Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Coğrafi ve Sistemik Yakınlık Üniversitelerde Bilimsel İşbirliğinin İtici Faktörleri Midir? Ar-Ge Projeleri İle Ampirik Bir Çalışma

Yıl 2022, , 131 - 157, 31.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1127103

Öz

Üniversitelerin kendi içlerinde ortak araştırmaların belirlenmesi ve teşvik edilmesi stratejik planlamanın önemli bir parçası haline gelmiştir. Bu kapsamda çalışmanın amacı ekonomik coğrafyada ağ oluşumunu açıklamak için kullanılan coğrafi ve sistemik yakınlık türlerinin bilimsel işbirliği üzerindeki etkilerini birlikte incelemektir. Çalışmada yakınlık ve bilimsel işbirliği ağları arasındaki ilişki analiz edilerek literatüre katkı sağlamak hedeflenmiştir. Bu noktada araştırmanın gerekçesini ortaya koyan önemli soru şu şekildedir: Yakınlığın coğrafi ve sistemik boyutunun, kabul edilen ve başarılı TÜBİTAK 1001 bilimsel işbirliği eğilimi üzerindeki etkisi nedir? Çalışmada coğrafi ve sistemik yakınlığın üniversitelerdeki bilimsel işbirliği üzerindeki etkisi 2012-2020 yılları arasında 193 üniversite tarafından gerçekleştirilen 2323 adet TÜBİTAK 1001 projesi çerçevesinde değerlendirilecektir. Bu bağlamda araştırma TÜBİTAK 1001 projeleri bilimsel ağında 18.477 işbirliği ve 8.205 araştırmacıyı kapsamaktadır. Çalışmada kullanılan analiz yöntemi Newton'un evrensel yerçekimi yasasına benzeyen bir yerçekimi modelidir. Analizler R programında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgulara bakıldığında fiziksel mesafenin araştırmacılar arasındaki işbirliği üzerinde önemli bir olumsuz etkiye sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Sistemik yakınlığın ise tüm bağımlı değişkenlerin etkisi altında bilimsel işbirliği üzerinde önemli ve olumlu bir etkisi mevcuttur. Ayrıca üniversitelerin proje sayısı arttıkça kurulan işbirlikleri sayısı da artmıştır. Bu sonuçlar neticesinde araştırma, hem literatüre katkı sağlamakta hem de bilimsel işbirliklerinin geliştirilmesinde yakınlıkların etkisinin istatistiksel olarak ortaya konulması bakımından politika yapıcılara yol göstermektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Altuğ, F. (2017). Yakınlık türlerinin farklı bilgi tabanlarına sahip sektörlerde bilgi, öğrenme ve yenilik süreçlerine etkisi: Eskişehir örneği. Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Altuğ, F. ve Yılmaz, M. (2018). Farklı bilgi tabanlarına sahip sektörlerde yakınlık türlerinin bilgi, öğrenme ve yenilik/inovasyon süreçlerine etkisi: Eskişehir örneği. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 58(1), 844-881. doi: 10.33171/dtcfjournal.2018.58.1.40
  • Altuğ, F. (2020). İnovasyonun coğrafyası: Coğrafi ve ilişkisel yakınlıkların bilgi yayılması ve öğrenme süreçlerine etkisi. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 29(1), 151-165. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ecd
  • Altuğ, F. (2022). Bilişsel ve örgütsel yakınlığın bilimsel iş birliklerine etkisi: Türkiye’deki coğrafya dergileri üzerine ampirik bir araştırma. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 31(1), 83-99. doi: 10.51800/ecd.1091105
  • Amano, K. ve Fujita, M. (1970). A long run economic effect analysis of alternative transportation facility plans—regional and national. Journal of Regional Science, 10(3), 297-323. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.1970.tb00054.x
  • Anderson, J. E. ve Van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170-192. doi: 10.1257/000282803321455214
  • Andersson, D. E., Gunessee, S., Matthiessen, C. W. ve Find, S. (2014). The geography of Chinese science. Environment and Planning a, 46(12), 2950-2971. doi: 10.1068/a130283p
  • Arap, İ. ve Erat V. (2017). Türkiye’nin bilim politikası: TÜBİTAK üzerinden bir çözümleme. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(1), 323-339. doi: 10.24988/deuiibf.2017321590
  • Asheim, B.T. (2001). Project organization and globally distributed knowledge bases. Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture Working Paper, University of Oslo, Oslo.
  • Baldan, C. (2020). Örtü altı tarımında sosyal ve coğrafi yakınlığın bilgi yayılımı üzerindeki etkisi: Kumluca örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Barber, M. J. ve Scherngell, T. (2013). Is the European R&D network homogeneous? Distinguishing relevant network communities using graph theoretic and spatial interaction modelling approaches. Regional Studies, 47(8), 1283-1298. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.622745
  • Bıyıklı, M. (2019). Mekânın ağsal ilişkiler üzerinden tanımlanmasında yakınlık ilişkileri: Alanya turizm sektörü örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Boschma, R. A. (2005). Does geographical proximity favour innovation?. Economie et Institutions, 6(7), 111-128. doi: 10.4000/ei.926
  • Bouba-Olga, O. ve Grossetti, M. (2008). Socio-économie de proximité. Revue dEconomie Regionale Urbaine, (3), 311-328. doi: 10.3917/reru.083.0311
  • Bozeman, B. ve Boardman, C. (2014). Research collaboration and team science: A state-of-the-art review and agenda. Cham: Springer.
  • Broekel, T. ve Boschma, R. (2012). Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: The proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 409-433. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbr010
  • Brower, R., Chandrasekharan, S. ve Wiese, U. J. (1999). QCD as a quantum link model. Physical Review D, 60(9), 094502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.094502
  • Cameron, A. C. ve Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using stata. College Station: Stata Press.
  • Cao, Z., Derudder, B. ve 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. doi: 10.1111/pirs.12438
  • Capone, F. ve Lazzeretti, L. (2018). The different roles of proximity in multiple informal network relationships: Evidence from the cluster of high technology applied to cultural goods in Tuscany. Industry and Innovation, 25(9), 897-917. doi:10.1080/13662716.2018.1442713
  • Carrincazeaux, C., Lung, Y. ve Vicente, J. (2008). The scientific trajectory of the french school of proximity: Interaction-and institution-based approaches to regional innovation systems. European Planning Studies, 16(5), 617-628. doi: 10.1080/09654310802049117
  • Cassi, L. ve Plunket, A. (2015). Research collaboration in co-inventor networks: Combining closure, bridging and proximities. Regional Studies, 49(6), 936-954. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2013.816412
  • Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G. ve Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4-5), 475-491. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00025-5
  • Cooke, P. (2002). Knowledge economies. London: Routledge.
  • Cunningham, S. W. ve Claudia, W. (2012). Proximity and collaboration in European nanotechnology. Papers in Regional Science, 91(4), 723–742. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00416.x
  • Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611-629. doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.6.611.12529
  • Fernández, A., Ferrándiz, E. ve 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. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03748-3
  • Fromhold-Eisebith, M. ve Werker, C. (2013). Universities’ functions in knowledge transfer: A geographical perspective. The Annals of Regional Science, 51(3), 621-643. doi: 10.1007/s00168-013-0559-z
  • Gao, J., Yin, Y., Myers, K. R., Lakhani, K. R. ve Wang, D. (2021). Potentially long-lasting effects of the pandemic on scientists. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1-6. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26428-z
  • Gehrke, B. ve Legler, H. (2001). Innovation spotenziale deutscher regionen ım europäischen vergleich. Berlin, Duncker and Humblot.
  • Gui, Q., Liu, C. ve Du, D. (2018). International knowledge flows and the role of proximity. Growth and Change, 49(3), 532-547. doi: 10.1111/grow.12245
  • Hoekman, J., Frenken, K. ve Tijssen, R. J. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration with in Europe. Research Policy, 39(5), 662-673. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.012
  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715-728. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
  • Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A., Saberi, M. K., Tahmasebi-Limoni, S., Mohammadian, S. ve Naderbeigi, F. (2021). Global scientific collaboration: A social network analysis and data mining of the co-authorship networks. Journal of Information Science, 01655515211040655. doi: 10.1177/01655515211040655
  • Katz, J. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31-43. doi: 10.1007/bf02018100
  • Katz, J. S. ve Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration?. Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1
  • Kaygalak, İ. 2013. Kurumsal ekonomik coğrafya yaklaşımı: Tanımı, kavramsal çerçevesi ve içeriği. Prof.Dr.Asaf Koçman’a Armağan (Editör: Ertuğ Öner), Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları, No 180 İzmir, 347-360.
  • Kilelu, C. W., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., & Hall, A. (2011). Beyond knowledge brokering: An exploratory study on innovation intermediaries in an evolving smallholder agricultural system in Kenya. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 7(1), 84-108. doi: 10.1080/19474199.2011.593859
  • Klerkx, L. ve Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 849-860. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001
  • Knoben, J. ve Oerlemans, L. A. (2006). Proximity and inter‐organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00121.x
  • Kraut, R.E., Galegher, J. ve Egido, C. (1988). Relationships and task is scientific research collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1), 31-58. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci0301_3
  • Laafia, I. (2002). Employment in high tech and knowledge intensive sectors in the EU continued to grow in 2001. Statistics in Focus: Science and Technology, 9(4).
  • Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: Why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7), 762-780. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2001.002990
  • Liang, L. ve Zhu, L. (2002). Major factors affecting China’s inter-regional research collaboration: Regional scientific productivity and geographical proximity. Scientometrics, 55(2), 287-316. doi: 10.1023/a:1019623925759
  • Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Maskell, P. ve Malmberg, A. (1999). Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 167-185. doi: 10.1093/cje/23.2.167
  • Montobbıo, F. ve Sterzi, V. (2013). The globalization of technology in emerging markets: A gravity model on the determinants of international patent collaborations. World Development, 44, 281-299. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.11.017
  • Morescalchi, A., Pammolli, F., Penner, O., Petersen, A. M. ve Riccaboni, M. (2015). The evolution of networks of innovators within and across borders: evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 44(3), 651-668. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.015
  • Olmeda‐Gómez, C., Perianes‐Rodriguez, A., Ovalle‐Perandones, M. A., Guerrero‐Bote, V. P. ve de Moya Anegón, F. (2009). Visualization of scientific co‐authorship in Spanish universities: from regionalization to internationalization. In Aslib Proceedings. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  • Osareh, F. ve Wılson, C.S. (2002). Collaboration in Iranian scientific publications. Libri, 52, 88–98. doi:10.1515/LIBR.2002.88
  • Pecqueur, B. ve Zimmermann, J. B. (2004). Economie de proximités. Hermes-Lavoisier, 264.
  • Plotnikova, T. ve Rake, B. (2014). Collaboration in pharmaceutical research: Exploration of country-level determinants. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1173-1202. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1182-6
  • Ponds, R., Van Oort, F. ve Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423-443. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00126.x
  • Rallet, A. ve Torre, A. (1999). Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy?. GeoJournal, 49(4), 373-380. doi: 10.1023/A:1007140329027
  • Roy, J. R. ve Thill, J. C. (2003). Spatial interaction modelling. Papers in Regional Science, 83(1), 339-361. doi: 10.1007/s10110-003-0189-4
  • Sabbado, L., Daniel, M., Ruiller, C., Fromont, E. ve Crambert, R. (2021). The role of proximity relations in the integration process into the network: An analysis of CEOs’ life narratives. Industry and Innovation, 28(7), 815-835. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2021.1891868
  • Scherngell, T. ve Barber, M. J. (2011). Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research collaborations: Evidence from the fifth EU framework programme. The Annals of Regional Science, 46(2), 247-266. doi: 10.1007/s00168-009-0334-3
  • Scherngell, T. ve Hu, Y. (2011). Collaborative knowledge production in China: Regional evidence from a gravity model approach. Regional Studies, 45(6), 755-772. doi: 10.1080/00343401003713373
  • Simmie, J. (2003). Innovation and urban regions as national and international nodes for the transfer and sharing of knowledge. Regional Studies, 37(6-7), 607-620. doi: 10.1080/0034340032000108714
  • Torre, A. ve Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47-59. doi: 10.1080/0034340052000320842
  • Tuysuz, S. (2017). Kurumsal ve ilişkisel ekonomik coğrafya yaklaşımları ve işlemselleştirilmesi. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 15(2), 1-16. doi: 10.1501/Cogbil_0000000184
  • Tübitak, (2020). TÜBİTAK araştırma destek programları başkanlığı. 24.11.2021 tarihinde,https://tubitak.gov.tr/sites/default/files/19970/ardeb_tanitim_sunumu_2020_0.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • Tübitak, (2020). TÜBİTAK tarihçesi, 24.11.2021 tarihinde, https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/icerik-hakkimizda adresinden erişildi.
  • Werker, C. Korzinov, V. ve Cunningham, S. (2019). Formation and output of collaborations: The role of proximity in German nanotechnology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 29(2), 697-719. doi: 10.1007/s00191-019-00605-2
  • Wuyts, S., Colombo, M. G., Dutta, S. ve Nooteboom, B. (2005). Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 58(2), 277-302. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.03.019

Are Geographical and Systemic Proximity Driving Factors for Scientific Collaboration in Universities? An Empirical Study with R&D Projects

Yıl 2022, , 131 - 157, 31.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1127103

Öz

The aim of the study is to examine together the effects of geographical and systemic proximity types used to explain network formation in economic geography on scientific cooperation. At this point, the important question that reveals the rationale of the research is as follows: What is the effect of the geographical and systemic dimensions of proximity on the accepted and successful TUBITAK 1001 scientific cooperation trend? In the study, the effect of geographical and systemic proximity on scientific cooperation in universities will be evaluated within the framework of 2323 TUBITAK 1001 projects carried out by 193 universities between 2012-2020. The analysis method used in the study is a gravity model similar to Newton's law of universal gravity. Looking at the findings, it was seen that physical distance had a significant negative effect on collaboration between researchers. Systemic proximity, has a significant and positive effect on scientific collaboration of scientists under the influence of all dependent variables. In addition, as the number of projects in universities increased, the number of collaborations also increased. The research both contributes to the literature and guides policy makers in terms of statistically revealing the effect of affinities in the development of scientific collaborations.

Kaynakça

  • Altuğ, F. (2017). Yakınlık türlerinin farklı bilgi tabanlarına sahip sektörlerde bilgi, öğrenme ve yenilik süreçlerine etkisi: Eskişehir örneği. Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Altuğ, F. ve Yılmaz, M. (2018). Farklı bilgi tabanlarına sahip sektörlerde yakınlık türlerinin bilgi, öğrenme ve yenilik/inovasyon süreçlerine etkisi: Eskişehir örneği. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 58(1), 844-881. doi: 10.33171/dtcfjournal.2018.58.1.40
  • Altuğ, F. (2020). İnovasyonun coğrafyası: Coğrafi ve ilişkisel yakınlıkların bilgi yayılması ve öğrenme süreçlerine etkisi. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 29(1), 151-165. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ecd
  • Altuğ, F. (2022). Bilişsel ve örgütsel yakınlığın bilimsel iş birliklerine etkisi: Türkiye’deki coğrafya dergileri üzerine ampirik bir araştırma. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 31(1), 83-99. doi: 10.51800/ecd.1091105
  • Amano, K. ve Fujita, M. (1970). A long run economic effect analysis of alternative transportation facility plans—regional and national. Journal of Regional Science, 10(3), 297-323. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.1970.tb00054.x
  • Anderson, J. E. ve Van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170-192. doi: 10.1257/000282803321455214
  • Andersson, D. E., Gunessee, S., Matthiessen, C. W. ve Find, S. (2014). The geography of Chinese science. Environment and Planning a, 46(12), 2950-2971. doi: 10.1068/a130283p
  • Arap, İ. ve Erat V. (2017). Türkiye’nin bilim politikası: TÜBİTAK üzerinden bir çözümleme. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(1), 323-339. doi: 10.24988/deuiibf.2017321590
  • Asheim, B.T. (2001). Project organization and globally distributed knowledge bases. Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture Working Paper, University of Oslo, Oslo.
  • Baldan, C. (2020). Örtü altı tarımında sosyal ve coğrafi yakınlığın bilgi yayılımı üzerindeki etkisi: Kumluca örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Barber, M. J. ve Scherngell, T. (2013). Is the European R&D network homogeneous? Distinguishing relevant network communities using graph theoretic and spatial interaction modelling approaches. Regional Studies, 47(8), 1283-1298. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.622745
  • Bıyıklı, M. (2019). Mekânın ağsal ilişkiler üzerinden tanımlanmasında yakınlık ilişkileri: Alanya turizm sektörü örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Boschma, R. A. (2005). Does geographical proximity favour innovation?. Economie et Institutions, 6(7), 111-128. doi: 10.4000/ei.926
  • Bouba-Olga, O. ve Grossetti, M. (2008). Socio-économie de proximité. Revue dEconomie Regionale Urbaine, (3), 311-328. doi: 10.3917/reru.083.0311
  • Bozeman, B. ve Boardman, C. (2014). Research collaboration and team science: A state-of-the-art review and agenda. Cham: Springer.
  • Broekel, T. ve Boschma, R. (2012). Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: The proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 409-433. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbr010
  • Brower, R., Chandrasekharan, S. ve Wiese, U. J. (1999). QCD as a quantum link model. Physical Review D, 60(9), 094502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.094502
  • Cameron, A. C. ve Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using stata. College Station: Stata Press.
  • Cao, Z., Derudder, B. ve 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. doi: 10.1111/pirs.12438
  • Capone, F. ve Lazzeretti, L. (2018). The different roles of proximity in multiple informal network relationships: Evidence from the cluster of high technology applied to cultural goods in Tuscany. Industry and Innovation, 25(9), 897-917. doi:10.1080/13662716.2018.1442713
  • Carrincazeaux, C., Lung, Y. ve Vicente, J. (2008). The scientific trajectory of the french school of proximity: Interaction-and institution-based approaches to regional innovation systems. European Planning Studies, 16(5), 617-628. doi: 10.1080/09654310802049117
  • Cassi, L. ve Plunket, A. (2015). Research collaboration in co-inventor networks: Combining closure, bridging and proximities. Regional Studies, 49(6), 936-954. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2013.816412
  • Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G. ve Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4-5), 475-491. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00025-5
  • Cooke, P. (2002). Knowledge economies. London: Routledge.
  • Cunningham, S. W. ve Claudia, W. (2012). Proximity and collaboration in European nanotechnology. Papers in Regional Science, 91(4), 723–742. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00416.x
  • Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611-629. doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.6.611.12529
  • Fernández, A., Ferrándiz, E. ve 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. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03748-3
  • Fromhold-Eisebith, M. ve Werker, C. (2013). Universities’ functions in knowledge transfer: A geographical perspective. The Annals of Regional Science, 51(3), 621-643. doi: 10.1007/s00168-013-0559-z
  • Gao, J., Yin, Y., Myers, K. R., Lakhani, K. R. ve Wang, D. (2021). Potentially long-lasting effects of the pandemic on scientists. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1-6. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26428-z
  • Gehrke, B. ve Legler, H. (2001). Innovation spotenziale deutscher regionen ım europäischen vergleich. Berlin, Duncker and Humblot.
  • Gui, Q., Liu, C. ve Du, D. (2018). International knowledge flows and the role of proximity. Growth and Change, 49(3), 532-547. doi: 10.1111/grow.12245
  • Hoekman, J., Frenken, K. ve Tijssen, R. J. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration with in Europe. Research Policy, 39(5), 662-673. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.012
  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715-728. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
  • Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A., Saberi, M. K., Tahmasebi-Limoni, S., Mohammadian, S. ve Naderbeigi, F. (2021). Global scientific collaboration: A social network analysis and data mining of the co-authorship networks. Journal of Information Science, 01655515211040655. doi: 10.1177/01655515211040655
  • Katz, J. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31-43. doi: 10.1007/bf02018100
  • Katz, J. S. ve Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration?. Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1
  • Kaygalak, İ. 2013. Kurumsal ekonomik coğrafya yaklaşımı: Tanımı, kavramsal çerçevesi ve içeriği. Prof.Dr.Asaf Koçman’a Armağan (Editör: Ertuğ Öner), Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları, No 180 İzmir, 347-360.
  • Kilelu, C. W., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., & Hall, A. (2011). Beyond knowledge brokering: An exploratory study on innovation intermediaries in an evolving smallholder agricultural system in Kenya. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 7(1), 84-108. doi: 10.1080/19474199.2011.593859
  • Klerkx, L. ve Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 849-860. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001
  • Knoben, J. ve Oerlemans, L. A. (2006). Proximity and inter‐organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00121.x
  • Kraut, R.E., Galegher, J. ve Egido, C. (1988). Relationships and task is scientific research collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1), 31-58. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci0301_3
  • Laafia, I. (2002). Employment in high tech and knowledge intensive sectors in the EU continued to grow in 2001. Statistics in Focus: Science and Technology, 9(4).
  • Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: Why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7), 762-780. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2001.002990
  • Liang, L. ve Zhu, L. (2002). Major factors affecting China’s inter-regional research collaboration: Regional scientific productivity and geographical proximity. Scientometrics, 55(2), 287-316. doi: 10.1023/a:1019623925759
  • Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Maskell, P. ve Malmberg, A. (1999). Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 167-185. doi: 10.1093/cje/23.2.167
  • Montobbıo, F. ve Sterzi, V. (2013). The globalization of technology in emerging markets: A gravity model on the determinants of international patent collaborations. World Development, 44, 281-299. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.11.017
  • Morescalchi, A., Pammolli, F., Penner, O., Petersen, A. M. ve Riccaboni, M. (2015). The evolution of networks of innovators within and across borders: evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 44(3), 651-668. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.015
  • Olmeda‐Gómez, C., Perianes‐Rodriguez, A., Ovalle‐Perandones, M. A., Guerrero‐Bote, V. P. ve de Moya Anegón, F. (2009). Visualization of scientific co‐authorship in Spanish universities: from regionalization to internationalization. In Aslib Proceedings. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  • Osareh, F. ve Wılson, C.S. (2002). Collaboration in Iranian scientific publications. Libri, 52, 88–98. doi:10.1515/LIBR.2002.88
  • Pecqueur, B. ve Zimmermann, J. B. (2004). Economie de proximités. Hermes-Lavoisier, 264.
  • Plotnikova, T. ve Rake, B. (2014). Collaboration in pharmaceutical research: Exploration of country-level determinants. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1173-1202. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1182-6
  • Ponds, R., Van Oort, F. ve Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423-443. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00126.x
  • Rallet, A. ve Torre, A. (1999). Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy?. GeoJournal, 49(4), 373-380. doi: 10.1023/A:1007140329027
  • Roy, J. R. ve Thill, J. C. (2003). Spatial interaction modelling. Papers in Regional Science, 83(1), 339-361. doi: 10.1007/s10110-003-0189-4
  • Sabbado, L., Daniel, M., Ruiller, C., Fromont, E. ve Crambert, R. (2021). The role of proximity relations in the integration process into the network: An analysis of CEOs’ life narratives. Industry and Innovation, 28(7), 815-835. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2021.1891868
  • Scherngell, T. ve Barber, M. J. (2011). Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research collaborations: Evidence from the fifth EU framework programme. The Annals of Regional Science, 46(2), 247-266. doi: 10.1007/s00168-009-0334-3
  • Scherngell, T. ve Hu, Y. (2011). Collaborative knowledge production in China: Regional evidence from a gravity model approach. Regional Studies, 45(6), 755-772. doi: 10.1080/00343401003713373
  • Simmie, J. (2003). Innovation and urban regions as national and international nodes for the transfer and sharing of knowledge. Regional Studies, 37(6-7), 607-620. doi: 10.1080/0034340032000108714
  • Torre, A. ve Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47-59. doi: 10.1080/0034340052000320842
  • Tuysuz, S. (2017). Kurumsal ve ilişkisel ekonomik coğrafya yaklaşımları ve işlemselleştirilmesi. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 15(2), 1-16. doi: 10.1501/Cogbil_0000000184
  • Tübitak, (2020). TÜBİTAK araştırma destek programları başkanlığı. 24.11.2021 tarihinde,https://tubitak.gov.tr/sites/default/files/19970/ardeb_tanitim_sunumu_2020_0.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • Tübitak, (2020). TÜBİTAK tarihçesi, 24.11.2021 tarihinde, https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/icerik-hakkimizda adresinden erişildi.
  • Werker, C. Korzinov, V. ve Cunningham, S. (2019). Formation and output of collaborations: The role of proximity in German nanotechnology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 29(2), 697-719. doi: 10.1007/s00191-019-00605-2
  • Wuyts, S., Colombo, M. G., Dutta, S. ve Nooteboom, B. (2005). Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 58(2), 277-302. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.03.019
Toplam 65 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Sevim Unutulmaz 0000-0002-2286-9458

Murat Ali Dulupçu 0000-0001-9269-5978

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Aralık 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022

Kaynak Göster

APA Unutulmaz, S., & Dulupçu, M. A. (2022). Coğrafi ve Sistemik Yakınlık Üniversitelerde Bilimsel İşbirliğinin İtici Faktörleri Midir? Ar-Ge Projeleri İle Ampirik Bir Çalışma. İDEALKENT, 14(Özel Sayı), 131-157. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1127103