Community structure and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management

This paper investigates the role of homophily and focus constraint in shaping collaborative scientific research. First, homophily structures collaboration when scientists adhere to a norm of exclusivity in selecting similar partners at a higher rate than dissimilar ones. Two dimensions on which similarity between scientists can be assessed are their research specialties and status positions. Second, focus constraint shapes collaboration when connections among scientists depend on opportunities for social contact. Constraint comes in two forms, depending on whether it originates in institutional or geographic space. Institutional constraint refers to the tendency of scientists to select collaborators within rather than across institutional boundaries. Geographic constraint is the principle that, when collaborations span different institutions, they are more likely to involve scientists that are geographically co-located than dispersed. To study homophily and focus constraint, the paper will argue in favour of an idea of collaboration that moves beyond formal co-authorship to include also other forms of informal intellectual exchange that do not translate into the publication of joint work. A community-detection algorithm for formalising this perspective will be proposed and applied to the co-authorship network of the scientists that submitted to the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in Business and Management in the UK. While results only partially support research-based homophily, they indicate that scientists use status positions for discriminating between potential partners by selecting collaborators from institutions with a rating similar to their own. Strong support is provided in favour of institutional and geographic constraints. Scientists tend to forge intra-institutional collaborations; yet, when they seek collaborators outside their own institutions, they tend to select those who are in geographic proximity. The implications of this analysis for tie creation in joint scientific endeavours are discussed.

[1]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Friendship as Social process: a substantive and methodological analysis , 1964 .

[2]  Symonds Em Research assessment exercise , 1998 .

[3]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  Cluster genesis : technology-based industrial development , 2008 .

[4]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[5]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations , 2001, cond-mat/0104162.

[6]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Detecting rich-club ordering in complex networks , 2006, physics/0602134.

[7]  Robert D. Tollison,et al.  Intellectual Collaboration , 2000, Journal of Political Economy.

[8]  M E Newman,et al.  Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[9]  Harbir Singh,et al.  Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation , 2000 .

[10]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  The Dynamics of Organizational Proximity , 1985 .

[11]  Gobinda G. Chowdhury,et al.  A bibliometric analysis of collaboration in the field of Information Retrieval , 1998 .

[12]  W. Scott,et al.  Group Theory. , 1964 .

[13]  Renaud Lambiotte,et al.  Uncovering space-independent communities in spatial networks , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  P. Ronhovde,et al.  Multiresolution community detection for megascale networks by information-based replica correlations. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[15]  Meric S. Gertler,et al.  Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there) , 2003 .

[16]  Vincent D. Blondel,et al.  Beyond Space For Spatial Networks , 2010, ArXiv.

[17]  Tore Opsahl,et al.  Prominence and control: the weighted rich-club effect. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[18]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  A Role-Based Ecology of Technological Change , 1995, American Journal of Sociology.

[19]  John Whitfield,et al.  Collaboration: Group theory , 2008, Nature.

[20]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration , 1990, CSCW '88.

[21]  Liah Greenfeld,et al.  Different Worlds: A Sociological Study of Taste, Choice and Success in Art , 1989 .

[22]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[23]  Ray Reagans,et al.  Preferences, Identity, and Competition: Predicting Tie Strength from Demographic Data , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[24]  Gueorgi Kossinets,et al.  Empirical Analysis of an Evolving Social Network , 2006, Science.

[25]  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 .

[26]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  Cluster Genesis : The Origins and Emergence of Technology-Based Economic Development , 2006 .

[27]  Jerrold W. Grossman,et al.  Famous trails to Paul Erdős , 1999 .

[28]  Yves Gingras,et al.  A new approach for detecting scientific specialties from raw cocitation networks , 2009 .

[29]  S. Feld The Focused Organization of Social Ties , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[30]  Yves Gingras,et al.  A new approach for detecting scientific specialties from raw cocitation networks , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  R. Lambiottea,et al.  Communities , knowledge creation , and information diffusion , 2009 .

[32]  J. Moody The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999 , 2004 .

[33]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Mapping scientific frontiers : the quest for knowledge visualization. , 2003 .

[34]  Joel Podolny Market Uncertainty and the Social Character of Economic Exchange , 1994 .

[35]  B. Latour Science in Action , 1987 .

[36]  David,et al.  The 1996 Research Assessment Exercise for Business and Management , 1998 .

[37]  J. Müller,et al.  Group Theory , 2019, Computers, Rigidity, and Moduli.

[38]  Jeff Butler,et al.  The Implicit use of Business Concepts in the UK Research Assessment Exercise , 2004 .

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

[40]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Science shops: a kaleidoscope of science–society collaborations in Europe , 2005, 0911.4289.

[41]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Visualizing knowledge domains , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[42]  Stefan Bornholdt,et al.  Detecting fuzzy community structures in complex networks with a Potts model. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[43]  D J PRICE,et al.  NETWORKS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. , 1965, Science.

[44]  Charles M Camic,et al.  Reputation and Predecessor Selection: Parsons and the Institutionalists , 1992 .

[45]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations , 2007 .

[46]  Helen Couclelis,et al.  The Death of Distance , 1996 .

[47]  Marcel Ausloos,et al.  Self-citations, co-authorships and keywords: A new approach to scientists’ field mobility? , 2007, Scientometrics.

[48]  Jarno Hoekman,et al.  Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[49]  M E J Newman,et al.  Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[50]  Morroe Berger,et al.  Freedom and control in modern society , 1954 .

[51]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories , 2009 .

[52]  Andrea Scharnhorst,et al.  Evolutionary search agents in complex landscapes - a new model for the role of competence and meta-competence (EVOLINO and other simulation tools) , 2005 .

[53]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Mapping the backbone of science , 2004, Scientometrics.

[54]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization , 2012, Springer London.

[55]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  The Assessment of Research , 2002 .

[56]  Mason A. Porter,et al.  Community Structure in Online Collegiate Social Networks , 2008 .

[57]  César A. Hidalgo,et al.  The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations , 2007, Science.

[58]  J. S. Katz,et al.  What is research collaboration , 1997 .

[59]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[60]  Martin Rosvall,et al.  Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[62]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[63]  T. Allen Managing the flow of technology , 1977 .