, Volume 115, Issue 2, pp 695–715 | Cite as

Does distance hinder the collaboration between Australian universities in the humanities, arts and social sciences?

  • Qingzhou Luo
  • Jianhong Cecilia Xia
  • Gaby Haddow
  • Michele Willson
  • Jun Yang


Australia is a vast country with an average distance of 1911 km between its eight state capital cities. The quantitative impact of this distance on collaboration practices between Australian universities and between different types of Australian universities has not been examined previously and hence our knowledge about the spatial distribution effects, if any, on collaboration practices and opportunities is very limited. The aim of the study reported here was therefore to analyse the effect of distance on the collaboration activities of humanities, arts and social science scholars in Australia, using co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration. In order to do this, gravity models were developed to determine the distance effects on external collaboration between universities in relation to geographic region and institutional alliance of 25 Australian universities. Although distance was found to have a weak impact on external collaboration, the strength of the research publishing record within a university (internal collaboration) was found to be an important factor in determining external collaboration activity levels. This finding would suggest that increasing internal collaboration within universities could be an effective strategy to encourage external collaboration between universities. This strategy becomes even more effective for universities that are further away from each other. Establishing a hierarchical structure of different types of universities within a region can optimise the location advantage in the region to encourage knowledge exchange within that region. The stronger network could also attract more collaboration between networks.


Distance decay Australian universities Internal and external collaboration Institutional alliance Geographical proximity Onion model 


  1. Abramo, D., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2014). Variation in research collaboration patterns across academic ranks. Scientometrics, 98, 2275–2294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Ferrándiz, E., & Leon, M. D. (2011). Factors affecting inter-regional academic scientific collaboration within Europe: The role of economic distance. Scientometrics, 87, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ATN (2016). Australian Technology Network.
  4. Australian Education Network. (2017). Groupings of Australian universities. Australian
  5. Australian Research Council. (2015). International collaboration.
  6. Beaver, D. D. B. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2000). Collaboration networks in science. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science.Google Scholar
  8. Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Endersby, J. W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 375–392.Google Scholar
  10. ESRI (2016). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.5. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, T. S., Lambiotte, R., & Panzarasa, P. (2011). Community structure and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management. Scientometrics, 89, 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernández, A., Ferrándiz, E., & Leon, M. D. (2016). Proximity dimensions and scientific collaboration among academic institutions in Europe: The closer the better? Scientometrics, 106, 1073–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frenken, K., Hoekman, J., Kok, S., Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & van Vliet, J. (2009). Death of distance in science: A gravity approach to research collaboration. In A. Pyka & A. Scharnhorst (Eds.), Innovation networks, understanding complex systems (pp. 43–57). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Grabher, G., & Ibert, O. (2014). Distance as asset? Knowledge collaboration in hybrid virtual communities. Journal of Economic Geography, 14, 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haddow, G., Xia, J., & Willson, M. (2017). Collaboration in the humanities, arts and social sciences in Australia. Australian Universities’ Review, 59(1), 24–36.Google Scholar
  17. Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hicks, D. (2005). The four literatures of social sciences. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration in Europe. Research Policy, 39, 662–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & van Oort, F. (2009). The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe. Annals of Regional Science, 43, 721–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.Google Scholar
  22. IRU (2016). Innovative Research University.
  23. Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lambert, D. (1992). Zero-inflated Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics, 34(1), 1–14.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2006). Canadian collaborative networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, Y. G., Lee, J. D., Song, Y. I., & Lee, S. J. (2007). An in-depth empirical analysis of patent citation counts using zero-inflated count data model: The case of KIST. Scientometrics, 70(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lorigo, L., & Pellacini, F. (2007). Frequency and structure of long distance scholarly collaborations in a physics community. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1497–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Silvertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I. (2006). Scientific collaboration of new 10 EU countries in the field of social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 42, 1592–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Ossenblok, T. L. B., Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). Co-authorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000–2010). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 882–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pallot, M., Martinez-Carreras, M. A., & Prinz, W. (2010). Collaborative distance: A framework for distance factors affecting the performance of distributed collaboration. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 6(2), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., & Fortunato, S. (2012). World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science. Scientific Reports, 2(902), 1–7.Google Scholar
  36. Plotnikova, T., & Rake, B. (2014). Collaboration in pharmaceutical research: Exploration of country-level determinants. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1173–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ponds, R., Van Oort, F. G., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of scientific collaboration networks. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. RUN (2016). Regional Universities Network.
  39. Scherngell, T., & Hu, Y. (2011). Collaborative knowledge production in China: Regional evidence from a gravity model approach. Regional Studies, 45(6), 755–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sidone, O. J. G., Haddad, E. A., & Mena-Chalco, J. P. (2017). Scholarly publication and collaboration in Brazil: The role of geography. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1), 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. RS Policy document 03/11.Google Scholar
  43. Tobler, W. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46(2), 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turner, G., & Brass, K. (2014). Mapping the humanities, arts and social sciences in Australia. Canberra: Academy of the Humanities. Retrieved from
  45. Waltman, L., Tijssen, R. J. W., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). Globalisation of science in kilometres. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 574–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geography and Remote SensingNanjing University of Information Science and TechnologyNanjingChina
  2. 2.School of Earth and Planetary SciencesCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  3. 3.School of Media, Creative Arts and Social InquiryCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  4. 4.Human Settlements Research CenterLiaoning Normal UniversityDalianPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations