Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Factors Influencing Research Collaboration in the Field of Informetrics

연구자 협업의 영향 요인에 관한 연구: 계량정보학 분야를 중심으로

  • 남은경 (연세대학교 문헌정보학과 대학원) ;
  • 박지홍 (연세대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2014.11.19
  • Accepted : 2014.12.19
  • Published : 2014.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The collaboration is becoming ever more widespread in scientific research. Unlike collaboration in other areas such as in a company, research collaboration has an unique feature that it is reflected by scholars' characteristics. Based on previous studies on research collaboration, five major factors are identified. We propose five hypotheses from them and examine these by using both in-person questionnaire survey and relational bibliometric analysis. The survey analysis informs individual choice factors and the bibliometric analysis informs collective consequence factors. The results of this study may have implications for science policies and digital collaboration services.

사회 전반적으로 협업의 중요성과 필요성이 강조되고 있으며, 연구자들의 협업 역시 증가하고 있다. 연구자의 협업에는 학자로서의 특성이 반영된다는 점에서 특이성을 가진다. 본 연구는 연구자 협업 패턴에 영향을 미치는 요인을 알아보기 위해 가설을 설정하고 이를 검증하였다. 영향 요인은 연구자들의 협업 행태 및 동기에 대한 선행연구를 토대로 추출하였으며, 계량정보학 분야 연구자들을 대상으로 네트워크 분석과 설문 분석의 두 가지 방법을 활용하여 가설을 검증하였다. 설문은 네트워크 분석에 포함된 연구자를 대상으로 한 웹 설문으로 진행하였다. 본 연구 결과는 연구자 인식 분석을 통한 개인적 선택 요인과 관계 계량정보학 분석을 통한 집단적 결과 요인을 분석했다는 점에서 의의가 있으며, 연구자 협업을 장려하는 정책 및 디지털 협업서비스 기획 등에 활용될 수 있을 것이라 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김용학, 윤정로, 조혜선, 김영진 (2007). 과학기술 공동연구의 연결망 구조: 좁은 세상과 위치 효과. 한국사회학, 41(4), 68-103.(Kim, Yong Hak, Yoon, Jung Ro, Cho, Hyesun, & Kim, Yung Jin (2007). Structure of collaboration network among Korean scientiest: 'Small World' and position effect. Korean Journal of Sociology, 41(4), 68-103.)
  2. 박지연, 김정은, 민윤경 (2010). 기관단위 연구성과 평가방법에 관한 연구: h-지수 및 변형지수를 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 27(1), 249-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.1.249(Park, Ji Yeon, Kim, Jung Eun, & Min, Yoon Kyung (2010). A study on the evaluation methods of research institution: Based on the h-index and its variants. Journal of Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 27(1), 249-267.)
  3. 박치성 (2012). 행정학 학문공동체의 공동연구 네트워크 구조에 관한 연구: 1998-2009년간 24개 행정학 학술지의 논문공저자 네트워크의 분석을 중심으로. 한국사회와 행정연구, 22(4), 129-153.(Park, Chi Sung (2012). A study on the network structure of the public administration academic community using the coauthor network from 1998 to 2009. Korean Society and Public Administration, 22(4), 129-153.)
  4. 손동원 (2003). 사회 네트워크 분석. 서울: 경문각.(Son, Dong Won (2003). Social network analysis. Seoul: Kyungmungak.)
  5. 안순일 (2009). 협동연구의 영향요인에 대한 실증적 연구. 대한경영학회지, 22(1), 291-327.(An, Soon Il (2009). An empirical study on the factors affecting the cooperative R&D project between academia and industry. Korean Journal of Business Administration, 22(1), 291-327.)
  6. 이재윤 (2006). 지적 구조의 규명을 위한 네트워크 형성 방식에 관한 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 40(2), 333-355.(Lee, Jae Yun (2006). A study on the network generation methods for examining the intellectual structure of knowledge domain. Journal of Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 40(2), 333-355.) https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2006.40.2.333
  7. 이재윤, 최상희 (2013). Collaboration networks and document networks in informetrics research from 2001 to 2011. 정보관리학회지, 30(1), 179-191.(Lee, Jae Yun, & Choi, Sang Hee (2013). Collaboration networks and document networks in Informetrics research from 2001 to 2011. Journal of Korean Society for Information Management. 30(1), 179-191.) http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.1.179
  8. Abbasi, A., & Altmann. J. (2011). On the correlation between research performance and social network analysis measures applied to research collaboration networks. 44th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS-44), 1-10.
  9. Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  10. Barabasi, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286 (5439), 509-512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509
  11. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century - A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001
  12. Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (1998). Pajek-program for large network analysis. Connections, 21(2), 47-57.
  13. Beaver, D., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016840
  14. Birnholtz, J. P. (2007). When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2226-2239. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20684
  15. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis.
  16. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists' collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008
  17. Bukova, H. (2010). Studying research collaboration: A literature review. Sprouts Working Papers on Information Systems, 10, Retrieved from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-3
  18. Creswell, J. W. (2006). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2ndEd.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  19. Diesing, P. (1991). How social science works. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg.
  20. Dominguez, S., & Hollstein, B. (2014). Mixed methods social networks research: Design and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Frenken, K., Holzl, W., & Vor, F. (2005). The citation impact of research collaborations: The case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988-2002). Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2004.11.002
  22. Guns, R., Liu, Y. X., & Mahbuba, D. (2011). Q-measures and betweenness centrality in a collaboration network: A case study of the field of informetrics. Scientometrics, 87(1), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0332-3
  23. Hara, N. (2007). Information technology support for communities of practice: How public defenders learn about winning and losing in court. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 76-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20445
  24. Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952-965. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10291
  25. Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., & Liu, Z. (2008). The structure of scientific collaboration networks in Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1771-3
  26. Hunter, L., & Leahey, E. (2008). Collaborative research in sociology: Trends and contributing factors. The American Sociologist, 39(4), 290-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-008-9042-1
  27. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1
  28. Kling, R., Rosenbaum, H., & Sawyer, S. (2005). Understanding and communicating social informatics: A framework for studying and teaching the human context of information and communication technologies. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
  29. Kretschmer, H. (1994). Coauthorship networks of invisible colleges and institutionalized communities. Scientometrics, 30(1), 363-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017234
  30. Kretschmer, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2007). A new centrality measure for social network analysis applicable to bibliometric and webometric data. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 1(1), 1-7.
  31. Kumar, S., & Jan, J. M. (2013). Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980-2010. Scientometrics, 97(3), 491-517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0994-8
  32. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships?. Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154402781776961
  33. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673-702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705052359
  34. Leydesdorff, L., & Persson, O. (2010). Mapping the geography of science: Distribution patterns and networks of relations among cities and institutes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1622-1634.
  35. Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R. J., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016282
  36. Maglaughlin, K. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2005). Factors that impact interdisciplinary natural science research collaboration in academia. 10th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 499-508. Jul, Stockholm.
  37. McKelvey, M., Alm, H., & Riccaboni, M. (2003). Does co-location matter for formal knowledge collaboration in the Swedish biotechnology - Pharmaceutical sector?. Research Policy, 32(3), 483-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00020-3
  38. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00031-1
  39. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02129600
  40. Meyerson, E. M. (1994). Human capital, social capital and compensation: The relative contribution of social contacts to managers. Acta Sociologica, 37(4), 383-399. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169939403700406
  41. Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404-409. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.404
  42. Newman, M. E. (2003). Mixing patterns in networks. Physical Review E,. 67(2), 026126. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.67.026126
  43. Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5200-5205.
  44. Newman, M. E. (2005). A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social Networks, 27(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.009
  45. Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150202800601
  46. Persson, O. (2008). Bibexcel: A toolbox for bibliometricians (Vol. 4). version 2008-08.
  47. Persson, O., & Beckmann, M. (1995). Locating the network of interacting authors in scientific specialties. Scientometrics, 33(3), 351-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017336
  48. Savanur, K., & Srikanth, R. (2010). Modified collaborative coefficient: A new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration. Scientometrics, 84(2), 365-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0100-4
  49. Sheu, C., Yen, H. R., & Chae, B. (2006). Determinants of supplier-retailer collaboration: Evidence from an international study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(1), 24-49. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570610637003
  50. Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of management, 20(2), 503-530.
  51. 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), S96-S115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.003
  52. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12-28.
  53. van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.001
  54. Vinkler, P. (2010). The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
  55. Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  56. Wulf, W. A. (1993). The collaboratory opportunity. Science, 261(13), 854-855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8346438