Abstract
Scholarly socialization is a crucial and fundamental component of doctoral training in preparing future scholars. One of the important goals of doctoral student socialization is to build up the academic network, that is, to be loosely defined, to develop connections with other scholars in knowledge production and exchange. Academic advisor, as the mentor and guide for doctoral students through their journey entering the academic world, plays an important role in helping students establishing their network. Using bibliometric data on the publications of recent doctoral degree earners in Physics, this study examines the influence of their advisors on the formation of their academic network. Specifically, we randomly sampled 1% of the doctoral degree earners (thereafter called “new Ph.D”) in Physics who graduated from a university/college in China between 2001 and 2018 and whose doctoral dissertation was available in the CNKI database by July 31, 2018 (1022 people in all). From the dissertation, we were able to grasped the name(s) and institution(s) of the new Ph.D’s academic advisor(s) and the publications he/she published during doctoral training. Then with scientometrics analysis of the publications, coauthors, and citations, we established the co-authorship network and citation network for each new Ph.D, and estimated the structure of networks (number of nodes, density and centralization) and the position of the new Ph.D in the networks (in- and out-degree, centrality and constraint). The primary interest of this study is to examine whether and by how much these two features are influenced by the academic ability of the advisor(s). The study further examines whether the supervision model (i.e., independent guidance, joint guidance, or team guidance) may influence the features of the new Ph.D’s networks. Preliminary findings suggest that Doctoral supervisor, by introducing Ph.D. candidates to academia with his or her own academic contacts and influence, could make the Ph.D. candidates acquainted with academic elites, thus accelerating the academic socialization process of the Ph.D. candidates. Comparing to single supervision, the team supervision model is more helpful in establishing the co-authorship network. However, the doctoral supervisor has an extremely limited influence on the position of the Ph.D. candidates in the academic network, and what’s more, the Ph.D. candidates have not become a bridge for scholars to seek cooperation and transfer knowledge. There is no difference between the models in establishing the citation network. The above findings provide implications for academic supervision in the training of doctoral students’ research ability to enhance the contribution of their research products.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Chinese names usually contain two to three characters. The first character is the surname, followed by the first name. For example, in the Chinese name “Wu, Qing”, the family name is “Wu”. In the database, it can appear in full as “Qing Wu" or "Wu, Qing", or be abbreviated as "Wu, Q." or "Q. Wu”. If the name has more than two characters, for example, “Wang, Chuan Yi”, then the surname is "Wang" and the first name "Chuan Yi". It is shown as "Wang, Chuanyi" or “Chuanyi Wang” in full, and can be abbreviated as " Wang, C.Y.", "C.Y. Wang" ," Wang, C. " or "C. Wang". We listed all possible expressions of supervisors’ and students' names to match the author list in academic database. If the matching result was not unique or not found, manual recognition was added.
In order to minimize the influence of the classics on the size and up-to-date of the network, we limited our analysis to papers published 10 years before and after a specific publication of the Candidate when constructing the network.
A triangular team is a network with size >2. The network nodes can be classified as first party, second party and third party. Computing the dual constraint: intensity proportion value of tie from first party to second party is added to product of intensity proportion values of two arcs on each path from the first party to the second party via other neighboring points, then the sum is squared. Of which, intensity proportion of the ties is an important or monopolistic indicator for measuring the ties. Take value of the connecting line of the tie as the numerator, and take sum of values of connecting lines of all ties within the node as the denominator, the fraction obtained is intensity proportion of the tie.
The first, second and third parties are interconnected to form a triangle.
References
Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594–607.
Aziz, N. A., & Maarten, P. R. (2013). Profit (p)-Index: The Degree to Which Authors Profit from Co-Authors. PLoS ONE, 8(4), 59814.
Bourke, S. (2007). Ph.d. thesis quality: The views of examiners. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(8), 1042–1053.
Capó, A. M., Coromina, L., Ferligoj, A., Matelič, U., & Coenders, G. (2007). Networks of Ph.D students and academic performance. University of Ljubljana - Faculty of Social Sciences., 4(2), 205–217.
Chiang, K.-H. (2003). Learning experiences of doctoral students in UK universities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(1/2), 4–32.
Coromina, L., Coenders, G., Ferligoj, A., & Guia, J. (2011). Ph.D students’ research group social capital in two countries: A clustering approach with duocentred network measures. Metodoloski Zvezki, 8(2), 13712–13717.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2009). Ph.D Completion and Attrition: Policies and Practices to Promote Student Success. (pp. 37–43). Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.
Damaceno, R. J. P., Rossi, L., Mugnaini, R., & Mena-Chalco, J. P. (2019). The brazilian academic genealogy: Evidence of advisor–advisee relationships through quantitative analysis. Scientometrics, 119(1), 303–333.
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2000). The doctoral experience: Success and failure in graduate school[M]. . Falmer Press.
European University Association. (2005) Doctoral programmes for the European Knowledge Society[R]. Brussels, Belgium, (pp. 20–23).
European University Association. (2010). Salzuburg II Recommendations[R]. . European University Association.
Gaffney N. A. E. (1995). A conversation about mentoring: Trends and models. Academic Advising, 47.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214.
Hammook, Z., Jelena Mišić, & Vojislav B. Mišić. (2016). Student/supervisor collaboration and usage patterns of publications available on ResearchGate. Wireless Communications & Networking Conference. IEEE.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.
Heath. . (2002). A quantitative analysis of Ph.D students’ views of supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 41–53.
Herrmannova, D., & Knoth, P. (2016). An analysis of the microsoft academic graph. D-Lib Magazine, 22(7), 9–10.
Humphrey, R., Marshall, N., & Leonardo, L. (2012). The impact of research training and research codes of practice on submission of doctoral degrees: An exploratory cohort study. Higher Education Quarterly, 66(1), 47–64.
Kang, Y., Chaoying, T., Meizhi, Li., & Jiashuo, Z. (2016). The influence of supervisors’co-authorship network on doctoral research output. Management Review, 28(9), 228–237.
Klofsten, B. M. (2012). Creating entrepreneurial networks: Academic entrepreneurship, mobility and collaboration during Ph.D education. Higher Education, 64(2), 207–222.
Kuzhabekova, A. . (2011). Impact of co-authorship strategies on research productivity: A social-network analysis of publications in Russian cardiology. Dissertations & Theses - Gradworks.
Lazega, E., & Burt, R. S. (1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Revue Française de Sociologie, 36(4), 779.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science: An International Review of Research in the Social Dimensions of Science and Technology, 35(5), 673–702.
Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515–1530.
Martin, T., Ball, B., Karrer, B., & Newman, M. E. (2013). Coauthorship and citation patterns in the Physical Review. Physical Review E, 88(1), 814–824.
Marx, W., Bornmann, L., Barth, A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy RPYS. Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 751–764.
Newman, M. E. (2001b). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404–409.
Newman, M. E. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64(1), 1–8.
Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 451–476.
Park, I., Jeong, Y., Yoon, B., & Mortara, L. (2015). Exploring potential R&D collaboration partners through patent analysis based on bibliographic coupling and latent semantic analysis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(7), 759–781.
Pole, C. (1998). Joint supervision and the Ph.D: Safety net or panacea? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(3), 259–271.
Reagans, R., & Mcevily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
Rossi, L., Damaceno, R. J. P., Freire, I. L., Bechara, E. J. H., & Mena-Chalco, J. P. (2018). Topological metrics in academic genealogy graphs. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1042–1058.
Salaran, M. (2010). Research productivity and social capital in Australian higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(2), 133–148.
Salminen-Karlsson, M., & Wallgren, L. (2008). The interaction of academic and industrial supervisors in graduate education[J]. Higher Education, 61(1), 671–690.
Santos, C. K. D. , Evsukoff, A. , Lima, B. S. L. P. D. , & Ebecken, N. F. F.(2009). Potential collaboration discovery using document clustering and community structure detection. ACM international workshop on complex networks meet information & knowledge management (vol. 39, pp. 46). ACM.
Shen, W., Gao, Y., & Zhao, S. (2017). Single Tutor or Joint Guidance. Academic Degrees & Graduate Education, 7, 55–60.
Singh, J. (1964). External collaboration social networks and knowledge creation: Evidence from scientific publications. Casopís Lékar̆ů C̆eských, 103, 1251–1256.
Small, H., Tseng, H., & Patek, M. (2017). Discovering discoveries: Identifying biomedical discoveries using citation contexts. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 46–62.
Tenenbaum, H. R., Crosby, F. J., & Gliner, M. D. (2001). Mentoring relationships in graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 326–341.
Wallace, M. L., Lariviere, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). A small world of citations? The influence of collaboration networks on citation practices. PLoS ONE, 7(3), 1–10.
Wang, C., Cheng, Z., & Huang, Z. (2017). Analysis on the co-authoring in the field of management in China: Based on social network analysis. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 6, 149–153.
Wang, K., Shen, Z., Huang, C. Y., Wu, C. H., & Kanakia, A. (2020). Microsoft academic graph: When experts are not enough. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(7), 1–18.
Wu, C. (2015). Effect of doctoral academic activities based on social network analysis. Journal of Hefei University, 25(1), 53–58.
Subramaniam M. & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.
Zhang, F. & Wu, S. (2020). Predicting future influence of papers, researchers, and venues in a dynamic academic network. Journal of Informetrics, 14, 1751–1577.
Funding
Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71904100).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, C., Guo, F. & Wu, Q. The influence of academic advisors on academic network of Physics doctoral students: empirical evidence based on scientometrics analysis. Scientometrics 126, 4899–4925 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03974-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03974-3