Home | Browse | Search | Credits | About
Register | User Area | DL-Harvest | Help
DLIST

When Do Researchers Collaborate: Toward a Model of Collaboration Propensity

Birnholtz, Jeremy P. (2005) When Do Researchers Collaborate: Toward a Model of Collaboration Propensity. PhD Thesis, School of Information, University of Michigan.

Full text available as:
PDF - Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader or other PDF viewer.

Abstract

Geographically distributed and multidisciplinary collaborations have proven invaluable in answering a range of important scientific questions, such as understanding and controlling disease threats like SARS and AIDS or exploring the nature of matter in particle physics. Despite this, however, collaboration can often be problematic. There are institutional obstacles, collaboration tools may be poorly designed, and group coordination is difficult. To better design technologies to support research activities, we need an improved understanding of why scientists collaborate and how their collaborations work. To achieve this improved understanding, this study compares two theoretical approaches to collaboration propensity—that is, the extent to which collaboration is perceived as useful by individual researchers. On one hand, cultural comparisons of disciplines suggest that collaboration propensity will be higher in disciplinary cultures that have a more collectivist orientation, as indicated by low levels of competition for individual recognition and few concerns about secrecy related to commercialization and intellectual property. In contrast, an approach based on social and organizational psychology suggests that collaboration propensity will vary as a function of resource concentration, fieldwide focus on a well-defined set of problems, and the need for and availability of help when difficult problems are encountered in day-to-day work. To explore this question, a mail survey of 900 academic researchers in three fields was conducted, along with 100 interviews with practicing researchers at 17 sites in the field. Results support a focus on work attributes in interpreting collaboration propensity. That is, cultural factors such as competition for individual recognition and concerns about intellectual property were not perceived as significant impediments to collaboration. Instead, characteristics like resource concentration and the need for coordination were more important in determining collaboration propensity. Implications of these findings include a call for more careful examination of the day-to-day work of scientists and engineers, and a suggestion that concerns about scientific competition impeding collaboration may be unwarranted.

EPrint Type:Thesis
Keywords:collaboration, collaboratories, cyberinfrastructure, research culture
Subjects:Communications
Social Informatics
Interdisciplinarity
Human Computer Interaction
Qualitative Research
Internet
Scholarly Communication
Science Technology Studies
Quantitative Research
ID Code:1141
Deposited On:04 June 2006
Alternative Locations:http://kmdi.utoronto.ca/jeremy/dissertation_final.pdf
Eprint Statistics:View statistics for this eprint
Tell A Colleague:Tell a colleague about it.

About the UK E-Science Programme. (2004). Retrieved December 18, 2004, from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/escience/

Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the Flow of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

APA. (1994). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Asher, H. B. (1983). Causal Modeling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Atkins, D. E., Droegemeier, K. K., Feldman, S. I., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M. L., & Messina, P. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation blue-ribbon advisory panel on cyberinfrastructure. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Beaver, D. d. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365-377.

Birnholtz, J. P., & Bietz, M. J. (2003, November 9 - 12). Data at Work: Supporting sharing in science and engineering. Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Supporting Group work (GROUP), Sanibel Island, FL.

Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Anderson, M. S., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(15), 1224-1228.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. S. (1988). Sensitivity analysis and linear regression. New York: Wiley.

Close, F., Marten, M., & Sutton, C. (2002). The Particle Odyssey: A journey to the heart of matter. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, J. (1996). Computer medicated communication and publication productivity among faculty. Internet Research, 6(23), 41-63.

Collins, H. (1985). Changing Order. London: Sage Publications.

Collins, H. M. (1998). The Meaning of Data: Open and Closed Evidential Cultures in the Search for Gravitational Waves. American Journal of Sociology, 104(2), 293-338.

Crane, D. (1972). Invisible Colleges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A Postmodern Perversion or Evidence of a Structural Shift in Scholarly Communication Practices. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558-569.

Cummings, J., & Kiesler, S. (2003). KDI Initiative: Multidisciplinary Scientific Collaborations. Retrieved March 12, 2004, from http://netvis.mit.edu/papers/NSF_KDI_report.pdf

Cummings, J., & Kiesler, S. (in press). Collaborative research across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Social Studies of Science.

Davies, K. (2001). Cracking the Genome: Inside the race to unlock human DNA. New York: The Free Press.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.

EERI. (2003). Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Web Site. Retrieved October 29, 2003, from http://www.eeri.org

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Field Notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Finholt, T. A. (2003). Collaboratories as a New Form of Scientific Organization. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 12(1), 5-25.

Finholt, T. A., & Olson, G. M. (1997). From laboratories to collaboratories: A new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychological Science, 8(1), 28-36.

Fuchs, S. (1992). The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Galison, P. (1997). Image and Logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Galison, P., & Hevly, B. (Eds.). (1992). Big Science: the Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hagstrom, W. (1965). The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books.

Hagstrom, W. O. (1974). Competition in Science. American Sociological Review, 39(1), Feb 1974.

Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An Emerging View of Scientific Collaboration: Scientists' Perspectives on Collaboration and Factors that Impact Collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952-965.

Hargens, L. L. (1975). Patterns of Scientific Research. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

Hesse, B. W., Sproull, L. S., Keisler, S. B., & Walsh, J. P. (1993). Returns to science: Computer networks in oceanography. Communications of the ACM, 36(8), 90-101.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Insel, T. R., Volkow, N. D., Li, T.-K., Battey, J. F., & Landis, S. C. (2003). Neuroscience Networks: Data-sharing in an Information Age. PLoS Biology, 1(1), 9-11.

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1-18.

Kennedy, D. (2003). Multiple Authors, Multiple Problems. Science, 301, 733.

Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence Initiative. (2004). Retrieved December 18, 2004, from http://www.cise.nsf.gov/kdi/

Koslow, S. H. (2000). Should the neuroscience community make a paradigm shift to sharing primary data? Nature neuroscience, 3(9), 863-865.

Kraut, R., Egido, C., & Galegher, J. (1990). Patterns of Contact and Communication in Scientific Research Collaborations. In J. Galegher, Kraut, R., & Egido, C. (Ed.), Intellectual Teamwork. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual Collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632-662.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Detroit: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Luukkonen, T. (1992). Understanding Patterns of International Scientific Collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(1), 101-126.

Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 24(1), 87-119.

McCray, P. (2000). Large Telescopes and the Moral Economy of Recent Astronomy. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 685-711.

National Ecological Observatory Network. (2004). Retrieved December 18, 2004, from http://www.nsf.gov/bio/neon/start.htm

Nentwich, M. (2003). Cyberscience: Research in the Age of the Internet. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied Linear Statistical Models (4th ed.). Boston: WCB McGraw-Hill.

Newell, A., & Sproull, R. F. (1982). Computer Networks: Prospects for scientists. Science, 215(4534), 843-852.

Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. Physics Review, 64(4), 046132-046131.

Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2001). Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 139-179.

Olson, G. M., Teasley, S., Bietz, M. J., & Cogburn, D. L. (2002). Collaboratories to support distributed science: The Example of international HIV/AIDS research. Paper presented at the SAICSIT 2002: Enablement Through Technology, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1976). Scientists in organizations: productive climates for research an ddevelopment. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Perrow, C. (1972). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Price. (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.

Price, D. J. d. S. (1986). Little Science, big science...and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.

Research Teams of the Future. (2004). Retrieved December 18, 2004, from http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pdf/NIHRoadmap-ResearchTeams.pdf

Schatz, B. (1991-2). Building an electronic community system. Journal of Management Information Systems, 8(3), 87-101.

Schunn, C., Crowley, K., & Okada, T. (2002). What makes collaborations across a distance succeed? The case of the cognitive science community? In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed Work (pp. 407-430). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Shrum, W., Chompalov, I., & Genuth, J. (2001). Trust, Conflict and Performance in Scientific Collaborations. Social Studies of Science, 31(5), 681-730.

Sims, B. (1999). Concrete practices: Testing in an earthquake engineering laboratory. Social Studies of Science, 29(4), 483-518.

Spencer, B. F., Elnashai, A., Nakata, N., Saliem, H., Yang, G., Futrelle, J., et al. (2004). The MOST Experiment: Earthquake Engineering On the Grid (Technical Report No. NEESgrid-2004-41). Champaign-Urbana, IL: National Center for Supercomputing Applications.

Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1994). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Complex problems in design and access for large-scale collaborative systems. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New York.

Taubes, G. (1986). Nobel Dreams: Power, deceit and the ultimate experiment. New York: Random House.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Van De Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig Jr., R. (1976). Determinants of Coordination Modes Within Organizations. American Sociological Review, 41(2), 322-338.

Vaughan, D. (1999). The Role of the Organization in the Production of Techno-Scientific Knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 29(6), 913-943.

Walsh, J. P., & Bayma, T. (1996). Computer Networks and Scientific Work. Social Studies of Science, 26, 661-703.

Walsh, J. P., & Hong, W. (2003). Secrecy is increasing in step with competition. Nature, 422, 801-802.

Walsh, J. P., Kucker, S., & Maloney, N. G. (2000). Connecting Minds: Computer Medicated communication and scientific work. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1295-1305.

Walsh, J. P., & Maloney, N. G. (2002). Computer Network Use, Collaboration Structures, and Productivity. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Watson, J. D. (1968). The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Whitley, R. (2000). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Who'd want to work in a team? (2003). Nature, 424, 1.

Woodward, J. (1980). Industrial organization: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Zimmerman, A. (2003). Data Sharing and Secondary Use of Scientific Data: Experiences of Ecologists. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Zimmie, T. F. (1995). Geo-Environmental Research Using Centrifuges. In P. N. Cheremisinoff (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Environmental Control Technology (Vol. 9, pp. 335-366). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.

Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.

EPrints dLIST, an open access archive for the Information Sciences, is supported by the School of Information Resources and Library Science and Learning Technologies Center, University of Arizona. Established in 2002, dLIST has a global Advisory Board and is a part of the Information Technology & Society Research Lab. Open Archives
Contact: Admin | Donate