A typology of collaborative research networks

Abstract

Purpose Many studies have investigated how the structure of the collaborative networks of researchers influences the nature of their work, and its outcome. Co-authorship networks (CANs) have been widely looked at as proxies that can help bring understanding to the structure of research collaborative ties. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for describing what influences the formation of different research collaboration patterns. Design/methodology/approach The authors use social network analysis (SNA) to analyze the co-authorship ego networks of the ten most central authors in 24 years of papers (703 papers and 1,118 authors) published in the Proceedings of CASCON, a computer science conference. In order to understand what lead to the formation of the different CANs the authors examined, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with these authors. Findings Based on this examination, the authors propose a typology that differentiates three styles of co-authorship: matchmaking, brokerage, and teamwork. The authors also provide quantitative SNA-based measures that can help place researchers’ CAN into one of these proposed categories. Given that many different network measures can describe the collaborative network structure of researchers, the authors believe it is important to identify specific network structures that would be meaningful when studying research collaboration. The proposed typology can offer guidance in choosing the appropriate measures for studying research collaboration. Originality/value The results presented in this paper highlight the value of combining SNA analysis with interviews when studying CAN. Moreover, the results show how co-authorship styles can be used to understand the mechanisms leading to the formation of collaborative ties among researchers. The authors discuss several potential implications of these findings for the study of research collaborations.

Information professionals meet Arthur Prior

“…Indeed, such digital components have changed the way research is conducted and the questions being asked: Ankeney and Leonelli (2016) argue that changes are not just determined by researchers and their discoveries, but also come from alterations in the conditions for conducting research, for example technological changes. One such change to the way research is being conducted is a significant increase in research collaboration and interdisciplinary projects (Burroughs, 2018; Hayat and Lyons, 2017; Rolland and Potter, 2017). Overall, with the digitalization of research a new style of research was born:E-research is characterised by its collaborative, multi-disciplinary nature, the increasingly large volumes of data it processes and generates, and the sophisticated infrastructure required to support it.…”

Can celebrity athletes burst the echo chamber bubble? The case of LeBron James and Lady Gaga

“…Hayat and Mo, 2015) or first-order neighborhoods of egos (e.g. Hayat and Lyons, 2017). By analyzing the ego network of our participants, we can gain unobtrusive access to their social network, and examine which media outlets they follow.…”

Patterns of interdisciplinary collaboration resemble biogeochemical relationships in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica: a historical social network analysis of science, 1907–2016

“…The ideas motivating critical physical geography and related approaches resonate with recent efforts to combine quantitative and qualitative perspectives in SNA, many of which we have drawn on in this article. While quantitative SNA approaches produce valuable insights into network structure, on their own, they cannot fully reveal underlying motivations and social forces that drive collaboration (Hayat & Lyons 2017). Qualitative data collection and analysis can support quantitative SNA by drawing on network members' own narratives to provide context for structural patterns, yielding a deeper understanding of the cultural dynamics of social networks (Stoddart & Tindall 2010;Bellotti 2016).…”