The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration

Inspired by the social and economic benefits of diversity, we analyze over 9 million papers and 6 million scientists to study the relationship between research impact and five classes of diversity: ethnicity, discipline, gender, affiliation, and academic age. Using randomized baseline models, we establish the presence of homophily in ethnicity, gender and affiliation. We then study the effect of diversity on scientific impact, as reflected in citations. Remarkably, of the classes considered, ethnic diversity had the strongest correlation with scientific impact. To further isolate the effects of ethnic diversity, we used randomized baseline models and again found a clear link between diversity and impact. To further support these findings, we use coarsened exact matching to compare the scientific impact of ethnically diverse papers and scientists with closely-matched control groups. Here, we find that ethnic diversity resulted in an impact gain of 10.63% for papers, and 47.67% for scientists.Diversity is believed to raise effectiveness and performance but it contains many aspects. Here the authors studied the relationship between research impact and five classes of diversity and found that ethnic diversity had the strongest correlation with scientific impact.

[1]  E. H. Simpson.  Measurement of Diversity , 1949, Nature.

[2]  O. C. Herfindahl.  Concentration in the steel industry , 1950 .

[3]  S. Hurlbert.  The Nonconcept of Species Diversity: A Critique and Alternative Parameters. , 1971, Ecology.

[4]  D. Johnson,et al.  A difference. , 1990, Advancing clinical care : official journal of NOAADN.

[5]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[6]  Lu Hong,et al.  Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Jose G Montalvo,et al.  Ethnic diversity and economic development , 2005 .

[8]  L. Jost.  Entropy and diversity , 2006 .

[9]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[10]  Nasser M. Nasrabadi,et al.  Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2006, Technometrics.

[11]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science , 2008, Science.

[12]  Stefano M. Iacus,et al.  Coarsened exact matching , 2008 .

[13]  J. Carrier,et al.  A policy perspective , 2008, London journal of primary care.

[14]  W. Heath.  The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies , 2008 .

[15]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior , 2008, J. Documentation.

[16]  C. Herring.  Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity , 2009 .

[17]  Steven Skiena,et al.  Name-ethnicity classification from open sources , 2009, KDD.

[18]  M. Prince,et al.  Understanding the effect of ethnic density on mental health: multi-level investigation of survey data from England , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  Marta Sales-Pardo,et al.  Statistical validation of a global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations accrued by papers published in a scientific journal , 2010 .

[20]  D. Meyer,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Som Text Figs. S1 to S6 References Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups , 2022 .

[21]  Fiona Godlee,et al.  Lessons from around the world , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  Kari Kristinsson,et al.  Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation , 2011 .

[23]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Age dynamics in scientific creativity , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  P. Ager,et al.  Cultural diversity and economic growth: Evidence from the US during the age of mass migration , 2013 .

[25]  G. King,et al.  Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching , 2012, Political Analysis.

[26]  Kimberly J. Alvarez,et al.  Health advantages of ethnic density for African American and Mexican American elderly individuals. , 2012, American journal of public health.

[27]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[28]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science , 2013, Nature.

[29]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship , 2012, PloS one.

[30]  Jonathan Adams.  Collaborations: The fourth age of research , 2013, Nature.

[31]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[32]  Pierpaolo Parrotta,et al.  The nexus between labor diversity and firm’s innovation , 2012, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[33]  Valerie L. Bartelt,et al.  Ethnic diversity deflates price bubbles , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Vincent D. Blondel,et al.  Career on the Move: Geography, Stratification, and Scientific Impact , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[35]  U. Blien,et al.  Cultural Diversity and Local Labour Markets , 2014, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[36]  R. Freeman,et al.  NORC at the University of Chicago The University of Chicago Collaborating with People Like Me : Ethnic Coauthorship within the United States , 2015 .

[37]  N. Lee.  Migrant and ethnic diversity, cities and innovation: Firm effects or city effects? , 2015 .

[38]  Peter S. Arcidiacono,et al.  Affirmative Action in Undergraduate Education , 2015 .

[39]  K. W. Phillips,et al.  Maximizing the Gains and Minimizing the Pains of Diversity , 2015, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[40]  Christian Catalini,et al.  The incidence and role of negative citations in science , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  G. Brown,et al.  Does Affirmative Action Work , 2015 .

[42]  P. Paulus,et al.  Cultural Diversity and Team Creativity , 2016 .

[43]  Аna Bilinovic,et al.  Homophily in social networks , 2016 .

[44]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact , 2016, Science.

[45]  Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski,et al.  Opinion: Gender diversity leads to better science , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[46]  Laurel Smith‐Doerr,et al.  Gender diversity leads to better science , 2017 .

[47]  C. Wagner,et al.  Open countries have strong science , 2017, Nature.

[48]  Michel T. Kohl,et al.  Without inclusion, diversity initiatives may not be enough , 2017, Science.

[49]  Boleslaw K. Szymanski,et al.  Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[50]  Steven Skiena,et al.  Nationality Classification Using Name Embeddings , 2017, CIKM.

[51]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Science of Science , 2018, Science.