From Sole Investigator to Team Scientist: Trends in the Practice and Study of Research Collaboration

Annual Review of Sociology

Volumn 42, Issue , 2016, Pages 81-100

  Leahey, Erin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Coauthorship; Collaboration; Research; Science; Team science; Trends

Indexed keywords

EID: 84982786693     PISSN: 03600572     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-soc-081715-074219     Document Type: Review

References (152)

1. Abramo G, D'Angelo CA, Murgia G. 2013. Gender differences in research collaboration. J. Informetr. 7:811-22
2. Abramo G, D'Angelo CA, MurgiaG. 2014. Variation in research collaboration patterns across academic ranks. Scientometrics 98:2275-94
3. Ahuja G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Adm. Sci. Q. 45:425-55
4. Araújo EB, Moreira AA, Furtado V, Pequeno THC, Andrade JJS. 2014. Collaboration networks from a large CV database: dynamics, topology and bonus impact. PLOS ONE 9:e90537
5. Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Wang J. 2010. Superstar extinction. Q. J. Econ. 125:549-89
6. Barley WC. 2015. Anticipatory work: how the need to represent knowledge across boundaries shapes work practices within them. Organ. Sci. 26(6):1612-28
7. Beaver D, Rosen R. 1979. Studies in scientific collaboration. Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics 1:231-45
8. Becker GS, MurphyKM. 1992. The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge. Q. J. Econ. 107:1137-60
9. Bennett LM, Gadlin H. 2012. Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J. Invest. Med. : Off. Publ. Am. Fed. Clin. Res. 60:768-75
10. Biagioli M. 2003. Rights or rewards In Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science, ed. M Biagioli, P Galison, pp. 253-80. New York: Routledge
11. Biancani S, McFarland DA, Dahlander L. 2014. The semiformal organization. Organ. Sci. 25:1306-24
12. Bikard M, Murray F, Gans JS. 2015. Exploring trade-offs in the organization of scientific work: collaboration and scientific reward. Manag. Sci. 61:1473-95
13. Binz-Scharf MC, Kalish Y, Paik L. 2015. Making science: new generations of collaborative knowledge production. Am. Behav. Sci. 59:531-47
14. Boardman C, Bozeman B. 2007. Role strain in university research centers. J. High. Educ. 78:430-63
15. Boardman C, Corley EA. 2008. University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Res. Policy 37:900-13
16. Boardman C, Ponomariov B. 2014. Management knowledge and the organization of team science in university research centers. J. Technol. Transf. 39:75-92
17. Boh WF, Ren Y, Kiesler S, Bussjaeger R. 2007. Expertise and collaboration in the geographically dispersed organization. Organ. Sci. 18:595-612
18. Boix Mansilla V. 2006. Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: An empirical exploration. Res. Eval. 15:17-29
19. Boix Mansilla V, Lamont M, Sato K. 2016. Shared cognitive-emotional-interactional platforms: markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values. 41:571-612
20. Bourdieu P. 1975. Scientific method and the social hierarchy of objects. Actes Rech. Sci. Soc. 1:4-6
21. Bozeman B, Corley E. 2004. Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and human capital. Res. Policy 33:599-616
22. Bozeman B, Far D, Slade CP. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the state-of-the-art. J. Technol. Transf. 38:1-67
23. Braun T, Schubert A. 2003. A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the sciences: 1980-1999. Scientometrics 58:183-89
24. Brint S. 2005. Creating the future: "new directions" in American research universities. Minerva: Rev. Sci. Learn. Policy 43:23-50
25. Carnabuci G, Bruggerman J. 2009. Knowledge specialization, knowledge brokerage, and the uneven growth of knowledge domains. Soc. Forces 88:607-42
26. Clark BY, Llorens JJ. 2012. Investments in scientific research: examining the funding threshold effects on scientific collaboration and variation by academic discipline. Policy Stud. J. 40:698-729
27. Clemens ES, Powell WW, McIlwaine K, Okamoto D. 1995. Careers in print: books, journals, and scholarly reputations. Am. J. Sociol. 101:433-94
28. Cole JR, Zuckerman H. 1975. The emergence of a scientific specialty: the self-exemplifying case of the sociology of science. In The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton, ed. LA Coser, pp. 139-74. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
29. Collins R. 1986. Is 1980s sociology in the doldrums Am. J. Sociol. 91:1336-55
30. Colyvas JA, Powell WW. 2007. From vulnerable to venerated: the institutionalization of academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences. Res. Sociol. Organ. 25:219-59
31. Cooke NJ, Hilton ML, eds. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
32. Crane D. 1969. Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the "invisible college" hypothesis. Am. Sociol. Rev. 34:335-52
33. Crane D. 1972. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
34. Cummings JN, Kiesler S. 2005. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:703-22
35. Cummings JN, Kiesler S. 2007. Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Res. Policy 36:1620-34
36. Dahlander L, McFarland DA. 2013. Ties that last: tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Adm. Sci. Q. 58:69-110
37. Davis JA. 2001. What's wrong with sociology In What's Wrong with Sociology, ed. S Cole, pp. 99-120. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press
38. de Solla Price DJ. 1963. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
39. Duque RB, Ynalvez M, Sooryamoorthy R, Mbatia P, Dzorgbo D-BS, Shrum W. 2005. Collaboration paradox: scientific productivity, the Internet, and problems of research in developing areas. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:755-85
40. Endersby JW. 1996. Collaborative research in the social sciences: multiple authorship and publication credit. Soc. Sci. Q. 77:375-92
41. Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Healey P. 1998. Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia. Albany: SUNY Press
42. Evans E. 2016. Measuring interdisciplinarity using text. Presented at Second Int. Conf. Comput. Soc. Sci., June 22-26, Evanston, IL
43. Evans JA. 2008. Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 321:395-99
44. Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Borner K, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL, et al. 2010. Advancing the science of team science. CTS-Clin. Transl. Sci. 3:263-66
45. Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Kane C, et al. 2011. Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Res. Eval. 20:145-58
46. Fiore SM. 2008. Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: how the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Res. 39:251-77
47. Fleming L, Mingo S, Chen D. 2007. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Adm. Sci. Q. 52:443-75
48. Foster JG, Rzhetsky A, Evans JA. 2015. Tradition and innovation in scientists' research strategies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:875-908
49. Fox MF. 1991. Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity in science. In The Outer Circle, ed. H Zuckerman, J Cole, J Bruer, pp. 188-204. New York: W. W. Norton
50. Freeman RB. 2014. Immigration, International Collaboration, and Innovation: Science and Technology Policy in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: Natl. Bur. Econ. Res.
51. Freeman RB, Ganguli I, Murciano-Goroff R. 2015. Why and wherefore of increased scientific collaboration. In The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, ed. AB Jaffe, BF Jones, pp. 17-48. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
52. Friedkin NE. 1978. University social structure and social networks among scientists. Am. J. Sociol. 83:1444-65
53. Fujimura J. 1996. Crafting Science: A Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
54. Funk RJ, Owen-Smith J. 2016. A dynamic network measure of technological change. Manag. Sci. In press. doi: 10. 1287/mnsc. 2015. 2366
55. Galison P. 2003. The collective author. In Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science, ed. M Biagioli, P Galison, pp. 325-58. New York: Routledge
56. Ghosh J, Kshitij A, Kadyan S. 2015. Functional information characteristics of large-scale research collaboration: network measures and implications. Scientometrics 102:1207-39
57. Gieryn TF. 1978. Problem retention and problem change in science. Sociol. Inq. 48:96-115
58. Greene M. 2007. The demise of the lone author. Nature 450:1165
59. Guetzkow J, Lamont M, Mallard G. 2004. What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:190-212
60. GuimerÀR, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LAN. 2005. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308:697-702
61. Hackett EJ. 2005. Essential tensions: identity, control, and risk in research. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:787-826
62. Hackett EJ, Conz D, Parker J, Bashford J, DeLay S. 2004. Tokamaks and turbulence: research ensembles, policy and technoscientific work. Res. Policy 33(5):747-67
63. Hackett EJ, Rhoten D. 2009. The snowbird charrette: integrative interdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research design. Minerva: Rev. Sci. Learn. Policy 47:407-40
64. HagstromWO. 1964. Traditional and modern forms of scientific teamwork. Adm. Sci. Q. 9:241-63
65. Hampton SE, Parker JN. 2011. Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. BioScience 61:900-10
66. Hara N, Solomon P, Kim S-L, Sonnenwald DH. 2003. An emerging view of scientific collaboration. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 54:952-65
67. Hargadon AB. 2002. Brokering knowledge: linking learning and innovation. Res. Organ. Behav. 24:41-85
68. Heffner AG. 1979. Authorship recognition of subordinates in collaborative research. Soc. Stud. Sci. 9:377-84
69. Hsiehchen D, Espinoza M, Hsieh A. 2015. Multinational teams and diseconomies of scale in collaborative research. Sci. Adv. 1(8):e1500211
70. Hu Z, Chen C, Liu Z. 2014. How are collaboration and productivity correlated at various career stages of scientists Scientometrics 101:1553-64
71. Hudson J. 1996. Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. J. Econ. Perspect. 10:153-58
72. Hull D. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Developments of Science. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
73. Hunter L, Leahey E. 2008. Collaborative research in sociology: trends and contributing factors. Am. Sociol. 39:290-306
74. Inoue H, LiuY-Y. 2015. Revealing the intricate effect of collaboration on innovation. PLOSONE10:e0121973
75. Jacobs JA, Frickel S. 2009. Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:43-65
76. Jeong S, Choi JY. 2015. Collaborative research for academic knowledge creation: how team characteristics, motivation, and processes influence research impact. Sci. Public Policy 42(4):460-73
77. Jeong S, Choi JY, Kim J-Y. 2014. On the drivers of international collaboration: the impact of informal communication, motivation, and research resources. Sci. Public Policy 41(4):520-31
78. Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B. 2008. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322:1259-62
79. Kabo FW, Cotton-Nessler N, Hwang Y, Levenstein MC, Owen-Smith J. 2014. Proximity effects on the dynamics and outcomes of scientific collaborations. Res. Policy 43:1469-85
80. Katz JS, Martin BR. 1997. What is research collaboration Res. Policy 26:1-18
81. Kennedy D. 2003. Multiple authors, multiple problems. Science 301:733
82. Knorr Cetina K. 1980. The scientist as an analogical reasoner. In The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, ed. K Knorr-Cetina, RG Krohn, RWhitley, pp. 183-208. Boston, MA: Kluwer
83. Knorr Cetina K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
84. Kyvik S, TeigenM. 1996. Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 21:54-71
85. Lamont M. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World ofAcademic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
86. Larivière V, Haustein S, Börner K. 2015a. Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact. PLOS ONE 10:e0122565
87. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. 2015b. Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504:211-13
88. Leahey E. 2006. Gender differences in productivity: research specialization as a missing link. Gender Soc. 20:754-80
89. Leahey E. 2007. Convergence and confidentiality Limits to the implementation of mixed methodology. Soc. Sci. Res. 36:149-58
90. Leahey E, Beckman C, Stanko T. 2015. Prominent but less productive: the impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists' research. ArXiv:1510. 06802 [cs. DL]
91. Leahey E, Moody J. 2014. Sociological innovation through subfield integration. Soc. Curr. 1:228-56
92. Leahey E, Reikowsky R. 2008. Research specialization and collaboration patterns in sociology. Soc. Stud. Sci. 38:425-40
93. Lee S, Bozeman B. 2005. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:673-702
94. Lee Y-N, Walsh JP, Wang J. 2015. Creativity in scientific teams: unpacking novelty and impact. Res. Policy 44:684-97
95. Lewis JM, Ross S, Holden T. 2012. The how and why of academic collaboration: disciplinary differences and policy implications. High. Educ. 64:693-708
96. Li D. 2016. Expertise vs. bias in evaluation: evidence from the NIH. Work. Pap., Harvard Bus. Sch.
97. Long JS, McGinnis R. 1981. Organizational context and scientific productivity. Am. Soc. Rev. 46:422-42
98. Luo XR, Koput KW, Powell WW. 2009. Intellectual capital or signal The effects of scientists on alliance formation in knowledge-intensive industries. Res. Policy 38:1313-25
99. March JG. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2:71-87
100. McBee DJ, Leahey E. 2016. New directions in interdisciplinary training: trials and tribulations. In Investigating Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and Practice Across Disciplines, ed. S Frickel, B Prainsack, M Albert. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
101. Melin G. 2000. Pragmatism and self-organization: research collaboration on the individual level. Res. Policy 29:31-40
102. Merton RK. 1973a. Priorities in scientific discovery. In The Sociology of Science, ed. RK Merton, pp. 286-324. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
103. Merton RK. 1973b (1963). The ambivalence of scientists. In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, ed. NW Storer, pp. 381-412. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
104. Milojevíc S. 2014. Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution. PNAS 111:3984-89
105. Moody J. 2004. The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:213-38
106. Mullins NC. 1983. Theories and theory groups revisited. Sociol. Theory 1:319-37
107. Murray F. 2010. The oncomouse that roared: hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of overlapping institutions. Am. J. Sociol. 116:341-88
108. Natl. Acad. Sci., Natl. Acad. Eng., Inst. Med. 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
109. Natl. Sci. Found. 2007. Research and development bolsters U. S. economic growth. NSF Press Release #07-129, Oct. 1
110. Nelson B. 2011. Seeking the right toolkit. Nature 476:115-17
111. Newman MEJ. 2001. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS 98:404-09
112. O'Brien TL. 2012. Change in academic coauthorship, 1953-2003. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 37:210-34
113. Olsen GM, Olsen JS. 2000. Distance matters. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 15:139-78
114. Owen-Smith J. 2005a. Dockets, deals, and sagas: commensuration and the rationalization of experience in university licensing. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:69-97
115. Owen-Smith J. 2005b. Trends and transitions in the institutional environment for public and private science. High. Educ. 49:91-117
116. Page SE. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
117. Parker JN, Hackett EJ. 2012. Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaborations and social movements. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:21-44
118. Parker JN, Penders B, Vermeulen N, eds. 2010. Collaboration in the New Life Sciences. Surrey, UK: Ashgate
119. Poincaré H. 1952 (1908). Mathematical creation. In The Creative Process, ed. B Ghiselin, pp. 23-31. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
120. Porter AL, Cohen AS, Roessner JD, Perreault M. 2007. Measuring research interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics 72:117-47
121. PowellWW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm. Sci. Q. 41:116-45
122. Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Jason OS. 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Am. J. Sociol. 110:1132-205
123. Presser S. 1980. Collaboration and the quality of research. Soc. Stud. Sci. 10:95-101
124. Qin J, Lancaster FW, Allen B. 1997. Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. 48(10):893-916
125. Rawlings CM, McFarland DA. 2011. Influence flows in the academy: using affiliation networks to assess peer effects among researchers. Soc. Sci. Res. 40:1001-17
126. Rawlings CM, McFarland DA, Dahlander L, Wang D. 2015. Streams of thought: knowledge flows and intellectual cohesion in a multidisciplinary era. Soc. Forces 93(4):1687-722
127. Reagans R, McEvily B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm. Sci. Q. 48:240-67
128. Rhoten D, Parker A. 2004. Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary path. Science 306:2046
129. Sá CM. 2008. "Interdisciplinary strategies" in US research universities. High. Educ. 55:537-52
130. Shapin S. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
131. Shi X, Adamic LA, Tseng BL, Clarkson GS. 2009. The impact of boundary spanning scholarly publications and patents. PLOS ONE 4:e6547
132. Shrum W, Genuth J, Chompalov I. 2007. Structures of Scientific Collaboration. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
133. Singh J, Fleming L. 2010. Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: myth or reality Manag. Sci. 56:41-56
134. Smith-Doerr L, Vardi I. 2015. Mind the gap: formal ethics policies and chemical scientists' everyday practices in academia and industry. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 40:176-98
135. Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP. 2008. The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35:S77-89
136. Stuart TE, Ding WW. 2006. When do scientists become entrepreneurs The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. Am. J. Sociol. 112:97-144
137. Thorsteinsdóttir OH. 2000. External research collaboration in two small science systems. Scientometrics 49:145-60
138. Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, StringerM, Jones B. 2013. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342:468-72
139. Walsh JP, Bayma T. 1996. Computer network and scientific work. Soc. Stud. Sci. 26:661-703
140. Wang J, HicksD. 2015. Scientific teams: self-assembly, fluidness, and interdependence. J. Informetr. 9:197-207
141. Weitzman ML. 1998. Recombinant growth. Q. J. Econ. 113:331-60
142. West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, Bergstrom CT. 2013. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLOS ONE 8:e66212
143. Whitley R. 2000. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
144. Wray KB. 2002. The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philos. Sci. 69:150-68
145. Wray KB. 2005. Rethinking scientific specialization. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:151-64
146. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316:1036-39
147. Xie Y. 2014. "Undemocracy": inequalities in science. Science 344:809-10
148. Xie Y, Killewald A. 2012. Is American Science in Decline Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
149. XieY, Zhang C, LaiQ. 2014. China's rise as a major contributor to science and technology. PNAS 111:9437-42
150. Youtie J, Bozeman B. 2014. Social dynamics of research collaboration: norms, practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights. Scientometrics 101:953-62
151. Zucker LG, Darby MR. 1996. Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. PNAS 93:12709-16
152. Zucker LG, Darby MR, Armstrong JS. 2002. Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Manag. Sci. 48:138-53