“Unpacking” Cross-Disciplinary Research Collaboration in the Social Sciences and Humanities

Bertolini, Alison Graham; Weber, Christina D.; Strand, Michael; Smith, Angela

doi:10.1177/1077800418792020

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wider scholarly examination of collaboration within qualitative inquiry has directed attention toward collaboration between academic researchers co-writing (Alexander & Wyatt, 2018), working in teams (Bassett, 2012;Paulus et al, 2010;Spiller et al, 2015), and networking (Shaw, 2019), often with a focus on conflict (Creamer, 2004). A smaller number of reflections are focused on the process of collaboration, typically within inter-, cross-, or multidisciplinary teams of academic researchers (e.g., Bertolini et al, 2019). Differing from such accounts, our focus in this article has been on the more specific context of collaboration between a creative practitioner and an anthropologically trained heritage researcher which-surprisingly given the growth of scholarship on creative and arts-based methods-remains under-examined.…”

Section: Discussion: Blending Practice and Conceptualizing Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arts–Research Collaboration: Reflections on Collaboration as Creative Method

Morgan

Castle²

2023

Qualitative Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is arts–research collaboration and how does it work? What does arts–research collaboration as method for qualitative inquiry do? What is the effect of collaboration on creative practice and academic research? Drawing on a collaboration between an anthropologist and an artist, this article addresses a surprising lack of qualitative inquiry into collaboration between creative practitioners and academic researchers. By recounting how the authors developed and used collaboration as method, the article identifies and analyzes underpinning qualities of how they worked together through arts–research activities. It advances existing debate by agitating for more theoretically grounded accounts of collaboration, including those that take a processual view on making and creativity to argue for considering collaboration, itself, to be materials from which creative practice and outputs emerge.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Blending Practice and Conceptualizing Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arts–Research Collaboration: Reflections on Collaboration as Creative Method

Morgan

Castle²

2023

Qualitative Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many other factors (discussed below) seem less applicable to the social sciences, arts, and humanities. Nevertheless, social sciences and humanities scholars may also experiment with collaboration because it is promoted as an effective research strategy, even though it is rare in their home fields (Graham Bertolini, Weber et al, 2019).…”

Section: Disciplinary Differences In Coauthorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion

Thelwall

Maflahi

2022

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research co-authorship is useful to combine different skillsets, especially for applied problems. Whilst it has increased over the last century, it is unclear whether this increase is universal across academic fields and which fields co-author the most and least. In response, this article assesses changes in the rate of journal article co-authorship 1900–2020 for all 27 Scopus broad fields and all 332 Scopus narrow fields. Whilst all broad fields have experienced reasonably continuous growth in co-authorship, in 2020 there were substantial disciplinary differences, from Arts and Humanities (1.3 authors) to Immunology and Microbiology (6 authors). All 332 Scopus narrow fields also experienced an increase in the average number of authors. Immunology and Classics are extreme Scopus narrow fields, as exemplified by 9.6 authors per Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer article, whilst 93% of Trends in Classics articles were solo in 2020. The reason for this large difference seems to be the need for multiple complementary methods in Immunology, making it fundamentally a team science. Finally, the reasonably steady and universal increases in academic coauthorship over 121 years show no sign of slowing, suggesting that ever expanding teams are a central part of current professional science.

show abstract

“…Empirical studies demonstrate the importance of collaboration to researchers and their research projects. A range of studies demonstrates that research projects and other creative endeavours benefit from distributed learning and the synergistic evolution of ideas within teams (Graham Bertolini, Weber, Strand, & Smith, 2019;Ritchie & Rigano, 2007;Nielsen et al, 2018). Collaboration expands funding opportunities and contributes to career advancement (Abramo, D'Angelo, & Murgia, 2014;Leahey, 2016).…”

Section: Collaboration and Research Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team Dynamics and Learning Opportunities in Social Science Research Teams

McGinn,

Niemczyk

2020

AJER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the contemporary research environment encourages knowledge generation through research collaboration rather than individualized projects, limited scholarly attention has been devoted to the practice of collaboration within research teams. This paper presents a qualitative analysis of team dynamics and learning opportunities within four social science research teams. The findings reveal similarities and differences in leadership style and interaction approaches that affected how research was undertaken and the possibilities for team members to learn from each other. The snapshots provide models for other research teams that extend situated learning theories and the existing research base about collaboration, research teams, and research leadership. Key words: research teams, research leadership, researcher development, situated learning Bien que le milieu actuel de la recherche encourage la génération des connaissances par la collaboration en recherche plutôt que par les projets individuels, les universitaires ont accordé peu d’attention à la pratique collaborative au sein des équipes de recherche. Cet article présente une analyse qualitative de la dynamique des équipes et des occasions d’apprentissage au sein de quatre équipes de recherche en sciences sociales. Les résultats révèlent des ressemblances et des différences dans le style de leadership et les démarches d’interaction qui ont eu une influence sur la façon dont la recherche a été entreprise et sur les possibilités pour les membres des équipes d’apprendre l’un de l’autre. Les aperçus offrent des modèles pour d’autres équipes de recherche et contribuent aux théories de l’apprentissage contextualisé et à la base de recherche portant sur la collaboration, les équipes de recherche et le leadership en recherche. Mots clés : équipes de recherche, leadership en recherche, développement des chercheurs, apprentissage contextualisé

show abstract

“Unpacking” Cross-Disciplinary Research Collaboration in the Social Sciences and Humanities

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

Arts–Research Collaboration: Reflections on Collaboration as Creative Method

Arts–Research Collaboration: Reflections on Collaboration as Creative Method

Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion

Team Dynamics and Learning Opportunities in Social Science Research Teams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About