Patterns of Scholarly Collaboration among Academics in Nigerian Universities: Knowledge Sharing or Knowledge Hoarding?

Öz

This study investigates the patterns of scholarly collaboration among academic staff in the four Nigerian universities, Bayero University, Kano; University of Maiduguri; University of Ibadan; and University of Porthacourt, using quantitative approach through survey questionnaire administered randomly to collect data from the population of academics in the four universities. The study found that Nigerian university academics collaborate in the pursuit of their scholarly activities in the areas of publishing/writing article, data collection, data analysis, and workshops/seminar presentations. The findings also revealed that phones, emails, web forums/blogs/wikis, instant messaging service, Voice over IP (VoIP), social networking sites and post mail were the means of communicating research and other scholarly endeavors to colleagues, both within and outside their universities. The study will serves as a springboard for strengthening and facilitating scholarly collaborations and knowledge sharing, thereby bridging the knowledge gaps that exist between the haves and have not knowledge in the Nigerian higher education sub-sector. The contribution of the study lies in the fact that the findings add to the understanding of knowledge sharing activities available in the Nigerian universities, and no such study exists in the literature.

Kaynakça

1. Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. (2001). The practice of social research. Oxford University Press: Cape Town.
2. Barjak, F. (2006). The role of the Internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1350-1367.
3. Bozeman, B., Fay, D. & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 1-67.
4. Bukvova, H. (2010). Studying research collaboration: a literature review. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems. Available at: http://sprouts.aisnet.org/826/ 1/ResearchCollaboration.pdf (accessed 19/5/2014).
5. Cann, A., Dimitriou, K. & Hooley, T. (2011). Social media: A guide for researchers. Available at: http://derby.openrepository.com/derby/bitstream/10545/196715/6/so cial%20media%20guide%20for%20screen.pdf (accessed 11/10/2014].
6. Carillo, M. R., Papagni, E. & Capitanio, F. (2008). Effects of social interactions on scientists‘ productivity. International Journal of Manpower, 29, 263-279.
7. Creswell, J. W. & Plano, C. V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed method approaches. Sage Publishing: Thousand Oaks.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

9. De Moor, T. & Van Zanden, J. L. (2008). Do ut des (I Give So That You Give Back): Collaboratories as a new method for scholarly communication and cooperation for global History. Historical Methods, 41, 67.
10. Duque, R. B. Ynalvez, M. Sooryamoorthy, R. Mbatia, P. Dzorgbo, D. B. and Shrum, W. (2005), “Collaboration paradox: scientific productivity, the internet, and problems of research in developing areas”. Available at: http://worldsci.net/ee/documents/paradox.pdf (accessed 19/10/2014
11. Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1): 7-22.
12. Hsieh, D. (2013). The Organization and Role of International Collaboration in Research Production. Doctor of Medicine, University of Arizona.
13. Israel, G. D. (2012). Determining sample size. Program evaluation and organizational development. University of Florida: IFAS, POED-6. Available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. (accessed 12/10/2014).
14. Katz, J. S. & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1-18.
15. Kotecha, P. (2011). The value of research networks in Africa. International Higher Education, 65, 17-19.
16. Kraut, R., Egido, C. & Galegher, J. (1988). Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration [Online]. Available at: http://www.cos.ufrj.br/~jano/ CSCW2005/kraut_1988.pdf (accessed 12/6/2014).
17. Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational Psychological Measurement, (30), 607-610.
18. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorship. Research Evaluation, 11, 3-15.
19. Lee, S. & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673-702.
20. Luo, A. & Olson, J. S. (2008). How collaboratories affect scientists from developing countries. In: Olson, G. M., Zimmerman, A. & Bos, N. (eds.) Scientific Collaboration on the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Ocholla, D. N. & Ocholla, L. (2007). Research in library and information science in South Africa: an analysis of journal research output from 1993-2006. World Library and Information Congress: 73rd IFLA general conference and council. Durban, South Africa 19-23 August.
22. Olmeda-Gomez, C., Perianes-Rodriquez, A., Ovalle-Perandones, A., Guerrero-Bote, V. P. & Anegon, F. M. (2009). Visualization of scientific co-authorship in Spanish universities: From regionalization to internationalization. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 61, 83-100.
23. Olson, G. M., Bos, N. & Zimmerman, A. (2008). Introduction. In: Olson, G. M., Zimmerman, A. & Bos, N. (eds.) Scientific Collaboration on the Internet. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp 1-12.
24. Onyancha, O. B. (2009). Towards global partnerships in research in Sub-Saharan Africa: an informetric study of the national, regional and international country collaboration in HIV/AIDS literature in eastern and southern Africa. Available at: http://umkn dsp01.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/5275/Onyancha_Towards%20global%20partnerships%20in%20HIV%20research.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 10/9/2014).
25. Ponte, D. & Simon, J. (2011). Scholarly Communication 2.0: Exploring researchers' opinions on Web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination. Serials Review, 37, 149-156.
26. Procter, R., et al. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 368, 4039-4056.
27. Sheppard, M. (2004). Appraising and using social research in the human services: an introduction for social work and health professionals. Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London.
28. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009). Collaboration and publication: How collaborative are scientists in South Africa. Scientometrics, 80, 419-439.
29. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. In: B. Cronin (Ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
30. Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). General typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1): 12-28.
31. Tenopir, C. & King, D. W. (2008). Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. D-Lib Magazine. Available at: http://www.dlib.org/ dlib/november08/tenopir/11tenopir.html#note4 (accessed 12/6/2014).
32. Veletsianos, G. & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers and Education, 58, 766-774.