IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v6y2018i1p5-d126297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collaborating with Management Academics in a New Economy: Benefits and Challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Yongyan Li

    (Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China)

  • Guangwei Hu

    (Department of English, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China)

Abstract

As a response to intensified globalization, international research collaboration has become common in the social sciences. This paper reports a study that examined what Chinese management academics and their overseas counterparts perceived to be the benefits and challenges arising from research collaboration with each other. Data collected with two parallel questionnaires administered, respectively, to 114 Chinese and 30 overseas management academics revealed a variety of perceived benefits relating mainly to Chinese and overseas academics’ complementing strengths. Analysis of the same data also identified an array of perceived challenges stemming from a combination of cultural, epistemological, ideological, linguistic, institutional, and relational differences. Our study generated insights to be drawn upon in policy-making and in the coordination of international research collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongyan Li & Guangwei Hu, 2018. "Collaborating with Management Academics in a New Economy: Benefits and Challenges," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:1:p:5-:d:126297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/1/5/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/1/5/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ping Zhou & Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2009. "Is China also becoming a giant in social sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 593-621, June.
    2. Jane Qiu, 2010. "Publish or perish in China," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7278), pages 142-142, January.
    3. Noriko Hara & Paul Solomon & Seung‐Lye Kim & Diane H. Sonnenwald, 2003. "An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(10), pages 952-965, August.
    4. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K. & Vandeberg, Rens L.J., 2008. "A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1255-1266, September.
    5. Nancy J Adler & Nigel Campbell & André Laurent, 1989. "In Search of Appropriate Methodology: From Outside The People's Republic of China Looking In," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 20(1), pages 61-74, March.
    6. Corinne Autant‐Bernard & Pascal Billand & David Frachisse & Nadine Massard, 2007. "Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 86(3), pages 495-519, August.
    7. Frank J. van Rijnsoever & Laurens K. Hessels & Rens L.J. Vandeberg, 2008. "A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-14, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2008.
    8. Li Zhai & Xiangbin Yan & Joshana Shibchurn & Xiaohong Song, 2014. "Evolutionary analysis of international collaboration network of Chinese scholars in management research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1435-1454, February.
    9. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Marco Solazzi, 2011. "The relationship between scientists’ research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(3), pages 629-643, March.
    10. Melin, Goran, 2000. "Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 31-40, January.
    11. Tsui, Anne S., 2009. "Editor's Introduction – Autonomy of Inquiry: Shaping the Future of Emerging Scientific Communities," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(01), pages 1-14, March.
    12. Whetten, David A., 2009. "An Examination of the Interface between Context and Theory Applied to the Study of Chinese Organizations," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 29-56, March.
    13. Julia Melkers & Agrita Kiopa, 2010. "The Social Capital of Global Ties in Science: The Added Value of International Collaboration," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(4), pages 389-414, July.
    14. Barney, Jay B. & Zhang, Shujun, 2009. "The Future of Chinese Management Research: A Theory of Chinese Management versus A Chinese Theory of Management," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 15-28, March.
    15. Eisend, Martin & Schmidt, Susanne, 2014. "The influence of knowledge-based resources and business scholars’ internationalization strategies on research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 48-59.
    16. Bozeman, Barry & Corley, Elizabeth, 2004. "Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 599-616, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiantong Zhao & Xu Liu & Shan Yan, 2024. "Why English? Exploring Chinese early career returnee academics’ motivations for writing and publishing in English," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cimenler, Oguz & Reeves, Kingsley A. & Skvoretz, John, 2014. "A regression analysis of researchers’ social network metrics on their citation performance in a college of engineering," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 667-682.
    2. Cimenler, Oguz & Reeves, Kingsley A. & Skvoretz, John, 2015. "An evaluation of collaborative research in a college of engineering," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 577-590.
    3. Hajdeja Iglič & Patrick Doreian & Luka Kronegger & Anuška Ferligoj, 2017. "With whom do researchers collaborate and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 153-174, July.
    4. Svein Kyvik & Ingvild Reymert, 2017. "Research collaboration in groups and networks: differences across academic fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 951-967, November.
    5. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.
    6. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, January.
    7. Julia Melkers & Agrita Kiopa, 2010. "The Social Capital of Global Ties in Science: The Added Value of International Collaboration," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(4), pages 389-414, July.
    8. Ponomariov, Branco L. & Boardman, P. Craig, 2010. "Influencing scientists' collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 613-624, June.
    9. Liu, Meijun & Hu, Xiao, 2021. "Will collaborators make scientists move? A Generalized Propensity Score analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    10. Edler, Jakob & Fier, Heide & Grimpe, Christoph, 2011. "International scientist mobility and the locus of knowledge and technology transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 791-805, July.
    11. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni & Alessandro Sapio, 2012. "Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian Research Assessment Exercise (2001-2003)," Discussion Papers 4_2012, CRISEI, University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.
    12. James Cunningham & Paul O'Reilly, 2019. "Roles and Responsibilities of Project Coordinators: A Contingency Model for Project Coordinator Effectiveness," JRC Research Reports JRC117576, Joint Research Centre.
    13. Boardman, P. Craig, 2009. "Government centrality to university-industry interactions: University research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1505-1516, December.
    14. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Murgia, Gianluca, 2013. "Gender differences in research collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 811-822.
    15. Gonzalo Ordóñez‐Matamoros & Michelle Vernot‐López & Ornella Moreno‐Mattar & Luis Antonio Orozco, 2020. "Exploring the Effects of North–South and South–South Research Collaboration in Emerging Economies, the Colombian Case," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(2), pages 174-200, March.
    16. Eric W. Welch & Yamini Jha, 2016. "Network and perceptual determinants of satisfaction among science and engineering faculty in US research universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 290-328, April.
    17. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Gianluca Murgia, 2014. "Variation in research collaboration patterns across academic ranks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2275-2294, March.
    18. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2019. "The collaboration behavior of top scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 215-232, January.
    19. Edwin Horlings & Thomas Gurney, 2013. "Search strategies along the academic lifecycle," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1137-1160, March.
    20. Ruslan Rakhmatullin & Louis Brennan, 2014. "Motivation Behind Researchers’ Participation in Formal Networking Research Projects Funded by the European Union," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(2), pages 305-329, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:1:p:5-:d:126297. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.