Research Network Collaboration in Economics: A Social Network Analysis for Izmir

Year 2018, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 115 - 129, 23.07.2018

Utku Akseki , Burcu Türkcan

https://doi.org/10.18354/esam.372071

Abstract

Production and transmission of knowledge are
especially important in intellectual activities like scientific researches. In
this context, the main purpose of this study is to analyse the research network
collaboration in economics community in Izmir. To the best of our knowledge,
there is no study investigating this topic in the literature for Izmir. To fill
this gap, firstly, covering the period of 2012:Q1 – 2017:Q3, a sociometric
choices matrix is constructed, for the research collaboration network of economics
community in Izmir. Moreover a social network graph is illustrated in order to analyze
social and individual network densities. Results basically show that Izmir
economics community exhibits local network properties based on geographical and
cognitive distances.

Keywords

Research collaboration, Social Network, Economics Community

Research Network Collaboration In Economics: A Social Network Analysis For İzmir

Abstract

Bilginin
üretimi ve aktarılması özellikle bilimsel araştırmalar gibi entellektüel
faaliyetlerde önemlidir. Bu bağlamda bu çalışmanın temel amacı, İzmir’deki iktisatçı
topluluğu arasındaki araştırma ağı işbirliklerini  analiz etmektir. Literatürde bu konuda bir
çalışma bildiğimiz kadarıyla yoktur. Bu boşluğu doldurmak için ilk olarak, 2012:Q1
– 2017:Q3
dönemini kapsayan ve İzmir’deki
iktisatçıların araştırma ağı işbirliklerini gösteren bir sosyometrik tercihler
matrisi oluşturulmuştur. Bununla beraber, toplumsal ve bireysel ağ yoğunluğunu
anlatan bir sosyal ağ grafiği çizilmiştir. Sonuçlar İzmir’deki iktisatçılar
arasında coğrafi ve bilişsel yakınlık temelinde yerel ağ özelliği olduğunu
göstermektedir.

Keywords

Araştırma işbirlikleri, Sosyal Ağ, Ekonomi Topluluğu

References

• Al, U., Sezen, U., Soydal, İ. (2012). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Bilimsel Yayınlarının Sosyal Ağ Analizi Yöntemiyle Değerlendirilmesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi / Journal of Faculty of Letters 29(1), 53-71.
• Badar, K., Hite, J. M., Ashraf, N. (2015). Knowledge network centrality, formal rank and research performance: evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects, Sciencetometrics, 105, 1553-1576.
• Barnett, A. H., Ault, R. W. and Kaserman, D. L. (1988). The Rising Incidence of Co-authorship in Economics: Further Evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 70 (3), 539-543.
• Bergé, L. R. (2016). Network proximity in the geography of research collaboration, Papers in Regional Science, 1-31.
• Berthelemy, M. & Amaral, L. A. N. (1999) Small-world networks: Evidence for a crossover picture, Physical Review Letters, 82(15), pp. 3180–3183.
• Birke, D. & Swann, G. M. P. (2005) Network effects, network structure and consumer interaction in mobile telecommunications, in: ITS: 16th European Regional Conference, Porto.
• Cassar, A. (2007) Coordination and cooperation in local, random and small world networks: Experimental evidence, Games and Economic Behavior, 58, pp. 209–230.
• Cowan, R. & Jonard, N. (2004) Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge, Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 28, pp. 1557–1575.
• Çavuşoğlu, A. and Türker, İ. (2013). Scientific Collaboration Network of Turkey, Chaos, Solutions & Fractals, 57, 9-18. Çavuşoğlu, A. and Türker, İ. (2014). Patterns of collaboration in four scientific disciplines of the Turkish collaboration network, Physica A413, 220-229.
• Degenne, A. & Forse, M. (1999) Introducing Social Networks (London: Sage).
• Hakansson, H. & Ford, D. (2002). “How should companies interact in business networks?”. Journal of Business Research. 55. Pp. 133 – 139.
• Karagöz, D. ve Kozak, N. (2014). Anatolia Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi’nin Bibliyometrik Analizi: Araştırma Konuları ve Kurumlar Arası İş Birliğinin Sosyal Ağ Analizi ile İncelenmesi, Türk Kütüphaneciliği 28(1), 47-61. Kumar, S. (2015). Co-authorship networks: a review of the literature, Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(1), 55-73.
• McDowell, J. M. and Melvin, M. (1983). The Determinants of Co-Authorship: An Analysis of the Economics Literature, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 65(1), 155-160.
• Moreno, J.L. (1934). Who shall survive?. Beacon House Inc. New York.
• Newman, M.E.J. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. I. network construction and fundamental results, Physical Review E, 64(1), 1-8.
• Owen-Smith, J. & Powell, WW. (2005). “Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community”. Organization Science. Pp. 5 – 21.
• Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1940) On social structure, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 70(1), pp. 1–12.
• Scott, J. (2000) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, 2nd ed. (London: Sage).
• Scott, N. , Baggio, R. and Cooper, C. (2008). Network Analysis and Tourism – From Theory to Practice. Channel View Publications. Toronto. Sebestyén, T. and Varga, A. (2013). Research productivity and the quality of interregional knowledge networks, Ann Reg Sci, 51, 155–189.
• Tunçay, B., Kahriman, H. and Gökbunar, R. (2016). Sosyal Bilimler Atıf İndeksinde Avrupa Birliği Ülkeleri ve Türkiye Adresli Ekonomi-İşletme Alanındaki Yayınların Analizi, Aydın İktisat Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 4-21.
• Türker, İ. and Çavuşoğlu, A. (2016). Detailing the co-authorship networks in degree coupling, edge weight and academic age perspective, Chaos, Solutions and Fractals, 91, 386-392.
• Wasserman, S. & Galaskiewicz, J. (1994) Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).