Good partners are hard to find: The search for and selection of collaborators in the health sciences

Proceedings - 4th IEEE International Conference on eScience, eScience 2008

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 462-467

  Spallek, Heiko ^a   Schleyer, Titus ^a   Butler, Brian S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHES; COLLABORATION PARTNERS; GROUNDED THEORIES; HEALTH SCIENCE; INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCHES; MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROJECTS; RESEARCH QUESTIONS; SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS; UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH;

EID: 62749107176     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/eScience.2008.105     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Moed HF, Glänzel W, Schmoch U. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: the use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. New York, NY: Springer; 2004.
2. Katz JS, Martin BR. What is research collaboration? Res Policy 1997 Mar; 26(1):1-18.
3. Braun T, Schubert A. A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the sciences 1980-1999. Scientometrics 2003 Sep; 58(1):183-9.
4. Glaser BG. Basics of grounded theory analysis: emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1992.
5. Glaser BG. Doing grounded theory: issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1998.
6. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Pub. Co.; 1967.
7. Dick B. Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch. 2005; [cited 2008 Jan 28]; Archived at: http://www.webcitation.org/5VBzzAjGh
8. Ball LJ, Ormerod TC. Putting ethnography to work: the case for a cognitive ethnography of design. Int J Hum Comput Stud 2000 Jul; 53(1): 147-68.
9. Glaser BG. Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1978.
10. Subramanyam K. Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: a review. J Inform Sci 1983; 6(1):33-8.
11. Edge D. Quantitative measures of communication in science: a critical review. Hist Sci 1979 Jun; 17(36 Pt 2):102-34.
12. Laudel G. What do we measure by co-authorship? Research Evaluation 2002 Apr; 11(1):3-15.
13. Beaver DD. Reflection on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics 2001 Nov; 52(3):365-77.
14. Glänzel W. Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998): a bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Libr Trends 2002; 50(3):461-73
15. Kraut RE, Galegher J, Egido C. Relationships and tasks in scientific research collaboration. Hum-Comput Interact 1987-1988;3(1):31-58.
16. Axelrod R. The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1984.
17. Flynn DA. Seeking peer assistance: Use of e-mail to consult weak and latent ties. Libr Inform Sci Res 2005; 27(1):73-96.
18. Feld SL. Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. Am Sociol Rev 1982 Dec; 47(6):797-801.
19. Feld SL. The structured use of personal associates. Soc Forces 1984 Mar; 62(3):640-52.
20. Katz WA. The "Invisible College". In: Introduction to reference work. 6th ed. vol 2, Reference services and reference processes. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1992. p. 18-20.
21. Contractor NS, Zink D, Chan M. IKNOW: A tool to assist and study the creation, maintenance, and dissolution of knowledge networks. In: Ishida T, editor. Community computing and support systems: social interaction in networked communities. New York, NY: Springer; 1998. p. 201-17. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol 1519.)
22. Contractor NS, Monge PR. Managing knowledge networks. Management Communication Quarterly 2002 Nov 1; 16(2):249-58.
23. Jirojwong S, Wallin M. Use of formal and informal methods to gain information among faculty at an Australian regional university. J Acad Libr 2002 Jan-Feb;28(1-2):68-73.
24. Hollingshead AB. Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2000; 3(3):257-67.
25. de Vries S, Kommers P. Online knowledge communities: future trends and research issues. Int J Web Based Communities 2004; 1(1):115-23.
26. Lampe C, Ellison N, Steinfield C. A face(book) in the crowd: social Searching vs. social browsing. In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '06); 2006 Nov 4-8; Banff, Alberta, Canada. New York, NY: ACM Press; 2006 p. 167-70.
27. McDonald DW. Evaluating expertise recommendations. In: Ellis C, Zigurs I, editors. Proceedings of the 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP '01); 2001 Sep 30-Oct 3; Boulder, CO. New York, NY: ACM; 2001 p. 214-23.
28. Lutters WG, Ackerman MS, Boster J, McDonald DW. Mapping knowledge networks in organizations: creating a knowledge mapping instrument. In: Chung HM, editor. Proceedings of sixth the Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS '00) [CD-ROM]; 2000 Aug 10-13; Long Beach, CA. Atlanta, GA: AIS Press; 2000 p. 2014-8.
29. Olson GM, Zimmerman A, Bos N. Scientific collaboration on the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2008. (Acting with technology).
30. Hicks DM, Katz JS. Where is science going? Sci Technol Human Values 1996; 21(4):379-406.