Presented at the 18th Nordic Workshop on BIbliometrics and Research Policy, October 28-29, KTH Royal School of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

1. THE 18TH NORDIC WORKSHOP ON BIBLIOMETRICS AND RESEARCH POLICY
OCTOBER 28-29, KTH ROYAL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY, STOCKHOLM
Relating universities’ research performance and cities’
cultural capital in global university rankings
Nicolás Robinson-García, Clara Calero-Medina & Thed N. van Leeuwen
EC3 Research Group
University of Granada
Spain
CWTS
Leiden University
The Netherlands

2. Background

3. Background
Problems when using bibliometric indicators
1. More papers and more citations do not
necessarily translate to wealth
2. Input and context are important

4. Background
Unidirectional model
Input
Triple Helix Model
Output
University
Investment → Results
Research → Innovation
Market
State

5. Background
University
Innovation
Market
Knowledge
Infra-structure
State
Political Economy
Leydesdorff (2010)

6. Background

7. Research question
1. Industry indicators
a. Regional GDP
b. % Industry investment in R&D
c. % Regional manpower
Input
2. Teaching indicators
a. Academic staff
b. PhD staff
c. Students
3. Structural indicators
Context
Output
a. University type
b. University age
4. Bibliometric /research indicators
Bordons et al., 2010

8. Research question
1. Industry indicators
a. Regional GDP
b. % Industry investment in R&D
c. % Regional manpower
Input
2. Teaching indicators
a. Academic staff
b. PhD staff
c. Students
3. Structural indicators
Context
Output
a. University type
b. University age
4. Bibliometric /research indicators
Bordons et al., 2010

9. Research question
1. Industry indicators
a. Regional GDP
b. % Industry investment in R&D
c. % Regional manpower
Input
2. Teaching indicators
a. Academic staff
b. PhD staff
c. Students
3. Structural indicators
Context
Output
a. University type
b. University age
4. Bibliometric /research indicators
Bordons et al., 2010

10. Research question
1. Industry indicators
a. Regional GDP
b. % Industry investment in R&D
c. % Regional manpower
Input
2. Teaching indicators
a. Academic staff
b. PhD staff
c. Students
3. Structural indicators
Context
Output
a. University type
b. University age
4. Bibliometric /research indicators
Bordons et al., 2010

11. Research question
Bordons et al., 2010

12. Hypothesis

13. Hypothesis
It is in fact impossible to account for the structure and
functioning of the social world unless one reintroduces
capital in all its forms and not solely in the one form
recognized by economic theory. Economy theory […]
defines as disinterested those forms of exchange which
ensure the transsubstantiation whereby the most
material types of capital – those which are economic in
the restricted sense – can present themselves in the
immaterial form of cultural capital or social capital
and vice versa.
Pierre Bourdieu, 1986

14. Hypothesis
Forms of cultural capital
 Embodied. Intrinsic in the mind and body
 Objectified.
Books,
monuments …
pictures,
museums,
 Institutionalized. Educational qualifications …

15. Hypothesis
Where do we find cultural
capital?

16. Hypothesis
The image of cities
1
2
3
4
5
6
• Urban attractiveness
• Transport infrastructure
• Historical heritage
• Environment
• Social problems
• Culture
7
8
9
10
11
12
• Innovation & business culture
• Economy and commerce
• Services
• Education - University
• International projection
• Self-perception
Luque-Martínez et al. (2007)

17. Hypothesis
The Creative Class
• It contributes to innovative production
• It grows from weak links in social
networks (heterogeneity)
• It is based on the principle that cities
most not only attract firms but also people
• Larger regions attract and retain the
creative class

18. Hypothesis
The school should pay attention primarily to those
strengths in which it possesses a differential advantage,
that is, it can outperform competitors on that
dimension.
For example, Georgetown University not only has an
excellent international studies program, but its location
in Washington, D.C., gives it a differential advantage in
pursuing preeminence in this area of study.
Kotler & Murphy, 1981

19. Hypothesis
How can we measure the
cultural capital of cities ?

20. Hypothesis
Which variables do we think are important for the analysis?
• Population of the city
• Specific variables that could help to understand the position of
the university in the city
– % of students of the population
– Number of campus of the university and their location in the city
• Culturally relevant variables :
–
–
–
–
–
–
Number of museums
Number of libraries
Number of concert halls
Number of theaters and movie theaters
Number of parks
….

21. Research question

22. THE 18TH NORDIC WORKSHOP ON BIBLIOMETRICS AND RESEARCH POLICY
OCTOBER 28-29, KTH ROYAL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY, STOCKHOLM
Relating universities’ research performance and cities’
cultural capital in global university rankings
Nicolás Robinson-García, Clara Calero-Medina & Thed N. van Leeuwen
EC3 Research Group
University of Granada
Spain
CWTS
Leiden University
The Netherlands

23. Hypothesis
Approach 1. Analysis of the relation between cities’
size and universities’ research performance

24. Approach 1. Evidences
Bettencourt & West, 2010

25. Approach 1. Temptative analysis
Relating research impact with population