The how and why of academic collaboration: Disciplinary differences and policy implications

Higher Education

Volumn 64, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 693-708

  Lewis, Jenny M ^a,b   Ross, Sandy ^b   Holden, Thomas ^b  

^a ROSKILDE UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Collaboration; Humanities; Research policy; Sciences; Social sciences

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866489339     PISSN: 00181560     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10734-012-9521-8     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. AHRC. (2009). Research funding guide. London: Arts and Humanities Research Council.
2. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195-203.
3. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists' collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599-616.
4. Bozeman, B., Dietz, J., et al. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 716-740.
5. DAAD. (2010). Funding for joint research collaboration (downloaded on 19 November 2010 from http://www. research-in-germany. de/research-funding/funding-programmes/48600/daad-funding-for-joint-research-collaboration. html).
6. de Solla Price, D. J., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21, 1011-1018.
7. Del Favero, M. (2005). The social dimension of academic discipline as a discriminator of academic dean's administrative behaviors. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 69-96.
8. Donovan, C. (2005). The governance of social science and everyday epistemology. Public Administration, 83, 597-615.
9. ERA-Can. (2010). Canadian funding-International opportunities for Canadians. Downloaded on 19 November 2010 from http://www. era-can. ca/en/Canadian_Funding_%E2%80%93_International_Opportunities_for_Canadians_87. html.
10. Farber, M. (2005). Single-authored publications in the sciences at Israeli universities. Journal of Information Science, 31(1), 62-66.
11. Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9, 481-497.
12. Fry, J. (2006). Scholarly research and information practices: A domain analytic approach. Information Processing and Management, 42, 299-316.
13. Hayes, N. (2000). Doing psychological research: Gathering and analysing data. Buckingham: Open University Press.
14. Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glanzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 473-496). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.
15. Jeffrey, P. (2003). Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 33, 539-562.
16. Jha, Y., & Welch, E. W. (2010). Relational mechanisms governing multifaceted collaborative behavior of academic scientists in six fields of science and engineering. Research Policy, 39, 1174-1184.
17. Katz, J. S. (2000). Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 27, 23-36.
18. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1-18.
19. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673-702.
20. Lewis, J. M. (2007). Research networks in the Faculty of Arts. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Faculty of Arts.
21. Lewis, J. M. (2010). Connecting and cooperating: Social capital and public policy. Sydney: UNSW Press.
22. Lewis, J. M., & Ross, S. (2011). Research funding systems in Australia, New Zealand and the UK: Policy settings and perceived effects. Policy and Politics, 39(3), 379-398.
23. Maglaughlin, K. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2005) Factors that impact interdisciplinary natural science research collaboration in Academia. Paper presented at the International Society for Scientometrics and Informatrics (ISSI) 2005 Conference. Stockholm, 24-28 July 2005.
24. Meadows, A. J. (1974). Communication in science. London: Butterworths.
25. Meadows, A. J. (1997). Communicating research. Bradford: Emerald.
26. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization. Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29, 31-40.
27. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks: I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64, 016131 (1-8).
28. RCUK. (2010). Science budget. London: Research Councils UK. Downloaded on 21 April 2010 from http://www. rcuk. ac. uk/aboutrcs/funding/scibudget.
29. Rigby, J., & Edler, J. (2005). Peering inside research networks: Some observations on the effect of the intensity of collaboration on the variability of research quality. Research Policy, 34, 784-794.
30. Rothstein, M. G., & Davey, L. M. (1995). Gender differences in network relationships in academia. Women in Management Review, 10(6), 20-25.
31. Thorsteinsdóttir, O. H. (2000). External research collaboration in two small science systems. Scientometrics, 49(1), 145-160.
32. van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration. Research Policy, 40, 463-472.
33. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34, 1608-1618.
34. Whitley, R. (2003). Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: The impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science. Research Policy, 32, 1015-1029.