Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Araştırma İş Birliğinin Nedenleri, Başarısını Etkileyen Unsurlar ve Dezavantajları

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 734 - 747, 31.12.2021

Dilek Erdoğan , Sabiha Annaç Göv

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.21.673495

Abstract

Son yıllarda uluslararası ve ulusal alanyazında hem ortak yazarlı çalışmaların sayısının hem de yayın başına düşen yazar sayısının arttığı görülmektedir. Ortak yazarlı yayınlar akademisyenler arasında gönüllü olarak kurulan araştırma iş birliklerinin sonucunda ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu araştırmada akademisyenlerin görüşleri doğrultusunda akademisyenleri araştırma iş birliğine yönelten nedenlerin, araştırma iş birliğinin başarısını etkileyen unsurların ve akademisyenler tarafından iş birliğinin algılanan dezavantajlarının ortaya çıkarılması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla nitel bir araştırma gerçekleştirilmiş olup, farklı disiplinlerde çalışan ve farklı unvanlara sahip olan 10 akademisyen ile görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Görüşme verilerinin analizi sonucunda iş birliğine girme nedenleri arasında yayınların kalitesini artırmak, öğrenme ve gelişme sağlamak, sosyal ilişkileri geliştirmek, uzmanlık bilgisine ve kaynaklara erişmek katılımcılar tarafından en çok vurgulanan nedenler olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Araştırma partnerinin dürüst ve güvenilir olması, tarafların sorumluluklarını yerine getirmesi, kişiler arası uyum, iş planı ve takvimine uyulması gibi unsurlar iş birliğinin başarısını etkilediği düşünülen unsurlardan başlıcalarıdır. Ortak yazarlı çalışmalara yapılan katkının inandırıcılığının düşük olması, kazanılacak puanın yazar sayısına bölünmesi, ortak yazarlı çalışmalarda bireysel başarıyı kanıtlayamamak, iş birliği partneriyle yaşanan problemler gibi unsurlar araştırma iş birliğinin algılanan dezavantajları olarak ortaya çıkmıştır.

Keywords

Akademik araştırma akademik yayın kalitesi araştırma iş birliği araştırma partneri ortak yazarlık

References

  • Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957–983.
  • Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Simons, R. J., & Niessen, T. (2006). Considering diversity: Multivoicedness in international academic collaboration. Culture & Psychology, 12(4), 461–485.
  • Al, U. (2005). Çok yazarlılığın bilimsel iletişimdeki yeri. M. E. Küçük (Ed.), Prof. Dr. Nilüfer Tuncer’e armağan içinde (s. 31–41). Ankara: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği. Erişim adresi http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~umutal/publications/multipleauthorship.pdf (9 Ağustos 2019).
  • Al, U., Sezen, U., & Soydal, İ. (2012a). Hacettepe Üniversitesi bilimsel yayınlarının sosyal ağ analizi yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1), 53–71.
  • Al, U., Sezen, U., & Soydal, İ. (2012b). Türkiye’nin bilimsel yayınlarının sosyal ağ analizi yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi. Erişim adresi http://openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11655/11897/F1_ SOBAG110K044.pdf?sequence=1 (10 Ekim 2019).
  • Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P. W., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431.
  • 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.
  • Bukvova, H. (2010). Studying research collaboration: A literature review. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(3). Erişim adresi http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-3 (1 Kasım 2019).
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni. Ankara: Siyasal Kitapevi.
  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36(10), 1620– 1634.
  • Ductor, L. (2015). Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 77(3), 385–407.
  • Erdoğan, D., & Tokgöz, N. (2020). Bilgi teknolojileri dış kaynak kullanımı başarısında biçimsel ve ilişkisel yönetişimin rolü: Havacılık sektöründe bir araştırma. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 35(2), 221–239.
  • Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. A. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  • Heinze, T., & Kuhlmann, S. (2008). Across institutional boundaries? Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience. Research Policy, 37(5), 888–899.
  • Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. London: Sage Publications.
  • Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., & Liu, Z. (2007). The structure of scientific collaboration networks in scientometrics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 189–202.
  • Gentles, S. J, Charles, C, Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2015). Sampling in qualitative research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qualitative Report, 20(11),1772–1789.
  • Glesne, C. (2012). Nitel araştırmaya giriş. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J. (2011). The determinants of research collaboration modes: Exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics, 89(3), 967–983.
  • Katz, J. S. (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.
  • Kraut, R. E., Galegher, J., & Egido, C. (1987). Relationships and tasks in scientific research collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1), 31– 58.
  • King, K. (2009). Higher education and international cooperation: The role of academic cooperation in the developing world. In D. Stephens (Ed.), Higher education and international capacity building: Twenty-five years of higher education links (pp. 33–49). Oxford: Symposium Books Ltd.
  • Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.
  • Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15–36.
  • Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40.
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Muriithi, P., Horner, D., Pemberton, L., & Wao, H. (2018). Factors influencing research collaborations in Kenyan universities. Research Policy, 47(1), 88–97.
  • Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(Suppl 1), 5200–5205.
  • Pekdemir, I. M., Sözüer, A., Yaşlıoğlu, D. T., & Ceran, E. B. (2016). Yönetim ve organizasyon yazını üzerine inceleme: Bir anabilim dalı akademisyenlerinin 2005–2014 yılları arasındaki yayınları. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 45, 81–93.
  • Sargent, L. D., & Waters, L. E. (2004). Careers and academic research collaborations: An inductive process framework for understanding successful collaborations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(2), 308–319.
  • Sargut, S. (2001). Kültürler arası farklılaşma ve yönetim. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
  • Sasaki, H., Kajikawa, Y., Fujisue, K., & Sakata, I. (2010). Detecting the valley of international academic collaboration in renewable energy. Proceedings of 2010 IEEE 17th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 99–103), October 29-31, Xiamen, China.
  • Sayhan-Tunçay, S., & Sürgevil-Dalkılıç, O. (2017). Yönetim ve organizasyon bilim alanında ortak yazarlılık. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(3), 393–423.
  • Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.
  • Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), 96–115.
  • Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618.
  • Yağar, F., & Dökme, S. (2018). Niteliksel araştırmaların planlanması: Araştırma soruları, örneklem seçimi, geçerlik ve güvenirlik. Gazi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(3), 1–9.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Reasons, Success Factors and Disadvantages of Research Collaboration

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 734 - 747, 31.12.2021

Dilek Erdoğan , Sabiha Annaç Göv

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.21.673495

Abstract

In recent years, the number of both co-authored publications and authors per publication in the national and international literature has increased. Co-authored publications are a result of voluntary research collaboration among academics. This study aims to investigate the reasons for research collaboration, the factors affecting the success of research collaboration, and the disadvantages of the collaboration perceived by researchers. For this purpose, qualitative research was conducted, and interviews were conducted with ten academics with different titles working in different disciplines. Among the reasons for collaboration, the most frequently reported reasons were increasing the quality of publications, ensuring learning and development, improving social relations, expertise, and access to resources. Factors such as being honest and trustworthy of the research partner, fulfilling the responsibilities of the parties, interpersonal harmony, complying with the business plan and calendar are among the factors considered to affect the success of the collaboration. Some of the perceived disadvantages of research collaboration are the low reliability of the contribution to multi-author studies, the division of academic achievement score by the number of authors, the difficulty of proving individual achievement in co-authored studies, and problems related to the research partner.

Keywords

Academic research co-authorship quality of academic research research collaboration research partner

References

  • Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957–983.
  • Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Simons, R. J., & Niessen, T. (2006). Considering diversity: Multivoicedness in international academic collaboration. Culture & Psychology, 12(4), 461–485.
  • Al, U. (2005). Çok yazarlılığın bilimsel iletişimdeki yeri. M. E. Küçük (Ed.), Prof. Dr. Nilüfer Tuncer’e armağan içinde (s. 31–41). Ankara: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği. Erişim adresi http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~umutal/publications/multipleauthorship.pdf (9 Ağustos 2019).
  • Al, U., Sezen, U., & Soydal, İ. (2012a). Hacettepe Üniversitesi bilimsel yayınlarının sosyal ağ analizi yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1), 53–71.
  • Al, U., Sezen, U., & Soydal, İ. (2012b). Türkiye’nin bilimsel yayınlarının sosyal ağ analizi yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi. Erişim adresi http://openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11655/11897/F1_ SOBAG110K044.pdf?sequence=1 (10 Ekim 2019).
  • Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P. W., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431.
  • 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.
  • Bukvova, H. (2010). Studying research collaboration: A literature review. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(3). Erişim adresi http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-3 (1 Kasım 2019).
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni. Ankara: Siyasal Kitapevi.
  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36(10), 1620– 1634.
  • Ductor, L. (2015). Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 77(3), 385–407.
  • Erdoğan, D., & Tokgöz, N. (2020). Bilgi teknolojileri dış kaynak kullanımı başarısında biçimsel ve ilişkisel yönetişimin rolü: Havacılık sektöründe bir araştırma. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 35(2), 221–239.
  • Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. A. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  • Heinze, T., & Kuhlmann, S. (2008). Across institutional boundaries? Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience. Research Policy, 37(5), 888–899.
  • Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. London: Sage Publications.
  • Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., & Liu, Z. (2007). The structure of scientific collaboration networks in scientometrics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 189–202.
  • Gentles, S. J, Charles, C, Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2015). Sampling in qualitative research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qualitative Report, 20(11),1772–1789.
  • Glesne, C. (2012). Nitel araştırmaya giriş. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J. (2011). The determinants of research collaboration modes: Exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics, 89(3), 967–983.
  • Katz, J. S. (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.
  • Kraut, R. E., Galegher, J., & Egido, C. (1987). Relationships and tasks in scientific research collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1), 31– 58.
  • King, K. (2009). Higher education and international cooperation: The role of academic cooperation in the developing world. In D. Stephens (Ed.), Higher education and international capacity building: Twenty-five years of higher education links (pp. 33–49). Oxford: Symposium Books Ltd.
  • Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.
  • Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15–36.
  • Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40.
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Muriithi, P., Horner, D., Pemberton, L., & Wao, H. (2018). Factors influencing research collaborations in Kenyan universities. Research Policy, 47(1), 88–97.
  • Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(Suppl 1), 5200–5205.
  • Pekdemir, I. M., Sözüer, A., Yaşlıoğlu, D. T., & Ceran, E. B. (2016). Yönetim ve organizasyon yazını üzerine inceleme: Bir anabilim dalı akademisyenlerinin 2005–2014 yılları arasındaki yayınları. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 45, 81–93.
  • Sargent, L. D., & Waters, L. E. (2004). Careers and academic research collaborations: An inductive process framework for understanding successful collaborations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(2), 308–319.
  • Sargut, S. (2001). Kültürler arası farklılaşma ve yönetim. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
  • Sasaki, H., Kajikawa, Y., Fujisue, K., & Sakata, I. (2010). Detecting the valley of international academic collaboration in renewable energy. Proceedings of 2010 IEEE 17th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 99–103), October 29-31, Xiamen, China.
  • Sayhan-Tunçay, S., & Sürgevil-Dalkılıç, O. (2017). Yönetim ve organizasyon bilim alanında ortak yazarlılık. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(3), 393–423.
  • Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.
  • Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), 96–115.
  • Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618.
  • Yağar, F., & Dökme, S. (2018). Niteliksel araştırmaların planlanması: Araştırma soruları, örneklem seçimi, geçerlik ve güvenirlik. Gazi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(3), 1–9.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
There are 41 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Studies on Education
Journal Section Original Empirical Research
Authors

Dilek Erdoğan 0000-0002-2079-777X

Sabiha Annaç Göv 0000-0001-7601-559X

Publication Date December 31, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 11 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Erdoğan, D., & Annaç Göv, S. (2021). Araştırma İş Birliğinin Nedenleri, Başarısını Etkileyen Unsurlar ve Dezavantajları. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 11(3), 734-747. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.21.673495

Yükseköğretim Dergisi/TÜBA Higher Education Research/Review (TÜBA-HER) does not officially agree with the ideas of manuscripts published in the journal and does not guarantee for any product or service advertisements on both printed and online versions of the journal. Scientific and legal responsibilities of published manuscripts belong to their authors. Materials such as pictures, figures, tables etc. sent with manuscripts should be original or written approval of copyright holder should be sent with manuscript for publishing in both printed and online versions if they were published before. Authors agree that they transfer all publishing rights to the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA), the publisher of the journal. Copyrights of all published contents (text and visual materials) belong to the journal. No payment is done for manuscripts under the name of copyright or others approved for publishing in the journal and no publication cost is charged; however, reprints are at authors' cost.

To promote the development of global open access to scientific information and research, TÜBA provides copyrights of all online published papers (except where otherwise noted) for free use of readers, scientists, and institutions (such as link to the content or permission for its download, distribution, printing, copying, and reproduction in any medium, without any changing and except the commercial purpose), under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND3.0) License, provided the original work is cited. To get permission for commercial purpose please contact the publisher.