Patterns and regularities in the - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Patterns and regularities in the european marketing academic community: a social network analysis of the emac conferences 2000-2010

Katrine

Christensen

Athanasios

Krystallis

Robert P.

OrmrodSlide2

Aims and scope of our paperTo investigate

the

co-authorship

structure

of the EMAC

conference

and to

determine

which

factors

influence

the

way

in

which

members

of

this

community

choose

collaboration

partners for joint

publications

Focus

on

structural

characteristics

of

co-authorship

, not

on

the

characteristics

of

individual

authorsSlide3

Research questions

What are the structural characteristics of the EMAC collaboration network in 2000, 2004, 2007 and 2010?

Which factors influence the choice of collaboration partners in the EMAC collaboration network in 2000, 2004, 2007

and

2010?

We will focus on 2007 and 2010 in the current presentationSlide4

Social network analysisMain component

- The largest network where all individuals are connected to each other

- Tells us which academics have social relationships and thus are likely to ‘hold the key’ to a larger collaboration network with access to different types of knowledge

Density

- The percentage of all possible ties that are actually present in a network

- Tells us the ’strength’ of the network, that is, if one actor is removed, how will this affect the structure of the network

Diameter

- The number of steps that are necessary to get from one side of a network to the other

- Tells us if a network exhibits ’small world’ properties, that is,

relatively unobstructed diffusion of theories and ideas and easiness of communication among component membersSlide5

Previous researchMost research has shown that conference papers tend to be co-authored by individuals within countries or institutionsGeographical/cultural proximity

Social relationships are important in the production of research

Research in the natural sciences shows that inter-institution collaboration produces higher-impact researchSlide6

Our dataFocus on co-authorship rather than citations emphasises social relationships rather than quality of researchCo-authored, scientific research paper, i.e. all research papers presented at the EMAC conferences in 2000, 2004, 2007 and 2010 with two or more authors

Data was retrieved manually from the EMAC conference proceedings

Poster- and special sessions in addition to papers marked ”withdrawn” were excluded from the study

Authors were identified by surname and inconsistencies were correctedSlide7

Main component network 2007

2.0

Albrecht

Bauer

Beckers

Bryant

DeLancastre

DeRuyter

Hensen

Hess

Homburg

Huber

Kuester

Lages

Lageslu

Neumannmar

Pauwels

Posler

Queiroga

Schepers

StokburgerSauer

VanBirgelen

Van´tLand

Vissers

Wetzels

Wouters

Component size: 24

Diameter: 4

Density: .08Slide8

So what does this tell us about 2007?One central actor with four papers in four different tracks, collaborating with 11 other academics spread across six institutionsHowever, only two of the other academics were based outside of the Dutch-speaking area (Netherlands and Antwerpen), at two different institutions

Three different languages across the main component: Dutch (4 institutions), German (2) and Portugese (2) (one author had no affiliation)

Wide variety of tracks (nine in total)

Geographical and cultural proximity more important than a focus on sub-disciplineSlide9

Melnyk

Main component Network 2010

Fischbach

2.0

2.0

Beckermi

Braun

Burmester

Clement

Egger

Emrich

Erfgen

F

ü

ller

Gensler

Hautz

Hemetsberger

HennigThurau

Heuke

Hofmann

Hoppe

Kleinkri

Knubben

Kohler

Matzler

M

ü

hlbacher

Papies

Paul

Pichler

Ringle

Rudolph

Sarstedt

Sattler

Schnittka

Schoder

Schulzecar

Urban

Villeda

V

ö

lckner

Wuste

Zenker

Component size: 37

Diameter = 6

Density = .054Slide10

So what does this tell us about 2010?One central actor with six papers at EMAC 2010 in three different tracks, collaborating with 16 other academics spread across five institutions

However, only two of the other academics were based outside of Germany, at different institutions

Three languages across the main component: German (6 institutions), Dutch (2) and English (1)

Wide variety of tracks (nine in total)

Once again, geographical and cultural proximity is more important than a focus on sub-disciplineSlide11

Effect of removing one actor

Fischbach

2.0

Beckermi

Braun

Burmester

Clement

Egger

Emrich

Erfgen

F

ü

ller

Gensler

Hautz

Hemetsberger

HennigThurau

Heuke

Hofmann

Hoppe

Kleinkri

Knubben

Kohler

Matzler

Melnyk

M

ü

hlbacher

Papies

Paul

Pichler

Ringle

Rudolph

Sarstedt

Sattler

Schnittka

Schoder

Schulzecar

Urban

Villeda

V

ö

lckner

Wuste

ZenkerSlide12

ConclusionsGeographical and

cultural

proximity

is the

primary

driver of collaboration, reflecting previous research.

This

indicates

that

:

- marketing

scholars

are

moderately

risk-averse

with

regard to

collaboration partners

- the marketing sub-discipline

is not as important as the relationships that exist between scholarsSub-discipline focus is, however, more important in later years

- Anomoly or trend?

So what is interesting for us to understand?Slide13

Implications: what can we do?Prioritise papers co-authored across national borders?Will this lead to higher-impact research? Exclude centres of excellence?

Purpose of the paper: publication or participation for social networking?

Limit number of co-authorships of each scholar?

Allows for more participants? Limits the contribution of key scholars?

EMAC travel grants for young scholars, focussed on writing a specific paper for EMAC?

Do we actually want - or need - to do anything?Slide14

Patterns and regularities in the european marketing academic community: a social network analysis of the emac conferences 2000-2010

Katrine Christensen

Athanasios Krystallis

Robert P. Ormrod