Internacjonaliści i miejscowi – międzynarodowa współpraca badawcza w Polsce na mikropoziomie indywidualnych naukowców

Main Article Content

Marek Kwiek

Abstrakt

W tekście porównano „internacjonalistów” i „miejscowych” (czyli badaczy umiędzynarodowionych i lokalnych w badaniach naukowych) – pierwsi to naukowcy zaangażowani w międzynarodową współpracę badawczą, a drudzy w nią niezaangażowani. Jako wyraźnie zdefiniowana grupa polskich naukowców (51,4%), internacjonaliści stanowią ich odrębny typ. Dehermetyzacja polskiego systemu nauki stawia miejscowych w radykalnie trudniejszej sytuacji. Procesy nazwane przez nas „skumulowaną przewagą z racji umiędzynarodowienia” i „skumulowaną stratą z racji braku umiędzynarodowienia” zachodzą jednocześnie, dzieląc środowisko naukowe pod względem prestiżu, uznania i dostępu do konkurencyjnego finansowania badań. Umiędzynarodowienie w badaniach naukowych jest potężną siłą rozwarstwiającą nie tylko instytucje (powodującą ich pionowe zróżnicowanie), ale także ich wydziały (doprowadzając do segmentacji poziomej). Wyłaniają się zatem wysoce umiędzynarodowione instytucje, wydziały, grupy badawcze i indywidualni naukowcy. Przetestowano dziewięć hipotez roboczych dotyczących płci, wieku i stanowiska, współpracy krajowej, poziomu produktywności badawczej, rozkładu czasu pracy, orientacji na role akademickie, predyktorów bycia internacjonalistą i typu produktywności badawczej. Internacjonaliści to głównie mężczyźni i naukowcy starsi, mający dłuższe doświadczenie akademickie i wyższe stopnie naukowe. We wszystkich klastrach dyscyplin akademickich internacjonaliści generują ponad 90% publikacji powstałych w ramach współpracy międzynarodowej: brak współpracy międzynarodowej w praktyce oznacza brak międzynarodowych publikacji współautorskich. Internacjonaliści są znacznie bardziej produktywni jeśli chodzi o międzynarodowe publikacje współautorskie: reprezentują 2320% produktywności miejscowych w przypadku artykułów recenzowanych i 1600% w przypadku ich ekwiwalentów. Internacjonaliści poświęcają mniej czasu na działalność dydaktyczną, więcej na badania i więcej na obowiązki administracyjne. W Polsce większość kobiet naukowców stanowią miejscowi (55%), a większość mężczyzn – internacjonaliści (56%). W związku z tym awans kobiet na drabinie akademickiej opartej o osiągnięcia czysto naukowe będzie z czasem prawdopodobnie dłuższy, a dostęp do coraz bardziej konkurencyjnych funduszy indywidualnych na badania – coraz bardziej utrudniony. Nasze analizy wielowymiarowe (regresja logistyczna) zidentyfikowały nowe predyktory zaangażowania w międzynarodową współpracę badawczą. Wyniki analiz przeprowadzonych w oparciu o rozległe badanie ankietowe (n = 3704 zwróconych kwestionariuszy) prowadzą do wniosków dotyczących kariery akademickiej, wzorców produktywności i umiędzynarodowienia badań naukowych.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Kwiek, M. (2019). Internacjonaliści i miejscowi – międzynarodowa współpraca badawcza w Polsce na mikropoziomie indywidualnych naukowców. Nauka I Szkolnictwo Wyższe, (1-2(53-54), 47–105. https://doi.org/10.14746/nisw.2019.1-2.2
Dział
Artykuły
Biogram autora

Marek Kwiek, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

MAREK KWIEK – prof. dr hab., dyrektor Centrum Studiów nad Polityką Publiczną (od 2002) i kierownik katedry UNESCO Badań Instytucjonalnych i Polityki Szkolnictwa Wyższego (od 2012) na UAM w Poznaniu. Zajmuje się ilościowymi badaniami nauki, socjologią karier akademickich i badaniami nad szkolnictwem wyższym. Jego zainteresowania naukowe koncentrują się na teoriach międzynarodowej współpracy naukowej, produktywności badawczej, stratyfikacji w nauce i badaniu globalnych elit akademickich, łącząc międzynarodowe badania ankietowe i badania bibliometryczne. Opublikował ok. 200 prac, a jego najnowsza monografia to Changing European Academics: A Comparative Study of Social Stratification, Work Patterns and Research Productivity (Routledge 2019). Był kierownikiem w 25 międzynarodowych projektach badawczych i w ostatniej dekadzie dla swoich zespołów badawczych zdobył w formie grantów 8 mln PLN. Jest członkiem rady redakcyjnej Higher Education Quarterly, European Educational Research Journal, British Educational Research Journal oraz European Journal of Higher Education, www.cpp.amu.edu.pl.

Bibliografia

  1. Abrahamson, M. (1965). Cosmpolitanism, Dependence-Identification, and Geographical Mo¬bility. Administrative Science Quarterly 10: 98–106.
  2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., Di Costa, F. (2019). A gender analysis of top scientists’ collaboration behavior: evidence from Italy. Scientometrics. Publikacja online: 30 maja 2019.
  3. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., Murgia, G. (2013). Gender Differences in Research Collaboration. Journal of Informetrics 7: 811–822.
  4. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., Solazzi, M. (2011a). The Relationship between Scientists’ Research Per-formance and the Degree of Internationalization of Their Research. Scientometrics 86. 629–643.
  5. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A. i Murgia, G. (2014). Variation in Research Collaboration Patterns across Academic Ranks. Scientometrics 98(3), 2275–2294.
  6. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., Di Costa, F. (2018). The collaboration behavior of top scientists. Scientometrics. Publikacja online: 29 listopada 2018.
  7. Abramo., G., D’Angelo, C.A., Solazzi, M. (2011b). Are researchers that collaborate more at the in-ternational level top performers? An investigation on the Italian university system Journal of Informetrics. 5: 204–213.
  8. Abramo., G., D’Angelo, C.A., Murgia, G. (2016). The combined effect of age and seniorityon research performance of full professors. Science and Public Policy 43(3): 301–319.
  9. Ackers, L. (2008). Internationalization, mobility and metrics: A new form of indirect discrimi¬nation? Minerva 46: 411–435.
  10. Aksnes, D.W., Piro, F.N., Rørstad, K. (2019). Gender gaps in international research collaboration: a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics. Publikacja online: 13 czerwca 2019.
  11. Antonowicz, D. (2016). Digital players in an analogue world: Higher education in Poland in the post-massification era. W: B. Jongbloed i H. Vossensteyn (red.), Access and expan¬sion post-massification. Opportunities and barriers to further growth in higher education participation (ss. 63–81). London: Routledge.
  12. Antonowicz, D., Kwiek, M. i Westerheijden, D.F. (2017). The government response to the pri¬vate sector expansion in Poland. W: H. de Boer, J. File, J. Huisman, M. Seeber, M. Vukas¬ovic i D.F. Westerheijden (red.), Policy analysis of structural reforms in higher education(ss. 119–138). Dordrecht: Springer.
  13. Arimoto, A. (2011). Japan: Effects of Changing Governance and Management on the Academic Profession. W: W. Locke, W.K. Cummings, D. Fisher (red.), Changing Governance and Man-agement in Higher Education. The Perspectives of the Academy (ss. 281–319). Dordrecht: Springer.
  14. Bentley, P.J. (2015). Cross-country differences in publishing productivity of academics in research universities. Scientometrics 102(1), 865–883.
  15. Bieliński, J. i Tomczyńska, A. (2018). The Ethos of Science in Contemporary Poland. Minerva. Publikacja online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-018-9365-1.
  16. Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C. (2003). Age effects in scientific productivity. The case of the Italian National Research Council (CNR). Scientometrics 58(1): 49–90.
  17. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. 4th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Carvalho, T. (2017). The study of the academic profession – contributions from and to the sociol¬ogy of professions. W: Huisman, J. i M. Tight (red.), Theory and method in higher education research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, First edition, 59–76.
  19. Cohen, L., Manion, L. i Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
  20. Cole, J.R. i Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  21. Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T.N, Bordons, M. (2010). A Bibliometric Classificatory Approachfor the Study and Assessment of Research Performance at the Individual Level: the Effectsof Age on Productivity and Impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(8): 1564–1581.
  22. Cummings, J.N., Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy 36: 1620–1634.
  23. Dakowska, D. (2015). Between competition imperative and Europeanisaton: the case of higher education reform in Poland. Higher Education 69(1): 129–141.
  24. Finkelstein, M. i Sethi, W. (2014). Patterns of Faculty Internationalization: A Predictive Model. W: F. Huang, M. Finkelstein i M. Rostan (red.), The Internationalization of the Academy. Changes, Realities and Prospects. Dordrecht: Springer. 237–258.
  25. Finkelstein, M.J., Walker, E. i Chen, R. (2013). The American faculty in an age of globalization: predictors of internationalization of research content and professional networks. Higher Education 66: 325–340.
  26. Finkelstein, M.J., Seal, R.K. i Schuster, J.H. (1998). The New Academic Generation. A Profession in Transformation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  27. Fox, M.F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity. Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education 65(4), 293–305.
  28. Fox, M.F., Realff, M.L., Rueda, D.R. i Morn, J. (2006). International Research Collaboration Among Women Engineers: Frequency and Perceived Barriers, by Regions. Journal of Tech¬nology Transfer. Published online: 17 października 2016.
  29. Gazni, A, Sugimoto, C.R i Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping World Scientific Collaboration: Au¬thors, Institutions, and Countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(2): 323–335.
  30. Georghiou, L. (1998). Global cooperation in research. Research Policy 27: 611–628.
  31. Glaser, B.G. (1963). The Local-Cosmopolitan Scientist. The American Journal of Sociology 69, 249–259.
  32. Godin, B. i Gingras, Y. (2000). Impact of Collaborative Research on Academic Science. Science and Public Policy 27(1). 65–73.
  33. Gorelova, O. i Lovakov, A. (2016). Academic Inbreeding and Research Productivity of Russian Faculty Members. Working Papers. WP BRP 32/EDU/2016.
  34. Gouldner, A. (1957). Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Rules. Administrative Science Quarterly 2, 281–306.
  35. Groves, R.M. (2006). Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70(5), 646–675.
  36. Guldbrandsen, M. i Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34, 932–950.
  37. GUS (2011). Higher Education Institutions and Their Finances in 2010. Warsaw: GUS (Central Statistical Office).
  38. Hibberts, M.R., Johnson, B. i Hudson, K. (2012). Common survey sampling techniques. W: L. Gideon, (red.), Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (ss. 53–74). Dordrecht: Springer.
  39. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K. i Tijssen, R.J.W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: chnag¬ing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy 39: 662–673.
  40. Huang, F., Finkelstein, M. i Rostan, M. (2014). The Internationalization of the Academy. Changes, Realities and Prospects. Dordrecht: Springer.
  41. Jeong, S., Choi, J.Y. i Kim, J.-Y. (2011). The determinants of research collaboration modes: Exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Sciento¬metrics 89, 967–983.
  42. Jeong, S., Choi, J.Y., Kim, J.-Y (2014). On the drivers of international collaboration: the impact of informal communication, motivation, and research resources. Science and Public Policy 41 (4): 520–531.
  43. Jones, G.A., Gopaul, B., Weinrib, J., Metcalfe, A.S., Fisher, D., Gingras, Y., Rubenson, K. (2014). Teaching, Research, and the Canadian Professoriate. W: J.C. Shin, A. Arimoto, W.K. Cum¬mings, U. Teichler (red.), Teaching and Research in Contemporary Higher Education. Systems, Activities and Rewards (ss. 335–355). Dordrecht: Springer.
  44. Jung, J. (2014). Research Productivity by Career Stage among Korean Academics. Tertiary Education and Management Vol. 20(2). 85–105.
  45. Jung, J., Kooij, R. i Teichler, U. (2014). Internationalization and the New Generation of Academics. W: F. Huang, M. Finkelstein i M. Rostan (red.), The Internationalization of the Academy. Changes, Realities and Prospects (ss. 207–236). Dordrecht: Springer.
  46. Kwiek, M. (2012). Changing higher education policies: From the deinstitutionalization to the re-institutionalization of the research mission in Polish universities. Science and Public Policy 35(5), 641–654.
  47. Kwiek, M. (2015a). The internationalization of research in Europe. A quantitative study of 11 national systems from a micro-level perspective. Journal of Studies in International Edu¬cation 19(2), 341–359.
  48. Kwiek, M. (2015b). The unfading power of collegiality? University governance in Poland in a Eu-ropean comparative and quantitative perspective. International Journal of Educational Development 43, 77–89.
  49. Kwiek, M. (2015c). Academic generations and academic work: Patterns of attitudes, behaviors and research productivity of Polish academics after 1989’. Studies in Higher Education 40(8), 1354–1376.
  50. Kwiek, M. (2016a). The European research elite: A cross-national study of highly productive academics across 11 European systems. Higher Education 71(3), 379–397.
  51. Kwiek, M. (2016b). From Privatization (of the Expansion Era) to De-privatization (of the Contrac¬tion Era). A National Counter-trend in a Global Context. W: S. Slaughter i B.J. Taylor (red.), Higher Education, Stratification, and Workforce Development. Competitive Advantage in Europe, the US and Canada (ss. 311–329). Dordrecht: Springer.
  52. Kwiek, M. (2017). A generational divide in the Polish academic profession. A mixed quantitative and qualitative approach. European Educational Research Journal 17, 1–26.
  53. Kwiek, M. (2018a). Academic top earners. Research productivity, prestige generation and salary patterns in European universities. Science and Public Policy 45(1). February 2018. 1–13.
  54. Kwiek, M. (2018b). International Research Collaboration and International Research Orienta¬tion: Comparative Findings About European Academics. Journal of Studies in International Education 22(2): 136–160.
  55. Kwiek, M. (2018c). High Research Productivity in Vertically Undifferentiated Higher Education Systems: Who Are the Top Performers? Scientometrics 115(1). 415–462.
  56. Kwiek, M. (2019). Changing European Academics: A Comparative Study of Social Stratification, Work Patterns and Research Productivity. London and New York: Routledge.
  57. Kwiek, M. (2020). Międzynarodowa współpraca badawcza w Europie w świetle dużych danych i jej globalne konteksty. Nauka 1(2020).
  58. Kwiek, M. i Szadkowski, K. (2018). Higher Education Systems and Institutions: Poland. W: International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems, red. Pedro N. Texteira i J.C. Shin, 1–20. Cham: Springer.
  59. Kyvik, S. (1990). Age and scientific productivity. Differences between fields of learning. Sciento-metrics 19(1): 37–55.
  60. Kyvik, S. i Aksnes, D.W. (2015). Explaining the increase in publication productivity among aca¬demic staff: A generational perspective. Studies in Higher Education 40, 1438–1453.
  61. Kyvik, S., Larsen, I.M. (1997). The exchange of knowledge. A small country in the international research community. Science Communication 18(3). 238–264.
  62. Kyvik, S., Teigen, M. (1996). Child Care, Research Collaboration, and Gender Differences in Sci¬entific Productivity. Science, Technology, & Human Values 21(1): 54–71.
  63. Kyvik, S., Olsen, T.B. (2008). Does the aging of tenured academic staff affect the research per-formance of universities? Scientometrics. Vol. 76(3). 439–455.
  64. Levin, S.G., Stephan, P.E. (1989). Age and research productivity of academic scientists. Research in Higher Education Vol. 30(5). 531–549.
  65. Levin, S.G., Stephan, P.E. (1991). Research Productivity Over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Aca¬demic Scientists. The American Economic Review Vol. 81(1). 114–132.
  66. Locke, W., Benion, A. (2011). The United Kingdom: Academic Retreat or Professional Renewal? W: W. Locke, W.K. Cummings, D. Fisher (red.), Changing Governance and Management in Higher Education. The Perspectives of the Academy (ss. 175–197). Dordrecht: Springer.
  67. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O. i Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding Patterns of International Sci¬entific Collaboration. Science, Technology, & Human Values 17(1): 101–126.
  68. Marquina, M. i Jones, G. (2015). Generational Change and Academic Work: An Introduction. Studies in Higher Education 40(8), 1349–1353.
  69. Marquina, M., Yuni, J., Ferreiro, M. (2015). Generational Change in Argentine academic profes¬sion through the analysis of ‘life courses’. Studies in Higher Education 40(8), 1392–1405.
  70. McNeeley, S. (2012). Sensitive Issues in Surveys: Reducing Refusals While Increasing Reliability and Quality of Responses to Sensitive Survey Items. W: G. Lior Gideon (red.), Handbookof survey methodology for the social sciences (ss. 377–396). Dordrecht: Springer.
  71. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy 29: 31–34.
  72. Merton, R.K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  73. Ostrowicka, H. i Stankiewicz, L. (2018). The truths of business and the lies of academia: the order of discourse on higher education in Poland. Higher Education Research & Development. On-line first: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1545746.
  74. Piro, F.N., Aksnes, D.W. i Rørstad, K. (2013). A Macro Analysis of Productivity Differences Across Fields: Challenges in the Measurement of Scientific Publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(2), 307–320.
  75. Piro, F.N., Rørstad, K. i Aksnes, D.W. (2016). How does prolific professors influence on the citation impact of their university departments? Scientometrics 107(3), 941–961.
  76. Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education 28(2), 207–226.
  77. Rhoades, G., Kiyama, J.M., McCormick, R., Quiroz, M. (2008). Local Cosmopolitans and Cos-mopolitan Locals: New Models of Professionals in the Academy. The Review of Higher Education 31/2: 209–235.
  78. Rostan, M., Ceravolo, F.A. i Metcalfe, S.A. (2014). The Internationalization of Research. W:F. Huang, M. Finkelstein i M. Rostan (red.), The Internationalization of the Academy. Chang¬es, Realities and Prospects. Dordrecht: Springer: 119–144.
  79. Rostan, M., Ceravolo, F.A. (2015). The internationalization of the academy: convergence and di-vergence across disciplines. European Review 23(S1): 38–54.
  80. Rørstad, K. i Aksnes, D.W. (2015). Publication rate expressed by age, gender and academic posi¬tion – A large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff. Journal of Informetrics 9, 317–333.
  81. Santiago, R., Carvalho, T. i Cardoso, S. (2015). Portuguese Academics’ Perceptions of Higher Education Institutions’ Governance and Management: A Generational Perspective. Studies in Higher Education 40(8), 1471–1484.
  82. Shin, J.C., Arimoto, A. i Cummings, W.K. (2014). Teaching and Research in Contemporary Higher Education. Systems, Activities and Rewards. Dordrecht: Springer.
  83. Shin, J.C., Jung, J., Kim, Y. (2014). Teaching and Research of Korean Academics Across Career Stages. W: J.C. Shin, A. Arimoto, W.K. Cummings, U. Teichler (red.), Teaching and Research in Contemporary Higher Education. Systems, Activities and Rewards (ss. 177–197). Dor¬drecht: Springer.
  84. Smeby, J.-Ch. i Gornitzka, Å. (2008). All Cosmopolitans Now? The Changing International Con¬tacts of University Researchers. W: Å. Gornitzka i L. Langfeldt (red.), Borderless Knowledge. Understanding „New” Internationalisation of Research and Higher Education in Norway. Dordrecht: Springer. 37–50.
  85. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2014). Publication productivity and collaboration of researchers in South Africa: new empirical evidence. Scientometrics 98: 531–545.
  86. Spector, P.E. (1981). Research designs. London: Sage.
  87. Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  88. Stephan, P.E., Levin, S.G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: the importance of age, place, and time. New York: Oxford University Press.
  89. Teichler, U. i Höhle, E.E. (red.). (2013). The Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Eu¬rope: Findings of a Survey in Twelve Countries. Dordrecht: Springer.
  90. Teichler, U., Arimoto, A. i Cummings, W.K. (2013). The Changing Academic Profession. Major Findings of a Comparative Survey. Dordrecht: Springer.
  91. Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis. Higher Education 39(2), 201–222.
  92. Thelwall, M., Maflahi, N. (2019). Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields. arXiv:1910.00789.
  93. Uhly, K.M., Visser, L.M., Zippel, K.M (2015). Gendered patterns in international research col-laboration in academia. Studies in Higher Education 42(4): 760–782.
  94. Urbanek, P. (2018). Reform of the Higher Education System in Poland from the Perspectiveof Agency Theory. European Journal of Higher Education. Publikacja online: 20 grudnia 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1560344.
  95. Vabø, A., Padilla-Gonzales, L.E., Waagene, E., Naess, T. (2014). Gender and Faculty Interna-tionalization. W: F. Huang, M. Finkelstein i M. Rostan (red.), The Internationalizationof the Academy. Changes, Realities and Prospects. Dordrecht: Springer: 183–206.
  96. Vaus, D. de (2002). Surveys in Social Research. 5th Edition. Routledge: Milton Park
  97. Villanueva-Felez, A., Molas-Gallart, M. i Escribá-Esteve, A. (2013). Measuring Personal Networks and Their Relationship with Scientific Production. Minerva 51, 465–483.
  98. Wagner, C.S. (2006). International collaboration in science and technology: promises and pitfalls. W: Science and Technology Policy for Development, Dialogues at the Interface, red. L. Box i R. Engelhard. London: Anthem Press.
  99. Wagner, C.S. (2008). The New Invisible College. Science for Development. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  100. Wagner, C.S. (2018). The Collaborative Era in Science. Governing the Network. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
  101. Wagner, C.S, Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growthof international collaboration in science. Research Policy 34: 1608–1618.
  102. Weert, E. de, Kaap, H. van der (2014). The Changing Balance of Teaching and Research in the Dutch Binary Higher Education System. W: J.C. Shin, A. Arimoto, W.K. Cummings, U. Teichler (red.), Teaching and Research in Contemporary Higher Education. Systems, Activities and Rewards (ss. 113–133). Dordrecht: Springer.
  103. Wolszczak-Derlacz, J. i Parteka, A. (2010). Scientific Productivity of Public Higher Education Institutions in Poland. A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis. Warsaw: Ernst and Young.
  104. Ziman, J. (1991). Academic science as a system of markets. Higher Education Quarterly 45(1), 41–61.
  105. Zippel, K. (2017). Women in Global Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  106. Zuckerman, H. (1970). Stratification in American science. Sociological Inquiry 40(2), 235–257.