Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields

Abstract

In this paper the relationship between knowledge production and the structure of research networks in two scientific fields is assessed. We investigate whether knowledge production corresponds positively or negatively with different types of social network structure. We show that academic fields generate knowledge in different ways and that within the fields, different types of networks act as a stimulant for knowledge generation.

The relationship between the research performance of scientists and their position in co-authorship networks in three fields

“…Strong ties can be more relevant in experimental fields such as Pharmacology due to the closer interaction and reciprocal support among members needed to conduct laboratory work. This is probably not so evident in Nanoscience -in spite of its experimental nature -because of the higher importance of diversity of sources (degree) in the more interdisciplinary fields (Jansen et al, 2010). In other fields, such as Information Systems and Information Technology, expanding social relationships, especially with different co-authors (Abbasi et al, 2011) but also with the same co-authors (Liao, 2011), also emerged as an effective way to improve research performance.…”

“…In most recent years, the application of social network analysis to study co-authorship relations has emerged as an interesting approach, since it allows us to visualise and investigate social structures and relations (see for example, Abbasi, Altmann, & Hossain, 2011;Abbasi, Chung, & Hossain, 2012;Jansen, von Görtz, & Heidler, 2010;Li-Chun, Kretschmer, Hanneman, & Ze-Yuan, 2006;Newman, 2001;Otte & Rousseau, 2002). Studies of co-authorship networks may focus on the global structure of networks (macro-perspective) (see for example, Newman, 2001), on the study of subsets (clusters or components) formed within the network (meso-perspective) (He, Ding, & Ni, 2011) or on the individual scientists included in the network's membership (micro-perspective) (for example, Hou, Kretschmer, & Liu, 2008).…”

“…Special mention must be made of the study by Jansen et al (2010) on the fields of astrophysics and nanoscience concluding that the relationship between network structure and the production of new knowledge is field specific, probably because fields differ in their cognitive structure and knowledge production dynamics.…”

Knowledge production through collaborative research in sub-Saharan Africa: how much do countries contribute to each other’s knowledge output and citation impact?

“…The study on ''The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe'' by Hoekman et al (2009) investigated inter-regional research collaboration as measured by scientific publications and patents with multiple addresses. Other studies that have used publications as indicators of knowledge production in a given country include Hayashi and Fujigaki (1999), Heinze and Kuhlmann (2008), Jansen et al (2010), Prpic (2007), and Ranga et al (2003).…”

The extraction of community structures from publication networks to support ethnographic observations of field differences in scientific communication

“…Comparative studies of scientific communities at field level face several challenges that this approach is designed to overcome. Whereas bibliographic data and the social networks constructed from them are popular objects of study in bibliometrics (e.g., Guimera et al, 2005;Jansen et al, 2010;Kretschmer, 1994;Lambiotte & Panzarasa, 2009;Melin & Persson 1996), quantitative structural and statistical analyses suffer from a lack of explanatory power with regard to the underlying processes and their meaning to the actors involved (Gläser & Laudel, 2001;Lievrouw, 1990). On the other hand, ethnography is well suited for generating understandings of actors and their practices and motivations, but difficult to scale.…”