AARHUSUNIVERSITY

issuescam

PATTERNS AND REGULARITIES IN

THE EUROPEAN MARKETING

ACADEMIC COMMUNITY: A SOCIAL

NETWORK ANALYSIS OF THE EMAC

CONFERENCES 2000-2010

Katrine ChristensenAthanasios KrystallisRobert P. Ormrod

AIMS AND SCOPE OF OUR PAPER

• To 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 authors

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

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

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

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• Poster- and special sessions in addition to papers marked ”withdrawn” were excluded from the study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

MAIN COMPONENT NETWORK 2007

2.0

Albrecht

Bauer

Beckers

Bryant

DeLancastre

DeRuyter

Hensen

Hess

Homburg

Huber

KuesterLages

Lageslu

Neumannmar

Pauwels

Posler

Queiroga

Schepers

StokburgerSauer

VanBirgelen

Van´tLand

Vissers

Wetzels

Wouters

Component size: 24Diameter: 4Density: .08

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

Melnyk

MAIN COMPONENT NETWORK 2010

Fischbach

2.0

2.0

Beckermi

Braun

Burmester

Clement

EggerEmrich

Erfgen

Füller

Gensler

Hautz

HemetsbergerHennigThurau

Heuke

Hofmann

Hoppe

Kleinkri

Knubben

Kohler

Matzler

Mühlbacher

Papies

PaulPichler

Ringle

Rudolph

Sarstedt

SattlerSchnittka

Schoder

Schulzecar

Urban

Villed

a

Völckner

Wuste

Zenker

Component size: 37Diameter = 6Density = .054

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

EFFECT OF REMOVING ONE ACTOR

Fischbach

2.0

Beckermi

Braun

Burmester

Clement

EggerEmrich

Erfgen

Füller

Gensler

Hautz

HemetsbergerHennigThurau

Heuke

Hofmann

Hoppe

Kleinkri

Knubben

Kohler

Matzler

Melnyk

Mühlbacher

Papies

PaulPichler

Ringle

Rudolph

Sarstedt

SattlerSchnittka

Schoder

Schulzecar

Urban

Villed

a

Völckner

Wuste

Zenker

CONCLUSIONS• Geographical 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 scholars

• Sub-discipline focus is, however, more important in later years

- Anomoly or trend?

• So what is interesting for us to understand?

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?

AARHUSUNIVERSITY

issuescam

PATTERNS AND REGULARITIES IN

THE EUROPEAN MARKETING

ACADEMIC COMMUNITY: A SOCIAL

NETWORK ANALYSIS OF THE EMAC

CONFERENCES 2000-2010

Katrine ChristensenAthanasios KrystallisRobert P. Ormrod