Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Health Information Technology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International research collaboration (IRC) is known as one of the important indicators
of productivity, efficiency, and validity of universities in the world. In other words, IRC is necessary
for the scientific trade‑off between researchers in international scientific societies. The study aimed
to address the experiences of an academic researcher about factors related to IRC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was conducted using a qualitative approach
and conventional content analysis method. The participants consisted of 19 experienced faculty
members and researchers from Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, who were selected based
on the purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected through semi‑structured
interviews and were analyzed using the content analysis technique. Guba and Lincoln’s evaluative
criteria, including credibility, confirmability, dependability, and transferability, were applied to evaluate
the trustworthiness of the study.
RESULTS: According to the research findings, factors of “personal skills,” “personality,” “professional
position,” and “scientific activities” under the category of personal factors; “rules and regulations”
and “equipment and facilities” under the organizational factors; and “domestic policies” and “foreign
policies” were identified under the government factors category.
CONCLUSION: Research collaborations are influenced by individual, intra‑academic, and
extra‑academic factors; thus, research policymakers can help further to enhance the quantity and
quality of scientific output and promote the university’s placing in international rankings through
providing conditions that enable international interactions.
Keywords
- Mohseni H. Situation analysis of higher education regarding
scientific cooperation in Iran. Sociocult Strategy J 2017;6:260‑81.
2. Rahimi M, Fattahi R. Scientific Collaboration and Information
Production: A glance at the concepts and current models of
co‑authorship. Natl Stud Libr Inf Organ 2007;18:235‑48.
3. Ni P, An X. Relationship between international collaboration
papers and their citations from an economic perspective.
Scientometrics 2018;116:863‑77.
4. Banks D. Thoughts on publishing the research article over the
centuries. Publications 2018;6:10‑21.
5. Wagner CS. International collaboration in science and technology:
Promises and pitfalls. In: Science and Technology Policy for
Development, Dialogues at the Interface. London: Anthem Press;
2006. p. 165‑76.
6. Tabatabaee A. Approaches to enhancing international cooperation
in Iran’s higher education system. Rahbord 2014;22:216‑45.
7. Fang W, Dai S, Tang L. The impact of international research
collaboration network evolution on Chinese business
school research quality. Complexity 2020;1-20. [doi.
org/10.1155/2020/7528387].
8. Mohseni HS, Arasteh H, Ghourchian N, Jafari P. A model to
promote the level of International scientific collaboration in Iran
Higher Education. Sociocult Strategy J 2014;3:83‑108.
9. Ramezani A, Ghahramani M, Pardakhtchi MH, Zaker‑Salehi G.
Strategic analysis of International scientific collaboration in top
university of Iran from faculty members’ perspective with FBWM
Fuzzy Technique. J Med Educ Dev 2017;10:39‑52.
10. Pinho DLM, Reeves S. An interprofessional international research
collaboration: Exploration of key opportunities and challenges.
J Interprof Care 2020:1‑5.
11. Confraria H, Blanckenberg J, Swart C. Which factors influence
international research collaboration in Africa? In: Africa and the
Sustainable Development Goals. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 243‑55.
12. Hara N, Solomon P, Lye Kim S, Sonnenwald DH. An emerging
view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on
collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. J Am Soc Inf
Sci Technol 2003;54:952‑65.
13. Jonsen K, Butler CL, Mäkelä K, Piekkari R, Drogendijk R,
Lauring J, et al. Processes of International Collaboration in
Management Research: AReflexive, Autoethnographic Approach.
J Manage Inq 2013;22(4):394‑413.
14. Riahi A, Ghaneirad MA, Ahmadi E. Obstacles for international
academic collaboration: Case study members of Tehran University
Scientific Board in co‑authorship of ISI indexed papers. Sci
Technol Policy Lett 2014;4:93‑106.
15. Heidari‑Abdi A. The role of relations and international scientific
cooperation in Iran scientific development. Global Conference
on Management, Economics, Accounting and Humanities at the
Beginning of Third Millennium; 19 May, 2016. p. 1‑22.
16. Bozeman B, Gaughan M, Youtie J, Slade CP, Rimes H. Research
collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the
front lines. Sci Public Policy 2015;43:226‑44.
17. Wagner CS, Whetsell TA, Mukherjee S. International research
collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and typicality in
knowledge recombination. Res Policy 2019;48:1260‑70.
18. Garner R, Scott GM. Doing Qualitative Research: Designs,
Methods, and Techniques. London: Pearson Education; 2013.
19. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness
and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Dir Eval
1986;30:73‑84.
20. Wagner CS, Whetsell TA, Leydesdorff L. Growth of international
collaboration in science: Revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics
2017;110:1633‑52.
21. Sharghi A. Globalization, higher education and development of
international scientific collaboration. Eng Cultural J 2009;31:10‑7.
22. Bukvova H. Studying research collaboration: A literature review.
Sprouts Working Papers Inf Syst 2010;10:1‑18.
23. Wai‑Chan S. International research collaboration creates higher
impact. Nardic J Nurs Res 2017;37:59‑60.
24. Ramezani A, Ghahramani M, Pardakhtchi MH, Zaker‑Salehi G.
Situational analysis and developing a model for management
of International scientific collaboration in top university of Iran.
Rahbord 2018;7:319-49. - 25. Allen TD, Eby LT. Career benefits associated with mentoring for
protégés: A meta‑analysis. Appl Psychol 2004;89:127‑36.
26. Evans SC, Ng T, DuBois DL. Does mentoring matter? A
multidisciplinary meta‑analysis comparing mentored and
non‑mentored individuals. Vocat Behav 2008;72:254‑67.
27. Veletsianos G. Open practices and identity: Evidence from
researchers and educators’ social media participation. Br J Educ
Technol 2013;44:639‑51.
28. Dangal G, Hamal PK, Giri M. Understanding research and
scientific publication. J Nepal Health Res Council 2017;15:1‑2.
29. Astedt‑Kurji P, Kaunonen M. International research collaboration:
Advantages and requirements. Scand J Caring Sci 2019;33:507.
30. Meishar‑Tal H, Pieterse E. Why do academics use academic
social networking sites? Int Rev Res Open Distributed Learn
2017;18:1‑22.
31. Leydesdorff L, Wagner C, Park HW, Adams J. International
collaboration in science: The global map and the network. El
Prof Inf 2013;22:87‑94.
32. Ostadzadeh Z. Scientific relations between universities inside and
outside the country. Rahyaft 2005;35:74‑82.
33. Müller M, Cowan R, Barnard H. On the value of foreign PhDs
in the developing world: Training versus selection effects in the
case of South Africa. Res Policy 2018;47:886‑900.
34. Zdravkovic M, Chiwona‑Karltun L, Zink E. Experiences
and perceptions of South‑South and North‑South scientific
collaboration of mathematicians, physicists and chemists
from five Southern African universities. Scientometrics
2016;108:717‑43.
35. Low WY, Ng KH, Kabir MA, Koh AP, Sinnasamy J. Trend and
impact of international collaboration in clinical medicine papers
published in Malaysia. Scientometrics 2014;98:1521‑33.
36. Hinojo‑Lucena F‑, Aznar‑Díaz I, Cáceres‑Reche M‑,
Romero‑Rodríguez J‑. Use of social networks for international
collaboration among medical students. Educ Med
2020;21(2):137‑141.
37. Sonnenwald DH. Scientific collaboration. Ann Rev Inf Sci Technol
2007;41:643‑81.
38. Namvar Z, Kousha K. Delay in the publication of international
scientific papers: Multidisciplinary comparative study. Inf Proc
Manage 2018;28:347‑62.
)