Discipline Structures and Strategic Positioning: A Cross-Alliance Study of Top-Tier University Consortia

Miaomiao Liu; Bin  Dong; Yuhang  Li

doi:10.71204/ee4qxv54

Authors

Miaomiao Liu Dalian Maritime University Author
Bin Dong Dalian Maritime University Author
Yuhang Li Dalian University of Technology Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71204/ee4qxv54

Keywords:

University Alliances, First-Class Discipline, Scientific Research Output, Scientific Research Influence

Abstract

The world's top four research university alliances were selected as research objects, and comparative analysis method was used to compare and analyze the scientific research productivity, scientific research influence and cooperation, and discipline group structure of the university alliances. The overall profile and main characteristics of the disciplines of the university alliances would reveal the gaps and characteristics of the disciplines of the international top university alliances. The research results show that the IVY University Alliance has the highest impact on standardized citations and the impact of disciplines relative to the global average level. The RG university alliance has the highest number of scientific research papers and the highest degree of international cooperation papers.The paper output of the C9 university alliance increased the fastest. The four university alliances differ greatly in the presentation of the discipline group structure.：Among the superior disciplines of the IVY, RG, and Go8 university alliances, clinical medicine has the most outstanding performance. The C9 university alliance has the most outstanding performance in material science.The study found that maintaining close links between scientific research and international frontiers, optimizing the structure of disciplines, and creating more peaks in discipline clusters have important enlightenment values for the development of university alliances.

References

Biermann, R. (2008). Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking: The Euro-Atlantic security institutions interacting. The Review of International Organizations, 3(2), 151–177.

Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. (1996). An economic model of international joint venture strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(5), 849–876.

Cantor, D. E., Bolumole, Y. A., Coleman, B. J., & Frankel, R. (2010). An examination of trends and impact of authorship collaboration in logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(1), 197–215.

Dahlin, B., Levin, E., & White, P. E. (1963). 2S31. Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relationships. Nursing Research, 12(4), 264.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Fedor, K. J., & Werther, W. B., Jr. (1995). Making sense of cultural factors in international alliances. Organizational Dynamics, 23(4), 33–48.

Gunn, A., & Mintrom, M. (2013). Global university alliances and the creation of collaborative advantage. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(2), 179–192.

Igami, M., & Saka, A. (2007). Capturing the evolving nature of science, the development of new scientific indicators and the mapping of science (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers No. 2007/01). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/300005636714

Inkpen, A. C. (2000). Learning through joint ventures: A framework of knowledge acquisition. Journal of Management Studies, 37(7), 1019–1044.

Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002). Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 747–767.

Klein, D. B., & Chiang, E. (2004). The Social Science Citation Index: A black box—with an ideological bias? Econ Journal Watch, 1(1), 134–165.

Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: Historical and conceptual perspectives. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Strategies for the internationalisation of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America (pp. 5–32). European Association for International Education.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.

Mukherjee, B. (2011). Evaluation of Indian research performance in the emerging fields of environmental sciences. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 5(1), 81–98.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91. https://hbr.org/1990/05/the-core-competence-of-the-corporation

Price, D. J. de S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.

Saffu, K. S., & Mamman, A. (1999). Mechanics, problems and contributions of tertiary strategic alliances: The case of 22 Australian universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 13(6), 281–286.

Starodubov, V. I., Kurakova, N. G., Tsvetkova, L. A., Aref’ev, P. G., & Kurakov, A. F. (2012). The problems associated with the evaluation of world-class competitiveness of Russia’s science, as illustrated by clinical medicine. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 39(3), 139–152.

Sun, W., Wu, L., & Hao, X. (2016). Agricultural research front detection and national cooperative performance analysis based on ESI. In 2016 3rd International Conference on Systems and Informatics (ICSAI) (pp. 1095–1100). IEEE.

Teichler, U. (2009). Internationalisation of higher education: European experiences. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 93–106.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2005). United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014): International implementation scheme (ED/DESD/2005/PI/01). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000148654

Wacquant, L. J. D. (1989). Towards a reflexive sociology: A workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 26–63.