Sunbelt XXXI International Network for Social Network ... - INSNA

Knowledge Diffusion And Fragmentation In Turkish Management AcademiaOzel, BulentAcademic and Scientific NetworksKnowledge Networks, Cognitive Social Structures, Co‐authorship Network, Network Models, Collaboration Network, information disseminationFRI.AM2Focus of this research is the interplay between knowledge diffusion and social collaboration structures. Contribution to the field is three fold. First, itelaborates on mutuality of knowledge and social structure theory borrowed from sociology of knowledge literature, where knowledge is perceived as anessentially social and societal category. Second, it develops a coherent research framework which relates cognitive structure and the collaboration patternsinto an integrated socio‐knowledge analysis of a given scientific community. The framework combines and extends meta‐network perspective and co‐wordanalysis. It is enhanced by introducing a novel model. The new model maps actors from co‐authorship networks into a strategic diagram of scientists. Themapping is based on cohesiveness and pervasiveness of issues each author has published in the field. Third, it adopts a longitudinal approach to traceknowledge diffusion within peculiarity of a national level socio‐knowledge system identifying (i) mechanism of knowledge diffusion within the community, (ii)interplay in between scientists socio‐knowledge structures and their research strategies, (iii) axes of fragmentation in the community, and (iv) their evolutionsover time. The exemplary longitudinal case from Turkey covers scientific publication activities in Turkish management academia spanning the years from 1922until 2008. Amongst other findings, it is seen that management knowledge within local community is transferred following patterns of information diffusionrather then patterns of knowledge diffusion found elsewhere at cognitively demanding areas. On the other hand, publishing in citation indexed internationaljournals reveals formation of cohesive team structures as a mean of collaborative knowledge production and transfer. Besides, while within local communitydiffusion of management knowledge is lead by academicians with certain socio‐knowledge properties, academicians publishing at international arena do notshow any significantly differing socio‐cognitive properties, instead, they are merely embedded in strongly connected groups. Leading academicians within localcommunity, however, exhibit a common cognitive structure relative to the rest of the community. They have more social ties and more diversified knowledgecompared to the rest. Knowledge they have is distinct compared to their peers in the network, they hold certain part of their knowledge exclusively, thusknowledge‐wise they don't resemble the rest, but they keep a level of common knowledge with the rest of the community. Empirical findings of exemplarycase are in align with theoretical discussions of the research. They provide new perspectives within body of relevant literature and points the potential ofproposed research framework to be employed for future studies. The in depth analyses on the exemplary case are demonstrated with a rigorous set ofcomputationally supported descriptive and visual tools, which are adopted or developed for this research.