Abstract
AbstractProximity dynamics behind co-production of scientific knowledge have been explored for a decade while their combined effects form a recent interest area. The study seeks to discover these effects in the unexplored case of Turkish NUTS 3 regions. Cognitive, relational and institutional proximities and their interaction effects are evaluated towards this goal with a rapid expansion from 2006 onwards representing the institutional dynamics. The intensity of coauthorships is evaluated in six aggregate fields of FORD classification of OECD and measured based on travel time distance, publication sizes, similarity in knowledge bases, tie similarities of provinces and new universities’ academic presence born from a rapid expansion process after 2006. The results display positive role of geographical, cognitive, relational proximities. In interaction, provinces proximate in one of the latter two see an increase in coauthorships when they are also geographically close in most fields. However, cognitive and relational proximity together reduce coauthorship chances. On the other hand, new universities’ academic presence does not increase coauthorship chances, however, it does so when they are located in spatially closer regions in the extent of two fields.
Funder
Bursa Technical University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference69 articles.
1. Acosta, M., Coronado, D., & Flores, E. (2011). University spillovers and new business location in high-technology sectors: Spanish evidence. Small Business Economics, 36(3), 365–376.
2. Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497, 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1038/497557a
3. Akçiğit, U. & Özcan-Tok, E. (2020). Türkiye Bilim Raporu. Türkiye Bilimler akademisi Yayınları, TÜBA Raporları No:43. Berk Grup Matbaacılık, Ankara. https://www.tuba.gov.tr/files/yayinlar/raporlar/Tu%CC%88rkiye%20Bilim%20Raporu.pdf
4. Andersson, D. E., Gunessee, S., Matthiessen, C. W., & Find, S. (2014). The geography of Chinese science. Environment and Planning a: Economy and Space, 46(12), 2950–2971. https://doi.org/10.1068/a130283p
5. Archambault, É., & Larivière, V. (2010). The limits of bibliometrics for the analysis of the social sciences and humanities literature. In F. Caillods (Ed.), World social science report 2010. UNESCO publishing.