A Qualitative Study of Social Capital of Faculty Members using Co-Authorship Strategy

Document Type : Research

Authors

Parisa Gholami ¹

Keyvan Bolandhematan ²

¹ PhD Candidate in Education Management, Department of Educational Sciences, Kordestan University, Sanandaj, Iran

² Associate Professor in Philosophy of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Kordestan University, Sanandaj, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/social.2021.59423.0

Abstract

University development highly depends on faculty members and their academic collaboration. The collaboration would increase mutual understanding of the members and improve their academic activities and contributions. Taking a qualitative approach and interpretive phenomenology method, this study tried to explore the experience of co-authorship of faculty members as a visible aspect of academic collaboration. Using purposive sampling and considering data saturation, twelve faculty members were interviewed through a semi-structured questionnaire. The data analyzed using Smith and Osborne’s (2004) method and MAXQDA 2020. Results indicated two deterrent and encouraging factors among the co-authorship experiences of the faculty members. The deterrent factor, resulting from unpleasant experiences was decreasing the quality of research with two subcategory of tendency to quantification and academic reputation and the encouraging one, resulting from nice experiences was creating a scientific community with four subcategories of social trust, collaboration, improving scientific discourse and improving the quality of university. Results showed that co-authorship improves social capital in universities and the authorship itself is influenced by universities’ feedback that could be strengthening or weakening. It is recommended in this study that for encouraging the co-authorship, university should pay attention to creating an appropriate space for academic collaboration and also qualitative criteria of research.

Keywords

Co-authorship

Scientific Collaboration

Social Capital

Interpretative Phenomenology

Faculty Members

20.1001.1.20081383.1399.17.1.10.7

---

References

1. احمدی، ح.، سلیمی، ع.، و فتحی، ل. (1392). تحلیل استنادی و روابط هم ­نویسندگی مقاله‌های مجلة علمی- پژوهشی انجمن ایرانی زبان و ادبیات عربی (مورد مطالعه: شمارة 1 تا 20). انجمن ایرانی زبان و ادبیات عربی، 29(4)، 170-149.
2. اسدی، س.، آقاملایی، ف.، و ملکوتی خواه، ف. (1394). بررسی هم ­نویسندگی پژوهشگران دانشگاه‌های تهران و حوزه علمیه قم طی سال‌های 1392-1383. فرهنگ در دانشگاه اسلامی، 5(4)، 514-493.
3. حیاتی، ز.، و دیدگاه، ف. (1388). مطالعه تطبیقی میزان گرایش پژوهشگران ایرانی در حوزه‌های موضوعی مختلف به مشارکت و همکاری گروهی در سال‌های 2007-1998. فصل­نامه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات، 25(3)، 413-430.
4. دهقانی، ف.، و محمدی، م. (1393). بررسی وضعیت هم ­نویسندگی پژوهشگران شیمی دانشگاه یزد. مجله علمی کاسپین،1 (2)، 94- 57.
5. رحمانی، م.، اصنافی، ا.ر.(1395). بررسی میزان همکاری نویسندگان مقاله­ های فصل­نامه علمی-پژوهشی روان­شناسی کاربردی در فاصله سال های 1394-1385. فصل­نامه روان­شناسی کاربردی، 4 (40)،559-579.
6. غلامی، پ.، و بلندهمتان، ک.(1399). بررسی وضعیت هم­ نویسندگی اعضای هیأت علمی طی سال­های 1398-1389، با رهیافت مقالات منتشرشده. چهاردهمین کنفرانس ارزیابی و تضمین کیفیت در نظام های دانشگاهی. دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران.
7. قانعی راد، م.ا. (1385). وضعیت اجتماع علمی در رشته علوم اجتماعی. نامه علوم اجتماعی،27، 55-27.
8. گلینی مقدم، گ.، و طاهری، پ. (1393). ترسیم شبکة هم ­نویسندگی و ضریب همکاری علمی پژوهشگران ایرانی در حوزة هوافضا در نمایة استنادی علوم تا 2014 میلادی. مطالعات دانش­شناسی، 1(3)، 42-23.
9. نوچه ناسار، ح.، شمس مورکانی، غ.، و قانعی­راد، م.ا. (1397). تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی هم­نویسندگی مقالات خارجی اعضای هیأت‌ علمی رشته علوم تربیتی. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 4(2)، 56-33.

 

10. Ahn, J., Oh, D. H., & Lee, J,D. (2014). The scientific impact and partner selection in collaborative research at Korean universities. Scientometrics, 100(2014), 173–188.
11. Alvarez,M.T., Vazquez,C.R., & Lozano,F.B. (2016). The Importance of Social in Higher Education: A Study of the Facebook Fan Pages. New Advances in Information Systems and Technologies, 461-469.
12. Andrews,R. 2007. Organizational Social Capital and Public Service Performance. the 9^th Public aaaManagement Research Conference. University of Arizona. Tucson, USA.
13. Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. (2001). The Practice of Social Research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
14. Bhandari, H., & Yasunobu,K. (2009). What is Social Capital? A Comprehensive Review of The Concept. Asian Journal of Social Science, 23(3), 480-510.
15. Cohen, A. (2001). Review of literature: Responses to "Empirical and Hermeneutic Approaches to Phenomenological Research in Psychology, a Comparison". Gestalt, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.g-gej.org/5-2/reviewlit. html.
16. Egghe L, Rousseau R. Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Holanda- Elsevier, 1990.
17. Evaluating Research Proposals. In M. Terre Blanch, K. Durrheim & D. Painter (Eds), Research in Practice. Applied Methods for the Social Sciences. (pp. 80‐111). Cape Town: UCT.
18. Figg, W. D., Dunn, L., Liewehr, D. J., Steinberg, S. M., Thurman, P. W., Barrett, J. C. & irkinshaw, J. (2006). Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy. The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy,26(6), 759- 767.
19. Fukuyama, F. (1999). Social capital and civil society. Paper Presented at Conference on Second Generation Reform, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, USA.
20. Gumus, Murat (2007). The Effect of communication on Knowledge sharing in
21. Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,10(3), 153-158.
22. Kumar,S. (2015). Co-authorship Networks: A Review of the Literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(1), 55-73.
23. Kumar,S., & Jan,J.M. (2013). Mapping Research Collaborations in the Business and
24. Larsen,M.A., & Tascon,C.I. (2018). Social Capital in Higher Education Partnerships: A Case Study of the Canada- Cuba University Partnership. Higher Education Policy,1-21.
25. Liu, H., Chang, B., & Chen, K. (2012). Collaboration Patterns of Taiwanese Scientific
26. Management Field in Malaysia, 1980–2010. Scientometrics,97(2013), 491- 517.
27. Marshall, T.H. (1950). Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays. Cambridge University Press.
28. S. (2003). Michel Foucault; London: Routledge.
29. Moodley, J. (2009). An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis of the Effects of Burnout as Experienced by Volunteer Lay Counsellors (VLCs). Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of MA in the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Pretoria.
30. Nahapiet, j. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the
31. Nahapiet, j. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242-266.
32. Newman, M.E.J. (2001). The Structure of Scientific Collaboration Networks. I. Network Construction and Fundamental Results.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 98 (2), 404 – 409.
33. Newman, M.E.J. (2004).Co-authorship Networks and Patterns of Scientific Collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America,101, (1), 5200-5205.
34. Newman,M.E.J. (2001). Scientific Collaboration Networks. II. Shortest paths, Weighted Networks, and Centrality. Physical Review E, 64(016132),1-7.
35. Noon,E. (2018).Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis: An Appropriate Methodology for Educational Research? Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 1(6), 75- 83.
36. Journal of knowledge management practice, 8(2).
37. Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242-266.
38. Pinar, W. F. (2004). What is curriculum theory? London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Publications in Various Research Areas. Scientometrics, 92(1), 145–155.
40. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, London, and Simon Schuster, 67-98.
41. Rhys Andrews, (2010) Organizational Social Capital, Structure and Performance. Cardiff University, UK, Human relations.
42. Sarup, M. (1993). An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism. 2^nd Hertfordshire, U.K: Simon and Schuster International.
43. Sharkey, P. (2001). Hermeneutic phenomenology. In R. Barnacle (Ed.), Phenomenology. Melbourne: RMIT Publications.
44. Smith, J.A. and Dunworth, F. (2003) Qualitative Methodology. In: Valsiner, J., Ed.,Handbook of Development Psychology, Sage, London, 603-621.
45. Smith, J.A. and Osborn, M. (2004) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In: Breakwell, G.M., Ed., Doing Social Psychology Research, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, 229-254.
46. Sonnenwald,D.H. (2006). Scientific Collaboration: A Synthesis of Challenges and Strategies. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1),643- 681.
47. Stefano,D.D., Fuccella, V., Vitale,M.P., Zaccarin,S. (2013). The Use of Different Data Sources in the Analysis of Co-authorship Networks and Scientific Performance. Social Networks, 35 (2013), 370–381.
48. Tomkins, L. (2017). Using Phenomenological Psychology in Organization Research With Orking Carers. In J.Brook, & N.King (Ed), Applied Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: Palgrave, 86-100.
49. Tonkaboni,F.,Yousefy, A., & keshtiaray, N. (2013). Description and Recognition the Concept of Social Capital in Higher Education System. International Education Studies, 6(9), 40-50.
50. Van der Riet, M. & Durrheim, K. (2006). Putting Design into Practice: Writing and
51. Vilanov, E.p & Josa, R.T. (2003).Social Capital as a managerial phenomenon, working paper, Department of industrial Engeneering and Management, Tampere university of Technology.
52. Wang, Y., Wu, Y., Pan, Y., Ma, Z., & Rousseau, R. (2005). Scientific collaboration in China As reflected in co-authorship. Scientometrics, 62(2), 183-198.