Üniversiteler Birbirine Sosyal, Kurumsal ve Bilişsel Olarak Ne Kadar Yakındır? TÜBİTAK Proje İşbirlikleri Üzerinden Bir Analiz

Year 2023, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 525 - 549, 25.01.2023

Sevim Unutulmaz

https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1123187

Abstract

Bilimde işbirliği uzun zamandır süre gelmektedir. Bilim insanları arasındaki işbirliği, artan işbölümünün bir sonucu olarak değerlendirilebilir. İşbirliğini artırmaya yönelik geliştirilen politikaların çoğu, yakınlık faktörlerinin işbirliği düzeyi üzerindeki etkilerini hesaba katacak şekilde tasarlanmamıştır. Bilimsel işbirliğini geniş bir alanda teşvik etmeyi amaçlayan politika tasarımcıları yakınlık faktörlerini hesaba katmalıdırlar. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın amacı yakınlık perspektifi kullanılarak üniversiteler arasındaki bilimsel işbirlikleri ile sosyal, kurumsal ve bilişsel yakınlık boyutları arasındaki ilişkilerin birlikte incelenmesidir. Bu sayede yakınlık ve ekonomik ağlar arasındaki ilişki analiz edilerek literatüre katkı sağlamak hedeflenmiştir. Çalışmanın kapsamı 2012-2020 yılları arasında 193 üniversite tarafından tamamlanmış, kabul edilmiş ve başarılı olan 2323 adet TÜBİTAK 1001 projesinden oluşmaktadır. Analiz yöntemi Newton'un evrensel yerçekimi yasasına benzeyen bir yerçekimi modelidir. Analizler R programında gerçekleştirilmiştir. TÜBİTAK 1001 proje verilerine dayanarak yakınlık ve işbirliği arasındaki ilişkiye ilişkin bulguları şu şekilde özetlemek mümkündür: Üniversitelerin yürüttükleri proje sayısı ne kadar çok olursa daha sonrasında işbirliği yapma eğilimi de o kadar yüksektir. Kurumsal yakınlığın pozitif ve anlamlı bir katsayıya sahip olması ise aynı tür kurumların işbirliğine daha yatkın olduğunu göstermektedir. Sosyal yakınlığa bakıldığında, bilimsel işbirliği üzerinde önemli ve olumlu bir etkisinin olduğu görülmektedir. Geçmişte işbirliği yapan üniversitelerin gelecekte de işbirliği yapma olasılıkları daha yüksektir. Son olarak yürütülen projelerde araştırmacıların bilimsel alanlarındaki benzerliklerin bilimsel işbirliği üzerinde hiçbir etkisi yoktur. Bu durum aynı bilimsel uzmanlığın üniversiteler arası işbirliklerini teşvik etmek için önemli olmadığı anlamını taşımaktadır.

Keywords

Bilimsel İşbirliği, Sosyal Yakınlık, Kurumsal Yakınlık, Bilişsel Yakınlık, Yerçekimi Modeli.

How Close Are Universities Socially, Institutionally and Cognitively? An Analysis Through TUBITAK Project Collaborations

Abstract

Collaboration in science has been around for a long time. Policy designers who aim to foster scientific collaboration across a wide range of fields should take into account proximity factors. In this context, the aim of the study is to examine the relations between scientific collaborations between universities and social, institutional and cognitive proximity dimensions together, using the perspective of proximity. In this way, it is aimed to contribute to the literature by analyzing the relationship between proximity and economic networks. The scope of the study consists of 2323 TUBITAK 1001 projects completed, accepted and successful by 193 universities between 2012 and 2020. The analysis method is a gravity model similar to Newton's universal gravitational law. Analyzes were carried out in the R program. Based on TUBITAK 1001 project data, it is possible to summarize the findings regarding the relationship between closeness and cooperation as follows: The more projects carried out by universities, the higher their tendency to cooperate later. The fact that institutional proximity has a positive and significant coefficient indicates that the same type of institutions are more prone to cooperation. Looking at social proximity, it seems to have a significant and positive effect on scientific cooperation. Universities that have cooperated in the past are more likely to cooperate in the future. Finally, similarities in the scientific fields of researchers in the projects carried out have no effect on scientific cooperation. This means that the same scientific expertise is not important for promoting inter-university collaborations.

Keywords

Scientific Collaboration, Social Proximity, Institutional Proximity, Cognitive Proximity, Gravity Model.

References

• Adams, J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R. and Stephan, P. E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from US universities, 1981–1999. Research policy, 34(3), 259-285.
• Aguiléra, A., Lethiais, V. and Rallet, A. (2012). Spatial and Non-Spatial Proximities in Inter-Firm Relations: An Empirical Analysis. Industry and Innovation, 19(3), 187-202.
• Andersson, D. E., Gunessee, S., Matthiessen, C. W. And Find, S. (2014). The geography of Chinese science. Environment and Planning a, 46(12), 2950-2971.
• Antonelli, C. (2000). Collective Knowledge Communication And Innovation: The Evidence of Technological Districts. Regional Studies, 34(6), 535-547.
• Autant‐Bernard, C., Billand, P., Frachisse, D. and Massard, N. (2007). Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Papers in regional Science, 86(3), 495-519.
• 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.
• Balland, P. A., Boschma, R. and Frenken, K. (2015). Proximity and Innovation: From Statics to Dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907-920.
• Barnett, G. A., Park, H. W., Jiang, K., Tang, C. ve Aguillo, I. F. (2014). A multi-level network analysis of web-citations among the world’s universities. Scientometrics, 99(1), 5-26.
• Torre, A., Rallet, A., Lung, Y., Pecqueur, B., Lecoq, B., Colletis, G., & Bellet, M. (1992). Études Empiriques: Et pourtant ça marche!(quelques reflexions sur l'analyse du concept de proximité). Revue d'économie industrielle, 61(1), 111-128.
• Boschma, R. A. (2005). Does Geographical Proximity Favour Innovation. Economie Et Institutions, 6(7), 111-128.
• Boschma, R., Frenken, K., Bathelt, H., Feldman, M. and Kogler, D. (2012). Technological relatedness and regional branching. Beyond territory. Dynamic geographies of knowledge creation, diffusion and innovation, 29, 64-68.
• Boschma, R. and Martın, R. (2010). The Handbook Of Evolutionary Economic Geography, Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Bouba-Olga, O. and Grossetti, M. (2008). Socio-Économie De Proximité. Revue Deconomie Regionale Urbaine, (3), 311-328.
• Bozeman, B. and Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ Collaboration Strategies: Implications For Scientifc and Technical Human Capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616.
• Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F. (2009). Mobility Of Skilled Workers And Co-Invention Networks: An Anatomy Of Localized Knowledge Flows. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(4), 439-468.
• Broekel, T. and Boschma, R. (2012). Knowledge Networks in The Dutch Aviation Industry: The Proximity Paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 409-433.
• Cao, Z., Derudder, B. and Peng, Z. (2019). Interaction Between Different Forms of Proximity in Inter‐Organizational Scientific Collaboration: The Case of Medical Sciences Research Network in The Yangtze River Delta Region. Papers in Regional Science, 98(5), 1903-1924.
• Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective On Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128-152.
• D’este, P. and Patel, P. (2007). University–Industry Linkages in The Uk: What Are The Factors Underlying The Variety of Interactions With Industry?. Research Policy, 36(9), 1295-1313.
• Defazio, D., Lockett, A. and Wright, M. (2009). Funding Incentives, Collaborative Dynamics And Scientifc Productivity: Evidence From The Eu Framework Program. Research Policy, 38, 293–305.
• Draulans, J., Deman, A. P. and Volberda, H. W. (2003). Building Alliance Capability: Management Techniques For Superior Alliance Performance. Long Range Planning, 36(2), 151-166.
• Elango, B., Rajendran, P. and Bornmann, L. (2017). A Scientometric Analysis of International Collaboration and Growth of Literature At The Macro Level. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 20(2), 41–50.
• Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Dynamics Of Innovation: From National Systems And “Mode 2” To A Triple Helix Of University–Industry–Government Relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.
• Ferligoj, A., Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Snijders, T. A. and Doreian, P. (2015). Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system. Scientometrics, 104(3), 985-1012.
• Fernández, A., Ferrándiz, E. and León, M. D. (2016). Proximity Dimensions and Scientific Collaboration Among Academic Institutions in Europe: The Closer, The Better?. Scientometrics, 106(3), 1073-1092.
• Fernández, A., Ferrándiz, E. and León, M. D. (2021). Are Organizational And Economic Proximity Driving Factors of Scientific Collaboration? Evidence From Spanish Universities, 2001–2010. Scientometrics, 126(1), 579-602.
• Flint, J. and Munafo, M. (2014). Genesis Of A Complex Disease. Nature, 511(7510), 412-413.
• Franceschet, M. and Costantini, A. (2010). The Effect Of Scholar Collaboration On Impact And Quality Of Academic Papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540-553.
• Freeman, D. (1991). To Make The Tacit Explicit: Teacher Education, Emerging Discourse, And Conceptions Of Teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(5-6), 439-454.
• Frenken, K., Hardeman, S. and Hoekman, J. (2009). Spatial Scientometrics: Towards A Cumulative Research Program. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 222-232.
• Frenken, K., and Van Oort, F. G. (2004). Considerations and Stylized Facts in Biotechnology in Europe And The United States. Regional Economies As Knowledge Laboratories, 38.
• Gertler, M. S. (1995). Being There: Proximity, Organization, And Culture in The Development and Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. Economic Geography, 71(1), 1-26.
• Glänzel, W. and Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-Authorship. In Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, 257-276.
• Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem Of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
• Gui, Q., Liu, C. and Du, D. (2018). International Knowledge Flows and The Role of Proximity. Growth and Change, 49(3), 532-547.
• Hagedoorn, J. (1995). Strategic Technology Partnering During The 1980s: Trends, Networks And Corporate Patterns in Non-Core Technologies. Research Policy, 24(2), 207-231.
• Heinze, T. and Kuhlmann, S. (2008). Across Institutional Boundaries? Research Collaboration in German Public Sector Nanoscience. Res Policy, 37(5), 888–899.
• Hennemann, S., Rybskı, D. and Liefner, I. (2012). The Myth Of Global Science Collaboration—Collaboration Patterns in Epistemic Communities. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 217-225.
• Heringa, P. W., Horlings, E., van der Zouwen, M., van den Besselaar, P. and van Vierssen, W. (2014). How do dimensions of proximity relate to the outcomes of collaboration? A survey of knowledge-intensive networks in the Dutch water sector. Economics of innovation and new technology, 23(7), 689-716.
• Heringa, P. W., Hessels, L. K. and 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.
• Hoekman, J., Frenken, K. and Tijssen, R. J. (2010). Research Collaboration At A Distance: Changing Spatial Patterns of Scientific Collaboration Within Europe. Research Policy, 39(5), 662-673.
• Hong, W. and Su, Y. S. (2013). The Effect of Institutional Proximity in Non-Local University–Industry Collaborations: An Analysis Based on Chinese Patent Data. Research Policy, 42(2), 454-464.
• Iglič, H., Doreian, P., Kronegger, L. and Ferligoj, A. (2017). With whom do researchers collaborate and why?. Scientometrics, 112(1), 153-174.
• Katz, J. S. and Martin, B. R. (1997). What is Research Collaboration?. Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18.
• Kiesler, S. and Cummings, J. N. (2002). What Do We Know About Proximity And Distance in Work Groups? A Legacy Of Research. Distributed Work, 1, 57-80.
• Klimas, P. (2017). Summarizing The Views on Cognitive Proximity in Cooperation and Networking Processes. Organizacja İ Kierowanie, 179(4a), 9-25.
• Knoben, J. and Oerlemans, L. A. (2006). Proximity and Inter‐Organizational Collaboration: A Literature Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89.
• Lakitan, B., Hidayat, D. and Herlinda, S. (2012). Scientific Productivity and The Collaboration Intensity of Indonesian Universities And Public R&D Institutions: Are There Dependencies on Collaborative R&D With Foreign Institutions?. Technology in Society, 34(3), 227-238.
• Lauvås, T. and Steinmo, M. (2021). The Role of Proximity Dimensions and Mutual Commitment in Shaping The Performance of University-Industry Research Centres. Innovation, 23(2), 182-208.
• Leahey, E. (2016). From Sole Investigator to Team Scientist: Trends in The Practice and Study of Research Collaboration. Annual Review of Sociology, 42, 81–100.
• Leszczyńska, D. and Khachlouf, N. (2018). How Proximity Matters in Interactive Learning and Innovation: A Study of The Venetian Glass Industry. Industry and Innovation, 25(9), 874-896.
• Letaifa, S. B. and Rabeau, Y. (2013). Too Close To Collaborate? How Geographic Proximity Could Impede Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2071-2078.
• Leydesdorff, L. and Wagner, C.S. (2008). International Collaboration in Science and The Formation of A Core Group. J Inform, 2, 317– 325.
• Matveeva, N. and Ferligoj, A. (2020). Scientific Collaboration in Russian Universities Before and After The Excellence Initiative Project 5-100. Scientometrics, 124(3), 2383-2407.
• Molina-Morales, F. X., García-Villaverde, P. M. and Parra-Requena, G. (2014). Geographical and Cognitive Proximity Effects on Innovation Performance in Smes: A Way Through Knowledge Acquisition. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(2), 231-251.
• Molina-Morales, F. X., Parra Requena, G. and García Villaverde, P. M. (2010). The Mediating Effect of Cognitive Social Capital on Knowledge Acquisition in Clustered Firms. 41(1), 59-84.
• Newman, M. E. and Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and Evaluating Community Structure in Networks. Physical Review E, 69(2), 026113.
• Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning and Innovation in Organizations And Economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V. and Van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research policy, 36(7), 1016-1034.
• Opsahl, T., Agneessens, F. and Skvoretz, J. (2010). Node Centrality in Weighted Networks: Generalizing Degree and Short Estpaths. Social Networks, 32(3), 245-251.
• Paier, M. and Scherngell, T. (2011). Determinants Of Collaboration in European Rved Networks: Empirical Evidence From A Discrete Choice Model. Industry and Innovation, 18(1), 89-104.
• Parish, A. J., Boyack, K. W. and Ioannidis, J. P. (2018). Dynamics Of Co-Authorship and Productivity Across Different Fields of Scientific Research. Plos One, 13(1), E0189742.
• Persson, O., Melin, G., Danell, R. ve Kaloudis, A. (1997). Research collaboration at Nordic universities. Scientometrics, 39(2), 209-223.
• Petruzzelli, A. M. (2011). The Impact of Technological Relatedness, Prior Ties, And Geographical Distance on University–Industry Collaborations: A Joint-Patent Analysis. Technovation, 31(7), 309-319.
• Ponds, R., Van Oort, F. and Frenken, K. (2007). The Geographical and Institutional Proximity of Research Collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423-443.
• Ponomariov, B. and Boardman, C. (2016). What is Co-Authorship?. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1939–1963.
• Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative Networks As Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns. Management Science, 51(5), 756-770.
• Sonnenwald, D. (2007). Scientific Collaboration: A Synthesis of Challenges and Strategies. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 643–681.
• Strambach, S. and Klement, B. (2012). Cumulative and Combinatorial Micro-Dynamics of Knowledge: The Role of Space and Place in Knowledge Integration. European Planning Studies, 20(11), 1843-1866.
• Ter Wal, L. J. (2009). The Structure and Dynamics of Knowledge Networks: A Proximity Approach. Phd Diss., Utrecht University, Utrecht.
• Torre, A. and Gallaud, D. (2022). Introduction: Proximity Relations in The 21st Century. In Handbook of Proximity Relations, Edward Elgar Publishing.
• TÜBİTAK (2020), Tübitak Araştırma Destek Programları Başkanlığı, https://Tubitak.Gov.Tr/Sites/Default/Files/19970/Ardeb_Tanitim_Sunumu_2020_0.Pdf, (24.11.2021).
• Uzzi, B. (1996). The Sources And Consequences of Embeddedness for The Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674.
• Wuyts, S., Colombo, M. G., Dutta, S. ve Nooteboom, B. (2005). Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58(2), 277-302.