slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Patterns and regularities in the european marketing academic community: a social network analysis of the emac confer PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Patterns and regularities in the european marketing academic community: a social network analysis of the emac confer

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

Patterns and regularities in the european marketing academic community: a social network analysis of the emac confer - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 102 Views
  • Uploaded on

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. Aims and scope of our paper.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Patterns and regularities in the european marketing academic community: a social network analysis of the emac confer


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Patterns and regularities in the european marketing academic community: a social network analysis of the emac conferences 2000-2010 Katrine Christensen AthanasiosKrystallis Robert P. Ormrod

    2. Aims and scope of our paper • To investigate the co-authorshipstructure of the EMAC conference and to determinewhich factors influence the way in whichmembers of thiscommunitychoosecollaboration partners for joint publications • Focusonstructuralcharacteristics of co-authorship, not on the characteristics of individualauthors

    3. 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 presentation

    4. Social network analysis • Main 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 members

    5. Previous research • Most research has shown that conference papers tend to be co-authored by individuals within countries or institutions • Geographical/cultural proximity • Social relationships are important in the production of research • Research in the natural sciences shows that inter-institution collaboration produces higher-impact research

    6. Our data • Focus on co-authorship rather than citations emphasises social relationships rather than quality of research • Co-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 corrected

    7. Hensen VanBirgelen Schepers Wouters Vissers Main component network 2007 Posler Van´tLand Neumannmar StokburgerSauer Wetzels 2.0 Pauwels Bryant DeRuyter Bauer Beckers Lageslu DeLancastre Huber Albrecht Lages Kuester Hess Queiroga Component size: 24 Diameter: 4 Density: .08 Homburg

    8. 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 institutions • However, 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-discipline

    9. Schulzecar Braun Paul Pichler Erfgen Main component Network 2010 Kohler Zenker 2.0 HennigThurau Heuke Hemetsberger Villeda Schnittka Sattler Rudolph 2.0 Füller Knubben Urban Hofmann Völckner Emrich Matzler Egger Papies Hoppe Hautz Mühlbacher Gensler Clement Ringle Schoder Component size: 37 Diameter = 6 Density = .054 Beckermi Sarstedt Fischbach Burmester Kleinkri Wuste Melnyk

    10. 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-discipline

    11. Effect of removing one actor Schulzecar Braun Paul Pichler Erfgen Kohler 2.0 Zenker HennigThurau Heuke Hemetsberger Villeda Schnittka Sattler Rudolph Füller Knubben Urban Hofmann Emrich Matzler Egger Völckner Papies Hautz Hoppe Mühlbacher Gensler Clement Ringle Fischbach Schoder Beckermi Sarstedt Burmester Kleinkri Wuste Melnyk

    12. Conclusions • Geographical and culturalproximity is the primary driver of collaboration, reflecting previous research. Thisindicatesthat: - marketing scholarsaremoderatelyrisk-aversewithregard to collaboration partners - the marketing sub-discipline is not as important as the relationships that exist between scholars • Sub-discipline focus is, however, more important in later years - Anomoly or trend? • So what is interesting for us to understand?

    13. 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?

    14. 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