Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does distance hinder the collaboration between Australian universities in the humanities, arts and social sciences?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Australia is a vast country with an average distance of 1911 km between its eight state capital cities. The quantitative impact of this distance on collaboration practices between Australian universities and between different types of Australian universities has not been examined previously and hence our knowledge about the spatial distribution effects, if any, on collaboration practices and opportunities is very limited. The aim of the study reported here was therefore to analyse the effect of distance on the collaboration activities of humanities, arts and social science scholars in Australia, using co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration. In order to do this, gravity models were developed to determine the distance effects on external collaboration between universities in relation to geographic region and institutional alliance of 25 Australian universities. Although distance was found to have a weak impact on external collaboration, the strength of the research publishing record within a university (internal collaboration) was found to be an important factor in determining external collaboration activity levels. This finding would suggest that increasing internal collaboration within universities could be an effective strategy to encourage external collaboration between universities. This strategy becomes even more effective for universities that are further away from each other. Establishing a hierarchical structure of different types of universities within a region can optimise the location advantage in the region to encourage knowledge exchange within that region. The stronger network could also attract more collaboration between networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramo, D., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2014). Variation in research collaboration patterns across academic ranks. Scientometrics, 98, 2275–2294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Ferrándiz, E., & Leon, M. D. (2011). Factors affecting inter-regional academic scientific collaboration within Europe: The role of economic distance. Scientometrics, 87, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ATN (2016). Australian Technology Network. https://www.atn.edu.au/.

  • Australian Education Network. (2017). Groupings of Australian universities. Australian Universities.com.au. http://www.australianuniversities.com.au/directory/australian-university-groupings/.

  • Australian Research Council. (2015). International collaboration. http://www.arc.gov.au/international-collaboration.

  • Beaver, D. D. B. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2000). Collaboration networks in science. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endersby, J. W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 375–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2016). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.5. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, T. S., Lambiotte, R., & Panzarasa, P. (2011). Community structure and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management. Scientometrics, 89, 381–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, A., Ferrándiz, E., & Leon, M. D. (2016). Proximity dimensions and scientific collaboration among academic institutions in Europe: The closer the better? Scientometrics, 106, 1073–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenken, K., Hoekman, J., Kok, S., Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & van Vliet, J. (2009). Death of distance in science: A gravity approach to research collaboration. In A. Pyka & A. Scharnhorst (Eds.), Innovation networks, understanding complex systems (pp. 43–57). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabher, G., & Ibert, O. (2014). Distance as asset? Knowledge collaboration in hybrid virtual communities. Journal of Economic Geography, 14, 97–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddow, G., Xia, J., & Willson, M. (2017). Collaboration in the humanities, arts and social sciences in Australia. Australian Universities’ Review, 59(1), 24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44, 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2005). The four literatures of social sciences. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration in Europe. Research Policy, 39, 662–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & van Oort, F. (2009). The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe. Annals of Regional Science, 43, 721–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • IRU (2016). Innovative Research University. https://www.iru.edu.au.

  • Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31, 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. (1992). Zero-inflated Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics, 34(1), 1–14.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2006). Canadian collaborative networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68, 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. G., Lee, J. D., Song, Y. I., & Lee, S. J. (2007). An in-depth empirical analysis of patent citation counts using zero-inflated count data model: The case of KIST. Scientometrics, 70(1), 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorigo, L., & Pellacini, F. (2007). Frequency and structure of long distance scholarly collaborations in a physics community. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1497–1502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Silvertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 101–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshakova-Shaikevich, I. (2006). Scientific collaboration of new 10 EU countries in the field of social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 42, 1592–1598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ossenblok, T. L. B., Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). Co-authorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000–2010). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 882–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallot, M., Martinez-Carreras, M. A., & Prinz, W. (2010). Collaborative distance: A framework for distance factors affecting the performance of distributed collaboration. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 6(2), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., & Fortunato, S. (2012). World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science. Scientific Reports, 2(902), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotnikova, T., & Rake, B. (2014). Collaboration in pharmaceutical research: Exploration of country-level determinants. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1173–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponds, R., Van Oort, F. G., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of scientific collaboration networks. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 423–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RUN (2016). Regional Universities Network. http://www.run.edu.au.

  • Scherngell, T., & Hu, Y. (2011). Collaborative knowledge production in China: Regional evidence from a gravity model approach. Regional Studies, 45(6), 755–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidone, O. J. G., Haddad, E. A., & Mena-Chalco, J. P. (2017). Scholarly publication and collaboration in Brazil: The role of geography. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. RS Policy document 03/11.

  • Tobler, W. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46(2), 234–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, G., & Brass, K. (2014). Mapping the humanities, arts and social sciences in Australia. Canberra: Academy of the Humanities. Retrieved from http://www.humanities.org.au/PolicyResearch/Research/MappingtheHumanitiesArtsSocialSciences.aspx.

  • Waltman, L., Tijssen, R. J. W., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). Globalisation of science in kilometres. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 574–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Geography and Remote Sensing, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210044, China

    Qingzhou Luo

  2. School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, Australia

    Jianhong Cecilia Xia

  3. School of Media, Creative Arts and Social Inquiry, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, Australia

    Gaby Haddow & Michele Willson

  4. Human Settlements Research Center, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian, 116029, Liaoning Province, People’s Republic of China

    Jun Yang

Authors
  1. Qingzhou Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jianhong Cecilia Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gaby Haddow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michele Willson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jun Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianhong Cecilia Xia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luo, Q., Xia, J.C., Haddow, G. et al. Does distance hinder the collaboration between Australian universities in the humanities, arts and social sciences?. Scientometrics 115, 695–715 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2686-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2686-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation