Diffusion of nanotechnology knowledge in Turkey and its network structure
- 674 Downloads
This paper aims to assess the diffusion and adoption of nanotechnology knowledge within the Turkish scientific community using social network analysis and bibliometrics. We retrieved a total of 10,062 records of nanotechnology papers authored by Turkish researchers between 2000 and 2011 from Web of Science and divided the data set into two 6-year periods. We analyzed the most prolific and collaborative authors and universities on individual, institutional and international levels based on their network properties (e.g., centrality) as well as the nanotechnology research topics studied most often by the Turkish researchers. We used co-word analysis and mapping to identify the major nanotechnology research fields in Turkey on the basis of the co-occurrence of words in the titles of papers. We found that nanotechnology research and development in Turkey is on the rise and its diffusion and adoption have increased tremendously thanks to the Turkish government’s decision a decade ago identifying nanotechnology as a strategic field and providing constant support since then. Turkish researchers tend to collaborate within their own groups or universities and the overall connectedness of the network is thus low. Their publication and collaboration patterns conform to Lotka’s law. They work mainly on nanotechnology applications in Materials Sciences, Chemistry and Physics, among others. This is commensurate, more or less, with the global trends in nanotechnology research and development.
KeywordsCountry-level studies Mapping and visualization Social network analysis
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments, which helped us improve the paper. Remaining errors are of course our own.
- Aydogan-Duda, N. (2012). Nanotechnology: A descriptive account. Making it to the forefront in Aydogan-Duda, N. (Ed). Nanotechnology: A developing country perspective (pp. 1–4). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Bozkurt, A. (2015). Türkiye, 10 yıldır “en küçük” dünyanın farkında, artık büyük adımlar atması gerekiyor (Turkey is aware of the “smallest” world for 10 years, but it should take big steps). Bilişim: Aylık Bilişim Kültürü Dergisi, 43(172), 44–53. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from http://www.bilisimdergisi.org/s172/pages/s172_web.pdf.
- Centrality. (2015). Retrieved, January 20, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrality.
- Darvish, H. (2014). Assessing the diffusion of nanotechnology in Turkey: A social network analysis approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Hacettepe University, Ankara.Google Scholar
- Darvish, H. R., & Tonta, Y. (2015a). The diffusion of nanotechnology knowledge in Turkey. In A. A. Salah, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 29 June–4 July, 2015 (pp. 720–731). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
- Darvish, H. R., & Tonta, Y. (2015b). The network structure of nanotechnology research output of Turkey: A co-authorship and co-word analysis study. In A. A. Salah, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 29 June–4 July, 2015 (pp. 732–743). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
- Denkbaş, E. B. (2015). Nanoteknolojiye yapılacak yatırımlar, ülkelerin ekonomik gücünü yansıtabilecek bir parametre olacak (Investments in nanotechnology will become a parameter reflecting economic powers of countries). Bilişim: Aylık Bilim Kültürü Dergisi, 43(172), 78–87. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from www.bilisimdergisi.org/pdfindir/s172/pdf/78-87.pdf.
- Erkoç, Ş. (2007). Nanobilim ve Nanoteknoloji (nanoscience and nanotechnology). Ankara: ODTÜ Geliştirme Vakfı.Google Scholar
- Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.Google Scholar
- Günay, D., & Günay, A. (2011). 1933’den günümüze Türk yükseköğretiminde niceliksel gelişmeler (Quantitative developments in Turkish higher education since 1933). Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(1), 1–22. doi: 10.5961/jhes.2011.001. Retrieved, December 1, 2015, from http://higheredu-sci.beun.edu.tr/pdf/pdf_HIG_1517.pdf.
- Mali, F., Kronegger, L., Doreian, P., & Ferligoj, A. (2012). Dynamic scientific co-authorship networks. In A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, & P. Van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of science dynamics—Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences (pp. 195–232). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Martin, T., Ball, B., Karrer, B., & Newman M. E. J. (2013). Coauthorship and citation in scientific publishing. Retrieved December 27, 2014, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.0473.
- Milojević, S. (2009). Big science, nano science? Mapping the evolution and socio-cognitive structure of nanoscience/nanotechnology using mixed methods. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
- Milojević, S. (2012). Multidisciplinary cognitive content of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
- Nanobilim. (2004). Nanobilim ve Nanoteknoloji Stratejileri (Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Strategies). Ankara: TÜBİTAK. Retrieved, December 2, 2015, from http://www.nanoturk.com/raporlar/vizyon2023_nano.pdf.
- Nanotechnology. (2015). Retrieved, January 20, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrality.
- Özel, B. (2010). Scientific collaboration networks: Knowledge diffusion and fragmentation in Turkish management academia. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Bilgi University, Istanbul.Google Scholar
- Özgüz, V. (2013). Nanotechnology research and education in Turkey (presentation slides). Retrieved, December 27, 2014, from ttp://rp7.ffg.at/upload/medialibrary/12_Oezguez.pdf.Google Scholar
- Persson, O., Danell, R., & Wiborg Schneider, J. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th birthday (pp. 9–24). Leuven: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.Google Scholar
- Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
- Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Rousseau, R. (1997). Sitations: An exploratory study. Cybermetrics. Retrieved, February 14 2014, from http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v4i1p4.pdf.
- Scharnhorst, A., & Garfield, E. (2010). Tracing scientific influence. Dynamics of Socio-Economic Systems, 2(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
- Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Testa, J. (2004). The Thomson Scientific journal selection process. Retrieved, November 25 2015 from http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/selectionofmaterial/journalselection/.
- Ulusal. (2004). Ulusal Bilim ve Teknoloji Politikaları 2003–2023 Strateji Belgesi (National Science and Technology Policies The Strategi Document of 2003–2023. Ankara: TÜBİTAK. Retrieved, December 2, 2015, from http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files/vizyon2023/Vizyon2023_Strateji_Belgesi.pdf.
- Vitanov, N. K., & Ausloos, M. R. (2012). Knowledge epidemics and population dynamics models for describing idea diffusion. In A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, & P. Van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of science dynamics—Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences (pp. 69–125). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Watts, D. (2003). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: Norton & Co.Google Scholar