., van Vierssen, W., 2014, How do dimensions of proximity relate to the outcomes of collaboration?, “Economics of Innovation and New Technology”, 23.7:689–716.
  • Higgins, E.T., 1987, Self-discrepancy; A theory relating self and affect, “Psychological Review”, 94: 319–340.
  • Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., Tijssen, R.J., 2010, Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe, “Research Policy”, 39.5: 662–673.
  • Hwang, K., 2013, Effects of the language barrier on processes and performance of international scientific collaboration, collaborators’ participation, organizational integrity, and interorganizational relationships, “Science Communication”, 35.1: 3–31.
  • Kadushin, C., 2012, Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Katz, J., 1994, Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration, “Scientometrics”, 31.1: 31–43.
  • Katz, J.S., Martin, B.R., 1997, What is research collaboration?, “Research policy”, 26.1: 1–18.
  • Kimura, D., Hayakawa, Y., 2008, Coevolutionary networks with homophily and heterophily, “Physical Review E”, 78.1: 016103.
  • Knoben, J., Oerlemans, L.A., 2006, Proximity and Inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review, “International Journal of Management Reviews”, 8.2: 71–89.
  • Kwiek, M., 2015, Umiędzynarodowienie badań naukowych: polska kadra akademicka z perspektywy europejskiej, „Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe”, 1.45: 39–74.
  • Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Archambault, E., 2006, Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities, “Scientometrics“, 68.3: 519–533.
  • Lee, K., Brownstein, J.S., Mills, R.G., & Kohane, I.S., 2010, Does collocation inform the impact of collaboration?, “PLOS ONE”, 5.12: e14279.
  • Liu, P., Luo, S., Xia, H., 2015, Evolution of Scientifi c Collaboration Network Driven by Homophily and Heterophily, “arXiv preprint arXiv”:1510.07763.
  • Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R.J.W., Persson, O., Silvertsen, G., 1993, The measurement of international scientifi c collaboration, “Scientometrics”, 28: 15–36.
  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.M., 2001, Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks, “Annual Review of Sociology”, 27.1: 415–444.
  • Merton, R.K., 1968, The Matthew effect in science, “Science”, 159.3810: 56–63.
  • Newman, M.E., 2001, The structure of scientific collaboration networks, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”, 98.2: 404–409.
  • Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., Van den Oord, A., 2007, Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity, “Research Policy”, 36.7:1016–1034.
  • Olechnicka, A., 2012, Potencjał nauki a innowacyjność regionów, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
  • Olechnicka, A., Ploszaj, A., Celinska-Janowicz D., 2017, The geography of scientific collaboration: theory, evidence and policy. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
  • Olechnicka, A., Płoszaj, A., 2009, Polskie publikacje z zakresu nauk społecznych i Humanistycznych w bazie Web of Science, „Edukacja Ustawiczna Dorosłych”, 1.64/2009: 35–45.
  • Olechnicka, A., Płoszaj, A., 2010, Współpraca ośrodków naukowych w Polsce, „Studia Regionalne i Lokalne”, 4.42.
  • Plotnikova, T., Rake, B., 2014, Collaboration in pharmaceutical research: exploration of countrylevel determinants, “Scientometrics”, 98.2: 1173–1202.
  • Płoszaj A., Olechnicka A., 2015, Running faster or measuring better? How is the R&D sector in Central and Eastern Europe catching up with Western Europe?, “GRINCOH Working Paper Series”, Paper No. 3.06.
  • Ponds, R., Van Oort, F., Frenken, K., 2007, The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration, “Papers in Regional Science”, 86.3:423–443.
  • Rogers, E.M., Bhowmik, D.K., 1970, Homophily-heterophily: Relational concepts for communication research, “Public Opinion Quarterly”, 34.4: 523–538.
  • Sassen, S., 2001, The global city: New York, London, Tokyo, Princeton University Press.
  • Schubert, T., Sooryamoorthy, R., 2010, Can the centre-periphery model explain patterns of international scientific collaboration among threshold and industrialised countries? The case of South Africa and Germany, “Scientometrics”, 83.1: 181–203.
  • Science Europe, 2014, Practical Guide to Three Models of Cross-border Collaboration, D/2014/13.324/1, Brussels: Science Europe Working Group on Cross-border Collaboration.
  • Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J., 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Taylor, P.J., 2005, Leading world cities: empirical evaluations of urban nodes in multiple networks, “Urban Studies”, 42.9: 1593–1608.
  • Ulnicane, I., 2015, Why do international research collaborations last? Virtuous circle of feedback loops, continuity and renewal, “Science & Public Policy”, 42.4.
  • Van Oort, F., Ponds, R., Frenken, K., 2006, The Geographical and Institutional Proximity of Scientific Collaboration Networks. 46th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: “Enlargement, Southern Europe and the Mediterranean”, August 30th – September 3rd, 2006, Volos, Greece.
  • Van Rijnsoever, F.J., Hessels, L.K., 2011, Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration, “Research Policy”, 40.3: 463–472.
  • Visser, E.J., Boschma, R., 2004, Learning in districts: novelty and lock-in in a regional context, “European Planning Studies”, 12.6:793–808.
  • Wagner, C.S., 2008, The new invisible college: science for development. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
  • Wang, Z.Z., Zhu, J.J., 2014, Homophily versus preferential attachment: Evolutionary mechanisms of scientifi c collaboration networks, “International Journal of Modern Physics C”, 25.05: 1440014.
  • Werker, C., Ooms, W., Caniëls, M.C., 2016, Personal and related kinds of proximity driving collaborations: a multi-case study of Dutch nanotechnology researchers, “SpringerPlus”, 5.1: 1751.

Document Type

Publication order reference

Identifiers

YADDA identifier

bwmeta1.element.desklight-a52a91a2-c3c6-4ee5-a262-02b6b51e170a
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.