Stakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks.

This paper explores the evolution of research collaboration networks in the 'stakeholder theory and management' (STM) discipline and identifies the longitudinal effect of co-authorship networks on research performance, i.e., research productivity and citation counts. Research articles tota...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Julian Fares, Kon Shing Kenneth Chung, Alireza Abbasi
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/e7de3b36ed904cd3b05ee3238659f81b
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:e7de3b36ed904cd3b05ee3238659f81b
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:e7de3b36ed904cd3b05ee3238659f81b2021-12-02T20:13:41ZStakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0255658https://doaj.org/article/e7de3b36ed904cd3b05ee3238659f81b2021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255658https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203This paper explores the evolution of research collaboration networks in the 'stakeholder theory and management' (STM) discipline and identifies the longitudinal effect of co-authorship networks on research performance, i.e., research productivity and citation counts. Research articles totaling 6,127 records from 1989 to 2020 were harvested from the Web of Science Database and transformed into bibliometric data using Bibexcel, followed by applying social network analysis to compare and analyze scientific collaboration networks at the author, institution and country levels. This work maps the structure of these networks across three consecutive sub-periods (t1: 1989-1999; t2: 2000-2010; t3: 2011-2020) and explores the association between authors' social network properties and their research performance. The results show that authors collaboration network was fragmented all through the periods, however, with an increase in the number and size of cliques. Similar results were observed in the institutional collaboration network but with less fragmentation between institutions reflected by the increase in network density as time passed. The international collaboration had evolved from an uncondensed, fragmented and highly centralized network, to a highly dense and less fragmented network in t3. Moreover, a positive association was reported between authors' research performance and centrality and structural hole measures in t3 as opposed to ego-density, constraint and tie strength in t1. The findings can be used by policy makers to improve collaboration and develop research programs that can enhance several scientific fields. Central authors identified in the networks are better positioned to receive government funding, maximize research outputs and improve research community reputation. Viewed from a network's perspective, scientists can understand how collaborative relationships influence research performance and consider where to invest their decision and choices.Julian FaresKon Shing Kenneth ChungAlireza AbbasiPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 10, p e0255658 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Julian Fares Kon Shing Kenneth Chung Alireza Abbasi Stakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks.
description	This paper explores the evolution of research collaboration networks in the 'stakeholder theory and management' (STM) discipline and identifies the longitudinal effect of co-authorship networks on research performance, i.e., research productivity and citation counts. Research articles totaling 6,127 records from 1989 to 2020 were harvested from the Web of Science Database and transformed into bibliometric data using Bibexcel, followed by applying social network analysis to compare and analyze scientific collaboration networks at the author, institution and country levels. This work maps the structure of these networks across three consecutive sub-periods (t1: 1989-1999; t2: 2000-2010; t3: 2011-2020) and explores the association between authors' social network properties and their research performance. The results show that authors collaboration network was fragmented all through the periods, however, with an increase in the number and size of cliques. Similar results were observed in the institutional collaboration network but with less fragmentation between institutions reflected by the increase in network density as time passed. The international collaboration had evolved from an uncondensed, fragmented and highly centralized network, to a highly dense and less fragmented network in t3. Moreover, a positive association was reported between authors' research performance and centrality and structural hole measures in t3 as opposed to ego-density, constraint and tie strength in t1. The findings can be used by policy makers to improve collaboration and develop research programs that can enhance several scientific fields. Central authors identified in the networks are better positioned to receive government funding, maximize research outputs and improve research community reputation. Viewed from a network's perspective, scientists can understand how collaborative relationships influence research performance and consider where to invest their decision and choices.
format	article
author	Julian Fares Kon Shing Kenneth Chung Alireza Abbasi
author_facet	Julian Fares Kon Shing Kenneth Chung Alireza Abbasi
author_sort	Julian Fares
title	Stakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks.
title_short	Stakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks.
title_full	Stakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks.
title_fullStr	Stakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks.
title_full_unstemmed	Stakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks.
title_sort	stakeholder theory and management: understanding longitudinal collaboration networks.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/e7de3b36ed904cd3b05ee3238659f81b
work_keys_str_mv	AT julianfares stakeholdertheoryandmanagementunderstandinglongitudinalcollaborationnetworks AT konshingkennethchung stakeholdertheoryandmanagementunderstandinglongitudinalcollaborationnetworks AT alirezaabbasi stakeholdertheoryandmanagementunderstandinglongitudinalcollaborationnetworks
_version_	1718374798762967040

Stakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks.

Ejemplares similares