Colocation and Scientific Collaboration: Evidence from a Field Experiment

Abstract

We present the results of a field experiment conducted within the Harvard Medical School system of hospitals and research centers to understand how colocation impacts the likelihood of scientific collaboration. We introduce exogenous colocation and face-to-face interactions for a random subset of biomedical researchers responding to an opportunity to apply for a research grant. While the overall baseline likelihood of any two researchers collaborating is small, we find that random colocation significantly increases the likelihood of pair-level coapplication by almost 70%. The effect of exogenous colocation on subsequent collaboration was greater for previous coauthors, pairs including a woman, and pairs researching similar clinical areas. Our results suggest that matching between scientists may be subject to considerable frictions-even among those in relatively close geographic proximity and in the same organizational system. At the same time, even a brief and focused intervention facilitating face-to-face interactions can provide information that impacts the formation of scientific collaborations. is known about how team members search for and match with one another. These processes of team formation may be particularly important in academic research, where one of the most conspicuous freedoms is the freedom to choose with whom one works.The process of forming collaborations might be thought of in two stages: individuals first find potential collaborators with complementary knowledge or resources, and then they undertake the decision to enter collaborations. We should observe the formation of a particular collaboration if the expected benefits exceed the costs for each of the parties involved. Thus, information should play an especially important role in the matching process: information is needed both about potential collaborators and about the costs and benefits associated with the collaboration. As in other markets in which agents match, the market for scientific collaborators may also be characterized by search frictions (Mortensen and Pissarides 1999). For example, frictions may arise due to search costs associated with finding potential collaborators, or due to asymmetric information about the ability of potential coauthors or about the quality of the match (Fafchamps, Goyal and van der Leij 2009). We might expect any number of factors to play a role in inducing individuals to choose to collaborate and to successfully coordinate in doing so, and many of these factors are not easily observed to both parties ex ante -such as current research interests, personal chemistry and disposition, and timing and scheduling constraints. In fact, many of these factors that may matter in choosing collaborators might only be observed through information gained in close geographic proximity, i.e. through face-to-face interactions However, these studies are all based on evidence from collaborations that have already formed, and thus remain mostly silent on the mechanisms by which team members find each other and decide to ...

Detecting Emerging Activity-Based Working Traits through Wearable Technology

“…The company we studied, had a good level of inter-team contact and a significantly higher number of co-presence events between participants in the lower ranks of the hierarchy. Previous research has shown that temporary co-location can increase the possibility of collaboration between scientists [6]. This could be used as guidelines in evidence-based design to encourage organizations who wish to become more collaborative and leverage knowledge-sharing across teams by introducing proximity to a wider range of people.…”

A study of the effects of colocation on office workers' perception

“…These interaction-related factors were included in the study because many studies indicated positive effects of colocation on face-to-face interaction, collaboration, and team effectiveness (for example, Boudreau et al, 2012;Maskell, 2001;Salazar & Holbrook, 2007;van den Bulte & Moenaert, 1998). The study investigated if any difference in interaction freedom, to the extent it was predicted by workplace design, would diminish after colocation because workers now used the same workplace; if the effects of colocation on the workers of these departments would be different because they were coming from different locations; and if the underlying relationship between these workplace design and organizational factors would remain unchanged before and after the move.…”

“…This particular phenomenon was well-exposed in a recent field experiment conducted within the Harvard Medical School hospitals and research centers to understand how colocation impacts the likelihood of scientific collaboration (Boudreau et al, 2012). The participants of the study, composed of a group of potential applicants for a research grant, were required to participate in an interactive research symposium.…”

International knowledge flows and the administrative barriers to mobility

“…In related research, Boudreau et al (2017) examine collaborations of researchers after exposing a random subset of test subjects to colocation and face-to-face in-teractions. The probability of the treated subjects' collaboration increased by 70%.…”