Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorQuayle, Michael.
dc.contributor.advisorNwoye, Augustine.
dc.creatorMhlongo, Brian.
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-27T07:15:48Z
dc.date.available2018-08-27T07:15:48Z
dc.date.created2017
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10413/15439
dc.descriptionMaster of Arts in Clinical Psychology. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg 2017.en_US
dc.description.abstractThis research explored internationalization in research collaboration in the international society of political psychology (ISPP) by mapping patterns collaboration in conference presentations at the ISPP annual meetings 2006-2014. The pattern of international collaboration was assessed by exploring co-authorship between authors from different countries who have published together. The terms ‘WEIRD’ (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) and ‘non-WEIRD’ were adopted from Heinrich et al., (2010) and used differentiate between ‘developed or core’ countries (WEIRD) and ‘developing or periphery’ (non-WEIRD) countries. These patterns of international collaboration were analysed using social network analysis and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). It was found that most ISPP conferences were attended by authors from WEIRD countries, mainly dominated by USA and UK; and fewer authors from non-WEIRD countries like Nigeria, Costa-Rica and Indonesia. As far as international research collaboration is concerned, findings showed that authors from WEIRD countries collaborate with each other, with a limited collaboration between authors from WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries; and no collaboration between authors from different non-WEIRD countries was found. The trend in this research is that the structures of collaboration allow for WEIRD authors to produce their own relevant knowledge within the field of political psychology, whilst restricting the non-WEIRD authors to do likewise. Furthermore, Non-WEIRD authors’ collaboration is limited and mediated by WEIRD author’s connection in the network. The degree of centrality showed a significant difference between WEIRD and non-WEIRD authors, suggesting that WEIRD authors had more opportunities for collaboration than non-WEIRD authors. However, the non-WEIRD authors are not entirely excluded or left outside in the periphery of this network, but they do interact with the WEIRD authors as indicated by the betweenness and closeness of centrality. In addition, this means that non-WEIRD countries are not completely dependent on WEIRD authors for the production of knowledge in political psychology, instead, they are also contributing to knowledge production by means of collaboration with WEIRD authors. Overall, this study proves that internationalization in research collaboration is not yet fully accomplished within the ISPP due to stringent limitations in the collaborative patterns between WEIRD and non-WEIRD authors.en_US
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_US
dc.subjectTheses - Clinical psychology.en_US
dc.subject.otherResearch collaboration.en_US
dc.subject.otherInternationalization.en_US
dc.subject.otherSocial network analysis.en_US
dc.titleMapping internationalization in research collaboration in the international society of political psychology.en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record